Epstein Secrets

1 of 37 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK X VIRGINIA L. GUIFFRE, Plaintiff, 15 Civ. 7433 (RWS) - against - OPINION GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. X APpEARANCE S: Counsel for Plaintiffs BOEIS, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1200 Fort Lauderd

07433-RWS Document 135 Filed 05/02/16 Page 2 of 37 Sweet, D.J. Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre ("Giuffre" or "Plaintiff") has moved to compel Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell ("Maxwell" or "Defendant") to produce documents withheld on the grounds of privilege.- !lased on the conclusions set forth below, the motion is gr

35 Filed 05/02/16 Page 2 of 37 Sweet, D.J. Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre ("Giuffre" or "Plaintiff") has moved to compel Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell ("Maxwell" or "Defendant") to produce documents withheld on the grounds of privilege.- !lased on the conclusions set forth below, the motion is granted in p

d NY law." Privilege Log at 1. Defendant argues "Ms. Maxwell's communications with Mr. Barden should be const

ions with Jaffe Are Privileged "An attorney-client relationship is established where there is an explicit undertaking to perform a specific task." Pellegrino v. Oppenheimer a Co., 49 A.D.3d 94, 99, 851 N.Y.S.2d 19 (2008). Defendant has sworn that she hired Jaffe in 2009 to represent her in connection wit

EFTA00073262 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1111 Filed 09/01/20 Page 4 of 14 • (a) All currently sealed documents filed in support of Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 540 to 543, inclusive); • (b) All currently sealed documents filed in support of Plaintiff Virginia L. Giuffr

ruary 11, 2020). Access to other judicial documents in this action has already been granted to intervening private parties in interest, see Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 2019), and also is the subject of ongoing litigation before this Court. See, e.g., ECF No. 1096-1108. The 1 EFTA00073260 C

F NEW YORK Virginia L. Giuffre, Plaintiff, v. Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. Case No.: 15-cv-07433-LAP

Id. For the "experience-and-logic" approach, courts employ a two-pronged inquiry. Doe, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36605, at *4; Hartford Courant Co. v. Pellegrino, 380 F.3d 83, 92 (2d Cir. 2004). First, courts must consider "whether the place and process have historically been open to the press and general pu

EFTA00077313 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1111 Filed 09/01/20 Page 4 of 14 • (a) All currently sealed documents filed in support of Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 540 to 543, inclusive); • (b) All currently sealed documents filed in support of Plaintiff opposition to Def

ruary 11, 2020). Access to other judicial documents in this action has already been granted to intervening private parties in interest, see Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 2019), and also is the subject of ongoing litigation before this Court. See, e.g., ECF No. 1096-1108. The EFTA00077311 Case

T SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Plaintiff, v. Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. Case No.: 15-cv-07433-LAP

Id. For the "experience-and-logic" approach, courts employ a two-pronged inquiry. Doe, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36605, at *4; Hartford Courant Co. v. Pellegrino, 380 F.3d 83, 92 (2d Cir. 2004). First, courts must consider "whether the place and process have historically been open to the press and general pu

v. Maxwell, — F.Supp.3d — (2018) 2018 WL 4062649 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. United States District Court, S.D. New York. Plaintiff,

F.Supp.3d — (2018) 2018 WL 4062649 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. United States District Court, S.D. New York. Plaintiff, v. Ghislaine MAXWELL, Defendant. 15 Civ. 7433 i Signed 08/27/2018 Synopsis Background: Following settlement of plaintiff's action for defamation, news media and inv

s District Court, S.D. New York. Plaintiff, v. Ghislaine MAXWELL, Defendant. 15 Civ. 7433 i Signed 08/2

her claim of defamation by Maxwell arising out of the Maxwell January 3 Statement. alleged she was the "victim

nondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) (existence of confidentiality order alone did not defeat presumption of public access); Hanford Courant Co. v. Pellegrino, 380 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2004) (establishing qualified First Amendment right of access to sealed docket sheets); Sec. Etch. Comm'n v. TheStreetcom, 273