Epstein Secrets

ther, it is Plaintiff’s understanding that Ms. Maxwell’s Rule 17(c) subpoena issued to the EVCP for the settlement release has been granted by Judge Nathan. Accordingly, the matter currently before this Court is moot. In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court deny Ms.

tes Courthouse 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007 Re: Doe v. Indyke, et al., 1:20-cv-000484-JGK-DCF Dear Judge Koeltl: Plaintiff Jane Doe hereby responds to the letter submitted by Ms. Maxwell's defense counsel on November 22, 2021 seeking authorization from this Court to disclose an u

sed as related have now all been reassigned to the same magistrate judge, including: VE v. Nine East 71st Street et al., No. 19-cv-07625 (S.D.N.Y.) (Nathan, J.); Doe 1 el al. EFTA00028472 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:19-cv-08673-KPF Document 21 Filed 11/06/19 Page 2 of 2 KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP 2 As

118 TEL I FAX WWW.KAPLANHECKER,COM November 6, 2019 Re: Doe v. lndyke et al., No. 19-cv-08673 (S.D.N.Y.) (KPF) Dear Judge Failla: We represent Jane Doe in the above-captioned action. We write in response to Defendants' two letters filed yesterday regarding: (1) related case status (ECF 19); and (2)

is letter on the Docket September 4, 2020 of Case No. 20cv00484. Dated: 09/09/2020 SO ORDERED DEBRA FREEMAN United States Magistrate Judge Re: Jane Doe v. Darren It Indyke, et aL, 20 Civ. 484 (DCF) (JGK) Dear Judge Freeman: The Government respectfully submits this letter to request that the Court:

nal case."). Finally, the Government notes that Maxwell's access to information about the criminal matter is under the jurisdiction of the Honorable Alison J. Nathan, who has entered a protective order and has issued several rulings regarding the scope of discovery that Maxwell is 3 In an August 25, 2020 opinion

s entered a protective order and has issued several rulings regarding the scope of discovery that Maxwell is 3 In an August 25, 2020 opinion, Judge Nathan held that Maxwell is not entitled to know who the Government's trial witnesses are at this stage of the criminal case. United States v. Ghislaine M

H A D D O N MORGAN FOREMAN August 17, 2020 VIA EMAIL The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 Re: Request to Modify Protective Order (UNDER SEA

.c Jeffrey Paglloca 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 rti 303.831.7364 FX 303.832.2628 www.hmflaw.com jpaglucaahmflaw.com Dear Judge Nathan, Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, pursuant to paragraph 18 of this Court's Protective Order (Doc. # 36), requests that the Court enter an Order allowin

July 2016. A year later and literally days before trial, the parties agreed to a settlement of the defamation claim and the case was dismissed. The Jane Doe 43 matter On January 26, 2017, plaintiff Jane Doe 43 sued various individuals including Ms. Maxwell. A Protective Order substantially similar to th

niel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse 500 Pearl St. New York, NY 10007-1312 Re: Letter Motion to Stay Proceedings 20-cv-484 (JGK-DCF), Jane Doe v. Darren K. Indyke, et aL Dear Judge Freeman: On behalf of defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, I write to Move to Stay proceedings in this matter until

On June 29, 2020, before she had the opportunity to answer, Ms. Maxwell was indicted by a grand jury. That criminal case is now pending before Judge Nathan, United States v. Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (MN). The July 8 Superseding Indictment is attached as Exhibit A ("Indictment"). Notably, the Indictment quot