Epstein Secrets

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK United States of America, —v— Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. USDC SONY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC DATE FILED: 6/25/2021 20-cr-330 (AJN) OPINION & ORDER ALISON J. NATHAN, District Ju

endant. USDC SONY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC DATE FILED: 6/25/2021 20-cr-330 (AJN) OPINION & ORDER ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: Maxwell moves to suppress evidence obtained through a grand jury subpoena to a law firm involved in earlier civil litigation against her. She contends that

in the civil case. But because the Court finds no violation of the Fourth Amendment, it concludes that none of the documents should be suppressed. C. Maxwell is not entitled to suppression under due process or the Court's inherent authority Maxwell next argues that the materials must be suppressed becaus

TRICT OF NEW YORK United States of America, —v— Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. USDC SONY DOCUMENT ELECTR

e Court thus concludes that Maxwell is not entitled to suppress her deposition transcripts based on her right against compelled self-incrimination. B. Maxwell had no reasonable expectation of privacy in documents produced in civil litigation "The Fourth Amendment protects `[t]he right of the people to be

owledges that she could have, but did not, invoke her Fifth Amendment rights to avoid providing incriminating testimony. See, e.g., Pillsbury Co. v. Conboy, 459 U.S. 248, 263-24 & n.24 (1983). However, she contends that she testified only because she believed the protective order in that case would pre

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK United States of America, —v— Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. USDC SONY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC DATE FILED: 6/25/2021 20-cr-330 (AJN) OPINION & ORDER ALISON J. NATHAN, District Ju

endant. USDC SONY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC DATE FILED: 6/25/2021 20-cr-330 (AJN) OPINION & ORDER ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: Maxwell moves to suppress evidence obtained through a grand jury subpoena to a law firm involved in earlier civil litigation against her. She contends that

in the civil case. But because the Court finds no violation of the Fourth Amendment, it concludes that none of the documents should be suppressed. C. Maxwell is not entitled to suppression under due process or the Court's inherent authority Maxwell next argues that the materials must be suppressed becaus

TRICT OF NEW YORK United States of America, —v— Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. USDC SONY DOCUMENT ELECTR

e Court thus concludes that Maxwell is not entitled to suppress her deposition transcripts based on her right against compelled self-incrimination. B. Maxwell had no reasonable expectation of privacy in documents produced in civil litigation "The Fourth Amendment protects `[t]he right of the people to be

owledges that she could have, but did not, invoke her Fifth Amendment rights to avoid providing incriminating testimony. See, e.g., Pillsbury Co. v. Conboy, 459 U.S. 248, 263-24 & n.24 (1983). However, she contends that she testified only because she believed the protective order in that case would pre

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK United States of America, —v— Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. USDC SONY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC DATE FILED: 6/25/2021 20-cr-330 (AJN) OPINION & ORDER ALISON J. NATHAN, District Ju

endant. USDC SONY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC DATE FILED: 6/25/2021 20-cr-330 (AJN) OPINION & ORDER ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: Maxwell moves to suppress evidence obtained through a grand jury subpoena to a law firm involved in earlier civil litigation against her. She contends that

in the civil case. But because the Court finds no violation of the Fourth Amendment, it concludes that none of the documents should be suppressed. C. Maxwell is not entitled to suppression under due process or the Court's inherent authority Maxwell next argues that the materials must be suppressed becaus

TRICT OF NEW YORK United States of America, —v— Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. USDC SONY DOCUMENT ELECTR

e Court thus concludes that Maxwell is not entitled to suppress her deposition transcripts based on her right against compelled self-incrimination. B. Maxwell had no reasonable expectation of privacy in documents produced in civil litigation "The Fourth Amendment protects `[t]he right of the people to be

owledges that she could have, but did not, invoke her Fifth Amendment rights to avoid providing incriminating testimony. See, e.g., Pillsbury Co. v. Conboy, 459 U.S. 248, 263-24 & n.24 (1983). However, she contends that she testified only because she believed the protective order in that case would pre

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK United States of America, —v— Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. USDC SONY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC DATE FILED: 6/25/2021 20-cr-330 (AJN) OPINION & ORDER ALISON J. NATHAN, District Ju

endant. USDC SONY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC DATE FILED: 6/25/2021 20-cr-330 (AJN) OPINION & ORDER ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: Maxwell moves to suppress evidence obtained through a grand jury subpoena to a law firm involved in earlier civil litigation against her. She contends that

in the civil case. But because the Court finds no violation of the Fourth Amendment, it concludes that none of the documents should be suppressed. C. Maxwell is not entitled to suppression under due process or the Court's inherent authority Maxwell next argues that the materials must be suppressed becaus

TRICT OF NEW YORK United States of America, —v— Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. USDC SONY DOCUMENT ELECTR

e Court thus concludes that Maxwell is not entitled to suppress her deposition transcripts based on her right against compelled self-incrimination. B. Maxwell had no reasonable expectation of privacy in documents produced in civil litigation "The Fourth Amendment protects `[t]he right of the people to be

owledges that she could have, but did not, invoke her Fifth Amendment rights to avoid providing incriminating testimony. See, e.g., Pillsbury Co. v. Conboy, 459 U.S. 248, 263-24 & n.24 (1983). However, she contends that she testified only because she believed the protective order in that case would pre

20-cr-00330-AJN Document 307 Filed 06/25/21 Page 1 of 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK United States of America, —v— Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC 0: DATE FILED: 6/25/2021 20-cr-330 (AJN) OPINION & ORDER ALISON J. NATHAN, District

dant. USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC 0: DATE FILED: 6/25/2021 20-cr-330 (AJN) OPINION & ORDER ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: Maxwell moves to suppress evidence obtained through a grand jury subpoena to a law firm involved in earlier civil litigation against her. She contends that

in the civil case. But because the Court finds no violation of the Fourth Amendment, it concludes that none of the documents should be suppressed. C. Maxwell is not entitled to suppression under due process or the Court's inherent authority Maxwell next argues that the materials must be suppressed becaus

TRICT OF NEW YORK United States of America, —v— Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTR

e Court thus concludes that Maxwell is not entitled to suppress her deposition transcripts based on her right against compelled self-incrimination. B. Maxwell had no reasonable expectation of privacy in documents produced in civil litigation "The Fourth Amendment protects '[t]he right of the people to be

owledges that she could have, but did not, invoke her Fifth Amendment rights to avoid providing incriminating testimony. See, e.g., Pillsbury Co. v. Conboy, 459 U.S. 248, 263-24 & n.24 (1983). However, she contends that she testified only because she believed the protective order in that case would pre

nd times, on August 27, 2003, Plaintiff Nelson Shanks provided notices to Defendants' counsel of the oral depositions of Defendants Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, Abigail Wexner and Leslie Wexner to be taken on September 9th and 10th, 2003 in the offices of Gollatz, Griffin & Ewing, P.C., in Philadelphia, Pa.

Page 2 of 7 Defendant ABIGAIL WEXNER H/W Defendant JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN INDIVIDUALLY doing business as J. EPSTEIN AND COMPANY, INC. Defendant GHISLAINE MAXWELL ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED represented by CHRISTOPHER J. GUITON (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED J. FOX (See a

above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Date Filed # Docket Text 10/02/2002 1 COMPLAINT against JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, ABIGAIL WEXNER, LESLIE WEXNER ( Filing fee $ 150 receipt number 803892.), filed by NELSON SHANICS.(ti, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/13/20

hereby move this Court, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(2), for a protective order to reschedule and relocate the depositions of Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and Abigail and Leslie Wexner, who received notices of oral deposition to be taken in the offices of Plaintiff's counsel, Gollatz, Griffin & Ewing

ia to the U.S. Virgin Islands for Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell; and New Albany, Ohio for the Wexners. Accordin

in venture. First ventur- er moved to dismiss or for summary judg- ment, and second venturer cross-moved for summary judgment. The District Court, Conboy, J., held that: (1) agreement under which first joint venturer agreed to return capital contribution to second joint venturer upon return of all i

orking sites, and e-mails. Request No. 17. Any and all documents consisting of, referring or relating to communications between Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, including, but not limited to, letters, notes, text messages, messages on social networking sites, and e-mails. Request No. 18. Any and all docume

unications between Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, including, but not limited to, letters, notes, t

ng to communications between Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, including, but not limited to, letters,

AM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 9 of 37 Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page 9 can be used at trial. !g; Pillsbury Company v. Conboy, 495 U.S. 248, 103 S.Ct. 608 (1983). See also, Hubbell, supra, quoted above as to what is encompassed by the phrase "in any criminal case" containe

No. 2 v. Epstein Page 17 Request No. 17. Any and all documents consisting of, referring or relating to communications between Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, including, but not limited to, letters, notes, text messages, messages on social networking sites, and e-mails. Response: Defendant is asserting

munications between Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, including, but not limited to, letters, notes,

ng to communications between Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, including, but not limited to, letters,

convict the witness of a crime or could aid in the development of other incriminating evidence that can be used at trial. Id; Pillsbury Company v. Conboy, 495 U.S. 248, 103 S.Ct. 608 (1983). Certainly, if the USAO decides to prosecute EPSTEIN for an alleged violation of the NPA, it would undoubtedly