Epstein Secrets

M. (15-cv-7433, Dkt. Nos. 439 (sealed), 892, 953.) A consolidated appeal from the orders denying the unsealing motions is currently pending before the Second Circuit. v. Maxwell, No. 18-2868 (2d Cir.). On March 6, 2019, the Court of Appeals heard argument on the consolidated appeal, which was widely covered in

r by the Plaintiff or her lawyers." (Def.'s Reply in Further Supp. of Mot. for Protective Order, 15-cv-7433, Dkt. No. 49 at 5); cf. Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity Servs., Inc., 832 F.2d 739, 743 (2d Cir. 1987) ("[O]ne of the primary reasons the protective order was originally entered was to prevent plaintiffs from u

the protective order in that case would prevent the Government from obtaining her testimony and using it in a subsequent criminal case against her. Second Circuit precedent expressly forecloses Maxwell's argument. "A Rule 26(c) protective order, no matter how broad its reach, provides no guarantee that compell

independent basis to modify a protective order under Martindell notwithstanding the parties' reasonable reliance on that order. See Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity Servs., Inc., 832 F.2d 739, 742 (2d Cir. 1987) (citing Martindell, 594 F.2d at 296). Thus, even assuming that the Government should have told Judge McMah

the protective order in that case would prevent the Government from obtaining her testimony and using it in a subsequent criminal case against her. Second Circuit precedent expressly forecloses Maxwell's argument. "A Rule 26(c) protective order, no matter how broad its reach, provides no guarantee that compell

independent basis to modify a protective order under Martindell notwithstanding the parties' reasonable reliance on that order. See Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity Servs., Inc., 832 F.2d 739, 742 (2d Cir. 1987) (citing Martindell, 594 F.2d at 296). Thus, even assuming that the Government should have told Judge McMah

over its records from the civil litigation to the Government. Those documents included transcripts of Maxwell's depositions. The 4 EFTA00066513 Second Circuit later held that the court in the civil case withheld far too many documents from public view and ordered that many of them be made publicly availabl

independent basis to modify a protective order under Martindell notwithstanding the parties' reasonable reliance on that order. See Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity Servs., Inc., 832 F.2d 739, 742 (2d Cir. 1987) (citing Martindell, 594 F.2d at 296). Thus, even assuming that the Government should have told Judge McMah

et. (15-cv-7433, Dkt. Nos. 439 (sealed), 892, 953.) A consolidated appeal from the orders denying the unsealing motions is currently pending before the Second Circuit. Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 18-2868 (2d Cir.). On March 6, 2019, the Court of Appeals heard argument on the consolidated appeal, which was widely cove

tor by the Plaintiff or her lawyers." (Def's Reply in Further Supp. of Mot. for Protective Order, 15-cv-7433, Dkt. No. 49 at 5); of Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity Servs., Inc., 832 F.2d 739, 743 (2d Cir. 1987) ("[O]ne of the primary reasons the protective order was originally entered was to prevent plaintiffs from u

over its records from the civil litigation to the Government. Those documents included transcripts of Maxwell's depositions. The 4 EFTA00087254 Second Circuit later held that the court in the civil case withheld far too many documents from public view and ordered that many of them be made publicly availabl

independent basis to modify a protective order under Martindell notwithstanding the parties' reasonable reliance on that order. See Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity Servs., Inc., 832 F.2d 739, 742 (2d Cir. 1987) (citing Martindell, 594 F.2d at 296). Thus, even assuming that the Government should have told Judge McMah

over its records from the civil litigation to the Government. Those documents included transcripts of Maxwell's depositions. The 4 EFTA00087233 Second Circuit later held that the court in the civil case withheld far too many documents from public view and ordered that many of them be made publicly availabl

independent basis to modify a protective order under Martindell notwithstanding the parties' reasonable reliance on that order. See Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity Servs., Inc., 832 F.2d 739, 742 (2d Cir. 1987) (citing Martindell, 594 F.2d at 296). Thus, even assuming that the Government should have told Judge McMah

have been incorrect remains to be litigated; Ms. Maxwell is not asking this Court to decide that question today. But Ms. Maxwell is seeking in both the Second Circuit and before Judge Preska that the status quo be maintained until the issue can be litigated. If, for example, without the benefit of this informatio

n a criminal action." Botha v. Don King Prods., Inc., No. 97 CIV. 7587 (JGK), 1998 WL 88745, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 1998) (citing Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity Servs., Inc., 832 F.2d 739, 743 (2d Cir. 1987) and Martindell, 594 F.2d at 297). Judge Sweet, the same judge who approved the civil protective order upon