Epstein Secrets

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

States v. Chalmers, 474 F. Supp. 2d 555 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) 225, 226 United States v. Chambers, 800 F. App'x 43 (2d Cir. 2020) 69 United States v. Chan Lo, No. 14 Cr. 491 (VSB), 2016 WL 9076234 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 2016), aff'd. 679 F. App'x 79 (2d Cir. 2017) United States v. Chen, 378 F.3d 151 (2d Cir

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).)

tion and internal quotation marks omitted)). "The testimony need not have actually influenced, misled, or impeded the proceeding." United States v. Chan Lo, No. 14 Cr. 491 (VSB), 2016 WL 9076234, at ■8 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 2016), aff'd 679 F. App'x 79 (2d Cir. 2017); see Forde, 740 F. Supp. 2d at 412. Sinc

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

States v. Chalmers, 474 F. Supp. 2d 555 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) 225, 226 United States v. Chambers, 800 F. App'x 43 (2d Cir. 2020) 69 United States v. Chan Lo, No. 14 Cr. 491 (VSB), 2016 WL 9076234 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 2016), aff'd. 679 F. App'x 79 (2d Cir. 2017) United States v. Chen, 378 F.3d 151 (2d Cir

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).)

tion and internal quotation marks omitted)). "The testimony need not have actually influenced, misled, or impeded the proceeding." United States v. Chan Lo, No. 14 Cr. 491 (VSB), 2016 WL 9076234, at ■8 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 2016), aff'd 679 F. App'x 79 (2d Cir. 2017); see Forde, 740 F. Supp. 2d at 412. Sinc

stayed at this point. . . In particular, this matter appears to be the only remaining active civil case in this District in which 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 EFTA00095149 claims against Ghislaine Maxwell have been asserted." (20 Civ. 484 (DCF) (JGK), Dkt. No. 80 at 2). The defendant's baseless con

nited States v. Chalmers, 474 F. Supp. 2d 555 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) 150 United States v. Chambers, 800 F. App'x 43 (2d Cir. 2020) 48 United States v. Chan Lo, No. 14 Cr. 491 (VSB), 2016 WL 9076234 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 2016) 122 United States v. Chen, 378 F.3d 151 (2d Cir. 2004) 179 United States v. Cheu

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).)

tion and internal quotation marks omitted)). "The testimony need not have actually influenced, misled, or impeded the proceeding." United States v. Chan Lo, No. 14 Cr. 491 (VSB), 2016 WL 9076234, at ■8 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 2016), arid 679 F. App'x 79 (2d Cir. 2017); see Forde, 740 F.Supp.2d at 412. Since m