Epstein Secrets

44, 08/20/2020, 2913556, Pagel of 78 20-2413 United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit —against— GHISLAINE MAXWELL, SHARON CHURCHER, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, PlaintiffiAppellee, Defendant-Appellant, Respondents, JULIE BROWN, MIAMI HERALD MEDIA COMPANY, ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ, MICHAEL CERNOVICH, DBA CERNO

3, Document 44. 08/20/2020, 2913556, Page42 of 78 App.-0816 12 G4LMGIUC 1 four individuals had sexually abused her prior to ever meeting 2 Mr. Epstein. 3 If she has evidence that she already was suffering 4 from depression or some type of mental health disorder before 5 meeting our client, Ms.

t —against— GHISLAINE MAXWELL, SHARON CHURCHER, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, PlaintiffiAppellee, Defendant-Appellan

had sexually abused her prior to ever meeting 2 Mr. Epstein. 3 If she has evidence that she already was suf

trolling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; or (3) a need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice." Drapkin v. Mafco Consol. Grp., Inc., 818 F. Supp. 2d 678, 696 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). "A motion for reconsideration 1 EFTA00076385 CaseastE2&2871481DIARnetotkinfa &IOC it App.-0778 ca i

413 United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Plaintlff-Appelke, —against— GHISLA1NE MAXWELL, Defendant-Appellant, SHARON CHURCHER, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Respondents, JULIE BROWN, MIAMI HERALD MEDIA COMPANY, ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ, MICHAEL CERNOVICH, DBA CERNOVICH MEDIA Intervenors. ON APPEAL FROM TH

and sexual trafficking of minors. Her lawyers intended to prove the defamation claim solely by, in effect, "prosecuting" Ms. Maxwell as a proxy for Epstein. App. p 116, ¶ffil 8-10; p 119 9¶ 27; p 122, ¶ 12; p 123, 51114, 16; p 124,9120. 3 EFTA00075485 Case 20-2413, Document 40, 08/20/2020, 2913550, P

MAXWELL, Defendant-Appellant, SHARON CHURCHER, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Respondents, JULIE BROWN, MIAMI HERALD

Bernstein Li towitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, 814 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2016) 17 Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 2019) passim Crescent Publ'g Grp., Inc. v. Playboy Enters., Inc., 246 F.3d 142 (2d Cir. 2001) 17 FDIC v. Ernst & Ernst, 677 F.2d 230 (2d Cir. 1982) 25 v. Maxwell, 325 F. Supp. 3d 428 (S

ginal objection to unsealing, Ms. Maxwell argued that the specter of ongoing criminal investigations into unknown individuals associated with Jeffrey Epstein--a group that, of course, includes Ms. Maxwell--loomed large over the Court-ordered unsealing 1 The Court notes as a practical matter that Ms. Maxw

to unknown individuals associated with Jeffrey Epstein--a group that, of course, includes Ms. Maxwell--

ions into unknown individuals associated with Jeffrey Epstein--a group that, of course, includes Ms. M

trolling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; or (3) a need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice." Drapkin v. Mafco Consol. Grp., Inc., 818 F. Supp. 2d 678, 696 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). "A motion for reconsideration 1 EFTA00086207 CaCeSta/30614173412OtAffleadditthterfraM0Rkef 2amez0°Ma