Epstein Secrets

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x 20 Cr. 330 (MN) REPLY MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE TO SUPPRESS A

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x 20 Cr. 330 (MN) REPLY MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE TO SUPPRESS ALL EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE GOVERNMENT'S SUBPOENA TO BOLES SCHILLER AND TO DI

. United States, 481 U.S. 787 (1987) 24 Other Authorities Stephen Rex Brown, Manhattan federal prosecutors declined to pursue Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell case in 2016, New York Daily News (Oct. 13, 2020) 11 U.S. Dept. of Justice, JUSTICE MANUAL, JM § 9-11.151 15 Rules Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2 19 N.

ause the government was attempting to deprive Maxwell of notice and an opportunity to be heard); Martindell, 594 F.2d at 294; see U.S. CONST. amend. V. Maxwell also had a privacy interest in the materials subject to the subpoena, including most especially her deposition transcripts. Mot. Ex. A (defining "c

Hampton v. United States, 425 U.S. 484 (1976) 20 In re WinNet R CISC, 2017 WL 1373918 (S.D.N.Y. No. 16MC484(DLC), Apr. 13, 2017) 24 Martindell v. Intl Tel. & Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979) 18, 21 McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332 (1943) 20 Morales v. Portuondo, 165 F. Supp. 2d 601 (S.D.

ecution. The Court should reject the "non-protective" order proposed by Plaintiff and enter the reasonable, and enforceable, order submitted by Ms. Maxwell. The True Facts Plaintiff, on February 4, 5 and 12, 2016, unilaterally and without conferral noticed a number of depositions in Florida and New Yo

aura A. Menninger Laura A. Menninger (LM-1374) HADDON, MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: Fax: Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on March 9, 2016, I electronically served this DEFENDANT'S REPLY IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK X Plaintiff, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL. Defendant. X 15-cv-07433-RWS DEFENDA

reasonable, and enforceable, order submitted by Ms. Maxwell. The True Facts Plaintiff, on February 4, 5 and

Paragraph 5 8 CONCLUSION 8 ii EFTA00622044 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 49 Filed 03/09/16 Page 3 of 12 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Martindell v. Intl Tel. & Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291, 295 (2d Cir. 1979) 2 Seattle Times Company v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 35 (1984) 2 Securities and Exchange Commission

aw 52 2. Discussion 54 IV. The Court Should Deny the Defendant's Motions to Suppress 59 A. Factual Background 61 1. The Civil Lawsuit against Maxwell 61 2. February 2016 Meeting 62 3. The April and July 2016 Depositions of Maxwell 64 4. The USAO-SDNY Commences the Instant Investigation in 201

v. Maxwell. 57 EFTA00103082 particular, this matter appears to be the only remaining active civil case in this District in which claims against Ghislaine Maxwell have been asserted." (20 Civ. 484 (DCF) (JGK), Dkt. No. 80 at 2). The defendant's baseless conjecture about the Government's supposedly nefarious re

x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA S 120 Cr. 330 (AJN) GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x THE GOVERNMENT'S OMNIBUS

(Def. Mot. 1 at 32 ("For the foregoing reasons, Ms. Maxwell respectfully requests that the Court dismiss the

.S. 244 (1994) 35,36,41,42 Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1 (2004) 56, 57 Madanes v. Madanes, 186 F.R.D. 279 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) 141 Martindell v. Intl Tel. and Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979) passim Martinez v. McAleenan, 385 F. Supp. 3d 349 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) 150, 151 Michigan v. Tucker, 4

Maxwell from Prosecution 15 1. The NPA Is Limited to Particular Crimes Between 2001 and 2007 15 2. The NPA Does Not Confer Enforceable Rights on Maxwell 17 C. The Defendant Has Offered No Basis for Additional Discovery or a Hearing 21 II. The Indictment Is Timely 23 A. Statutory Background 24

v. Maxwell. 57 EFTA00100024 particular, this matter appears to be the only remaining active civil case in this District in which claims against Ghislaine Maxwell have been asserted." (20 Civ. 484 (DCF) (JGK), Dkt. No. 80 at 2). The defendant's baseless conjecture about the Government's supposedly nefarious re

x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA SI 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x THE GOVERNMENT'S OMNIBUS

(Def. Mot. 1 at 32 ("For the foregoing reasons, Ms. Maxwell respectfully requests that the Court dismiss the

.S. 244 (1994) 35,36,41,42 Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1 (2004) 56, 57 Madanes v. Madanes, 186 F.R.D. 279 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) 141 Martindell v. Intl Tel. and Tel Coup., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979) passim Martinez v. McAleenan, 385 F. Stipp. 3d 349 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) 150, 151 Michigan v. Tucker, 4

Maxwell from Prosecution 15 1. The NPA Is Limited to Particular Crimes Between 2001 and 2007 15 2. The NPA Does Not Confer Enforceable Rights on Maxwell 17 C. The Defendant Has Offered No Basis for Additional Discovery or a Hearing 21 II. The Indictment Is Timely 23 A. Statutory Background 24

v. Maxwell. 57 EFTA00077689 particular, this matter appears to be the only remaining active civil case in this District in which claims against Ghislaine Maxwell have been asserted." (20 Civ. 484 (DCF) (JGK), Dkt. No. 80 at 2). The defendant's baseless conjecture about the Government's supposedly nefarious re

x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA S 120 Cr. 330 (AJN) GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x THE GOVERNMENT'S OMNIBUS

(Def. Mot. 1 at 32 ("For the foregoing reasons, Ms. Maxwell respectfully requests that the Court dismiss the

S. 244 (1994) 35,36, 41, 42 Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1 (2004) 56, 57 Madanes v. Madanes, 186 F.R.D. 279 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) 141 Martindell v. Intl Tel. and Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979) passim Martinez v. McAleenan, 385 F. Supp. 3d 349 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) 150, 151 Michigan v. Tucker, 41

Maxwell from Prosecution 15 1. The NPA Is Limited to Particular Crimes Between 2001 and 2007 15 2. The NPA Does Not Confer Enforceable Rights on Maxwell 17 C. The Defendant Has Offered No Basis for Additional Discovery or a Hearing 21 II. The Indictment Is Timely 23 A. Statutory Background 24

v. Maxwell. 57 EFTA00039504 particular, this matter appears to be the only remaining active civil case in this District in which claims against Ghislaine Maxwell have been asserted." (20 Civ. 484 (DCF) (JGK), Dkt. No. 80 at 2). The defendant's baseless conjecture about the Government's supposedly nefarious re

x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA S 120 Cr. 330 (AJN) GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x THE GOVERNMENT'S OMNIBUS

(Def. Mot. 1 at 32 ("For the foregoing reasons, Ms. Maxwell respectfully requests that the Court dismiss the

S. 244 (1994) 35,36, 41, 42 Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1 (2004) 56, 57 Madanes v. Madanes, 186 F.R.D. 279 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) 141 Martindell v. Intl Tel. and Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979) passim Martinez v. McAleenan, 385 F. Supp. 3d 349 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) 150, 151 Michigan v. Tucker, 41

Maxwell from Prosecution 15 1. The NPA Is Limited to Particular Crimes Between 2001 and 2007 15 2. The NPA Does Not Confer Enforceable Rights On Maxwell 17 C. The Defendant Has Offered No Basis for Additional Discovery or a Hearing 21 II. The Indictment Is Timely 23 A. Statutory Background 24

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 conjecture about the Government's nefarious reasons for d

x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA S 120 Cr. 330 (AJN) GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x THE GOVERNMENT'S OMNIBUS

(Def. Mot. 1 at 32 ("For the foregoing reasons, Ms. Maxwell respectfully requests that the Court dismiss the

7, 30, 32 Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1 (2004) 40 Lighte, 782 F.3d 120 Madanes v. Madanes, 186 F.R.D. 279 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) 98 Martindell v. Intl Tel. and Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979) 59, 63, 77, 102 Martindell, 594 F.3d 79 Martinez v. McAleenan, 385 F. Supp. 3d 349 (S.D.N.Y. 2019

Acir§eAFilib§04illeif36§41028 befl3df 24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Plaintiff, Case No.: 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP) v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. PLAINTIFF'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO MAXWELL'S OBJECTION TO UNSEALING DOCKET ENTRIES 143, 164, 172, 199, & 230 EFTA00075024 c

OURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Plaintiff, Case No.: 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP) v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. PLAINTIFF'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO MAXWELL'S OBJECTION TO UNSEALING DOCKET ENTRIES 143, 164, 172, 199, & 230 EFTA00075024 casap.q.§.bA1743g-umeneobecir§eAFfik§04tElS@§f21#28ainflef236f 24

elling reason to continue to keep their identities hidden. In fact, Doe 1 and Doe 2's names, as well as their relationships with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, have already been widely publicized, weighing against continued sealing. See, e.g., United States v. Avenatti, No. (SI) 19 CR. 373 (PGG), 2020 WL

amid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) 10, 11, 12 Lytle v. JPMorgan Chase, 810 F. Supp. 2d 616 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) passim Martindell v. Intl Tel. & Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979) 10 Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978) 3 Prescient Acquisition Grp., Inc. v. MJ Pub