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

independent basis to modify a protective order under Martindell notwithstanding the parties' reasonable reliance on that order. See Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity Servs., Inc., 832 F.2d 739, 742 (2d Cir. 1987) (citing Martindell, 594 F.2d at 296). Thus, even assuming that the Government should have told Judge McMah

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

independent basis to modify a protective order under Martindell notwithstanding the parties' reasonable reliance on that order. See Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity Servs., Inc., 832 F.2d 739, 742 (2d Cir. 1987) (citing Martindell, 594 F.2d at 296). Thus, even assuming that the Government should have told Judge McMah

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

independent basis to modify a protective order under Martindell notwithstanding the parties' reasonable reliance on that order. See Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity Servs., Inc., 832 F.2d 739, 742 (2d Cir. 1987) (citing Martindell, 594 F.2d at 296). Thus, even assuming that the Government should have told Judge McMah

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

independent basis to modify a protective order under Martindell notwithstanding the parties' reasonable reliance on that order. See Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity Servs., Inc., 832 F.2d 739, 742 (2d Cir. 1987) (citing Martindell, 594 F.2d at 296). Thus, even assuming that the Government should have told Judge McMah

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

independent basis to modify a protective order under Martindell notwithstanding the parties' reasonable reliance on that order. See Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity Servs., Inc., 832 F.2d 739, 742 (2d Cir. 1987) (citing Martindell, 594 F.2d at 296). Thus, even assuming that the Government should have told Judge McMah

ited States District Court Southern District of New York Re: Reply in Support of Request to Modify Protective Order (Under Seal)i United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (MN) Dear Judge Nathan, Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell filed a simple request: that she be permitted to disclose under seal to the Second

ernment touts its production of "more than 165,000 pages of discovery to the defense," of which (they neglect to mention), nearly 90,000 of the Ms. Maxwell has filed a letter motion which seeks leave to file this reply under seal, while providing the unredacted version to the government and the Court. T

y Protective Order (Under Seal)i United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (MN) Dear Judge Nathan, Def

(they neglect to mention), nearly 90,000 of the Ms. Maxwell has filed a letter motion which seeks leave to fi

n a criminal action." Botha v. Don King Prods., Inc., No. 97 CIV. 7587 (JGK), 1998 WL 88745, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 1998) (citing Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity Servs., Inc., 832 F.2d 739, 743 (2d Cir. 1987) and Martindell, 594 F.2d at 297). Judge Sweet, the same judge who approved the civil protective order upon

bpoena. The application is granted. I. Background A. The Protective Order In September 2015, Virginia L. Giuffre commenced a civil suit against Ghislaine Maxwell, alleging that Maxwell had defamed Giuffre by stating that Giuffre was not the victim of sex crimes perpetrated by, among others, Maxwell a

e application is granted. I. Background A. The Protective Order In September 2015, Virginia L. Giuffre commenced a civil suit against Ghislaine Maxwell, alleging that Maxwell had defamed Giuffre by stating that Giuffre was not the victim of sex crimes perpetrated by, among others, Maxwell and Jeffre

tor by the Plaintiff or her lawyers." (Def's Reply in Further Supp. of Mot. for Protective Order, 15-cv-7433, Dkt. No. 49 at 5); of Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity Servs., Inc., 832 F.2d 739, 743 (2d Cir. 1987) ("[O]ne of the primary reasons the protective order was originally entered was to prevent plaintiffs from u

has filed an application for modification of a March 18, 2016 pretrial protective order, entered by the late Hon. in a civil defamation action, v. Maxwell, No. 15-cv-7433 (S.D.N.Y.) ("the Action"), in order to permit the law firm of Boles Schiller Flexner LLP ("Boies Schiller") to comply with a grand

ith a grand jury subpoena. The application is granted. I. Background A. The Protective Order In September 2015, commenced a civil suit against Ghislaine Maxwell, alleging that Maxwell had defamed by stating that was not the victim of sex crimes perpetrated by, among others, Maxwell and Jeffrey Eps

r by the Plaintiff or her lawyers." (Def.'s Reply in Further Supp. of Mot. for Protective Order, 15-cv-7433, Dkt. No. 49 at 5); cf. Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity Servs., Inc., 832 F.2d 739, 743 (2d Cir. 1987) ("[O]ne of the primary reasons the protective order was originally entered was to prevent plaintiffs from u