Epstein Secrets

uments next week (October 12-16, 2020) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2020 21:21:33 +0000 The Office has three oral arguments in criminal cases scheduled before the Second Circuit next week. They will be argued by phone/zoom, and you can listen to the livestream at this link. Also, you can click on the hyperlinks below to acce

of counsel claim based on failure to advise about possibility of denaturalization - First on A calendar; scheduled to start at 10:00 am (Cabranes, Pooler, Raggi) United States v. Maxwell arguing - Pre-trial appeal: whether district court's order denying D's motion to modify protective order is subje

hat the district court (or Ms. Maxwell or Ms. M) unjustifiably delayed public access to the summary judgment papers. This is incorrect. In Lugosch the Second Circuit was understandably impatient with the district court's delay in acting on two newspapers' motion to intervene to unseal the summary judgment filing

at "materials" in the Order to Show Cause means all the summary judgment filings. However, in her partial dissent to the Order to Show Cause, Judge Pooler refers to "the materials attached to the motion for summary judgment." Id. (emphasis supplied). 19 EFTA00791888 Case 18-2868, Document 141, 03/1

rm T-I080 (rev.12-13) EFTA00074903 Case 20-2413, Document 10-1, 07/30/2020, 2896538, Page2 of 38 20-2413 United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit —against — GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Plaintiff-Appellee, Defendant-Appellant, ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRIC

d the case to the district court to conduct a particularized review of the remaining records to which the Herald sought access. Id. at 53-54. Judge Pooler dissented in part. Id. at 54. Although she agreed the district court erred, she would only have unsealed the summary judgment order while leaving "

Case 20-2413. Document 40. 08'20/2020. 2913550, Pagel of 74 20-2413 United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Plaintlff-Appelke, —against— GHISLA1NE MAXWELL, Defendant-Appellant, SHARON CHURCHER, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Respondents, JULIE BROWN, MIAMI HERALD M

d the case to the district court to conduct a particularized review of the remaining records to which the Herald sought access. Id at 53-54. Judge Pooler dissented in part. Id at 54. Although she agreed the district court erred, she would have had this Court unseal only the summary judgment order whi