Epstein Secrets

Cir. 2007) 251 xix EFTA00077625 United States v. Rahimi, No. 16 Cr. 760 (RMB), 2017 WL 2984169 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2017) 225 United States v. Rahman, 189 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 1999) 154 United States v. Rajaratnam, No. 09 Cr. 1184 (RJH), 2010 WL 4867402 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 24, 2010) 172 United States

as aware, Doe v. Indyke was the "lone case in this District that has not yet been either resolved or stayed at this point. . . In 23 In particular, Giuffre v. Maxwell was resolved in 2017 and the determination of what material should remain sealed remains the only open issue. Accordingly, there is no more discover

by a stay in the Doe case because the outcome of the criminal case could resolve disputed issues in the Doe case. Such concerns are not present in Giuffre v. Maxwell. 57 EFTA00077689 particular, this matter appears to be the only remaining active civil case in this District in which claims against Ghislaine M

outrageous 105 EFTA00077737 investigatory conduct is very heavy, see United States v. Schmidt, 105 F.3d 82, 91 (2d Cir. 1997). United States v. Rahman, 189 F.3d 88, 131 (2d Cir. 1999); United States v. Al Kassar, 660 F.3d 108, 121 (2d Cir. 2011) ("Generally, to be `outrageous,' the government's inv

on in ordering the unsealing of the deposition materials and that Maxwell's interests outweighed the public's interests in access to the materials. Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 20-2413 (2d Cir.), (Dkt. No. 140-1 at 2). On October 19, 2020, the Second Circuit found that Judge Preska "correctly held that the deposition m

on a motion to dismiss without the benefit of the full factual record. The motion should be denied. allegations that were central to the dispute in Giuffre v. Maxwell." (Def. Mot. 4, Ex. I at 7:3-6.) (The last colloquy has been unsealed except for Minor Victim-2's name. (See 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP), Dkt. No. 1212-1).)

Cir. 2007) 251 xix EFTA00039440 United States v. Rahimi, No. 16 Cr. 760 (RMB), 2017 WL 2984169 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2017) 225 United States v. Rahman, 189 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 1999) 154 United States v. Rajaratnam, No. 09 Cr. 1184 (RJH), 2010 WL 4867402 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 24, 2010) 172 United States

as aware, Doe v. Indyke was the "lone case in this District that has not yet been either resolved or stayed at this point. . . In 23 In particular, Giuffre v. Maxwell was resolved in 2017 and the determination of what material should remain sealed remains the only open issue. Accordingly, there is no more discover

by a stay in the Doe case because the outcome of the criminal case could resolve disputed issues in the Doe case. Such concerns are not present in Giuffre v. Maxwell. 57 EFTA00039504 particular, this matter appears to be the only remaining active civil case in this District in which claims against Ghislaine M

outrageous 105 EFTA00039552 investigatory conduct is very heavy, see United States v. Schmidt, 105 F.3d 82, 91 (2d Cir. 1997). United States v. Rahman, 189 F.3d 88, 131 (2d Cir. 1999); United States v. Al Kassar, 660 F.3d 108, 121 (2d Cir. 2011) ("Generally, to be `outrageous,' the government's inv

on in ordering the unsealing of the deposition materials and that Maxwell's interests outweighed the public's interests in access to the materials. Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 20-2413 (2d Cir.), (Dkt. No. 140-1 at 2). On October 19, 2020, the Second Circuit found that Judge Preska "correctly held that the deposition m

on a motion to dismiss without the benefit of the full factual record. The motion should be denied. allegations that were central to the dispute in Giuffre v. Maxwell." (Def. Mot. 4, Ex. I at 7:3-6.) (The last colloquy has been unsealed except for Minor Victim-2's name. (See 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP), Dkt. No. 1212-1).)

den of establishing outrageous investigatory conduct is very heavy, see United States v. Schmidt, 105 F.3d 82, 91 (2d Cir. 1997). United States v. Rahman, 189 F.3d 88, 131 (2d Cir. 1999); United States v. Al Kassar, 660 F.3d 108, 121 (2d Cir. 2011) ("Generally, to be `outrageous,' the government's inv

ess attaches, and did not abuse its discretion in rejecting Maxwell's meritless arguments that her interests superseded the presumption of access." Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 20-2413 (2d Cir.) (Dkt. No. 140-1 at 3).43 On October 22, 2020, the defendant's April 2016 deposition was publicly filed. (See 15 Civ. 7433 (L

Count Six, stating that the "testimony is .. . far afield from the sex trafficking and sexual abuse allegations that were central to the dispute in Giuffre v. Maxwell." (Def. Mot. 4, Ex. I at 7:3-6.) (The last colloquy has been unsealed except for Minor Victim-2's name. (See 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP), Dkt. No. 1212-1).)