Epstein Secrets

www.hmllaw.com [email protected] Re: Reconsideration of the Court's July 23 Ruling Giuffie v. Ghislaine Maxwell, No. 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP) Dear Judge Preska: As counsel for Ms. Maxwell we write to request that the Court vindicate its Protective Order and punish its violation. Ms. Maxwell's two depositio

Ces2e.29-12,407413r3cliAlienDtidutinEl t310282 if663615/233/2174ig Plage aoat 9 HADDON MORGAN FOREMAN July 29, 2020 Honorable Loretta A. Preska United States District Court Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007 Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P C Ty Gee 150 East

deposition transcripts. In Martindell v. International Telephone and Telegraph Corp., 594 F.2d 291, 293 (2d Cir. 1979), cited with approval in In re Teligent, Inc., 640 F.3d 53, 58 (2d Cir. 2011), the government moved in a civil action to which it was not a party for access to transcripts of depositions twelve

order unsealing the deposition material, including Ms. Maxwell's April 2016 deposition transcript. On July 23, over Ms. Maxwell's objection, Judge Preska —who is presiding over the civil case and the litigation about the unsealing of the district court filings —ordered the complete unsealing of Ms. M

CM/ECF, which will send notification of the filing to all counsel of record. I also certify that I mailed a copy of the opening brief to: The Hon. Loretta A. Preska District Judge United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (via United States mail) s/ Nicole Simmons 43 EFTA00075525

d 428 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) 6, 25, 40 In re Mazzeo, 167 F.3d 139 (2d Cir. 1999) 17 In re New York Times Co., 828 F.2d 110 (2d Cir. 1987) 37, 40 In re Teligent, Inc., 640 F.3d 53 (2d Cir. 2011) 1 Joy v. North, 692 F.2d 880 (2d Cir. 1982) 22 Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. LY USA, Inc., 676 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 201

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1078 Filed 07/29/20 Page 1 of 9 HADDON MORGAN FOREMAN July 29, 2020 Honorable Loretta A. Preska United States District Court Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007 Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, r.0 Ty Gee 150 East

www.hmtlaw.com [email protected] Re: Reconsideration of the Court's July 23 Ruling Giuffie v. Ghislaine Maxwell, No. 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP) Dear Judge Preska: As counsel for Ms. Maxwell we write to request that the Court vindicate its Protective Order and punish its violation. Ms. Maxwell's two depositio

deposition transcripts. In Martindell v. International Telephone and Telegraph Corp., 594 F.2d 291, 293 (2d Cir. 1979), cited with approval in In re Teligent, Inc., 640 F.3d 53, 58 (2d Cir. 2011), the government moved in a civil action to which it was not a party for access to transcripts of depositions twelve

-mail) Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C. Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP OPPOSING ATTORNEY: Sigrid McCawley Court- Judge/ Agency appealed from: Hon. Loretta A. Preska, District Judge (S.D.N.Y.) Please check appropriate boxes: Has movant notifiedr oposing counsel (required by Local Rule 27.1): lElYes I [No (expla

F.3d 268 (2d Cir. 1997) 15 In re New York Times Co., 828 F.2d 110 (2d Cir. 1987) 20 In re Sims v. Blot, 534 F.3d 117 (2d Cir. 2008) 14 In re Teligent, Inc., 640 F.3d 53 (2d Cir. 2011) 9 In re von Bulow, 828 F.2d 94 (2d Cir. 1987) 14 ii EFTA00074906 Case 20-2413, Document 10-1, 07/30/2020, 289653

Case 1 15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1078 Filed 07/29/20 Page 1 of 9 HADDON MORGAN FOREMAN July 29, 2020 Honorable Loretta A. Preska United States District Court Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007 Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.0 Ty Gee 150 East

www.hmtlaw.com tgeefghmflaw.com Re: Reconsideration of the Court's July 23 Ruling Giuffre v. Ghislaine Maxwell, No. 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP) Dear Judge Preska: As counsel for Ms. Maxwell we write to request that the Court vindicate its Protective Order and punish its violation. Ms. Maxwell's two depositio

deposition transcripts. In Martindell v. International Telephone and Telegraph Corp., 594 F.2d 291, 293 (2d Cir. 1979), cited with approval in In re Teligent, Inc., 640 F.3d 53, 58 (2d Cir. 2011), the government moved in a civil action to which it was not a party for access to transcripts of depositions twelve