Epstein Secrets

RNOVICH, DBA CERNOVICH MEDIA Intervenors. ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, 15-CV-7433 (LAP) Ghislaine Maxwell's Opening Brief Ty Gee Adam Mueller HADDON, MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Den r 2 Tel. Attorneys for Defendant-Appellant Ghisla

motion to unseal and the first appeal 6 The remand, the arrest, and the indictment. 7 The order unsealing the deposition material, including Ms. Maxwell's April 2016 deposition transcript 11 Events after the filing of the notice of appeal and the critical new information 13 Summary of the Argument

C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Tel 303.831.7364 Fax 303.832.2628 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Defendant-Appellant Ghislaine Maxwell 42 EFTA00075524 Case 20-2413, Document 40, 08/20/2020, 2913550, Page49 of 74 Certificate of Compliance with Rule 32(A) This brief comp

rder unsealing the deposition material, including Ms. Maxwell's April 2016 deposition transcript 11 Events a

: [T]here is no question that the plain terms of the Maxwell Protective Order would justify such an expectati

cument 40, 08/20/2020, 2913550, Page4 of 74 Table of Authorities Cases Application of Newsday, Inc., 895 F.2d 74 (2d Cir. 1990) 40 AT&T Corp. v. Sprint Corp., 407 F.3d 560 (2d Cir. 2005) 26 Bernstein v. Bernstein Li towitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, 814 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2016) 17 Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F

inister pattern — it is also worth noting that each of the other four individuals Jane Doe No. 3 identified by name in her motion (Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, Jean Luc Brunel, and Prince Andrew) have also all been afforded opportunities to explain themselves — and all four have declined to take them. Eps

After extensive discussion and coordinating a convenient time and place, as well as ultimately agreeing to a confidentiality agreement prepared by Maxwell's attorney, at the eleventh hour Maxwell's attorney informed the undersigned that Maxwell's mother was very ill and that consequently Maxwell was le

entified by name in her motion (Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, Jean Luc Brunel, and Prince Andrew) have

n such intervention is reviewed only for abuse of discretion. Stone' First Union Corp.. 371 F.3d 1305, 1309 (11th Cir. 2004); see also AT&T Cap. ' Sprint Corp., 407 F.3d 560, 561-62 (2nd Cir. 2005) ("[a] denial of permissive intervention has virtually never been reversed" because of the considerable discret

inister pattern — it is also worth noting that each of the other four individuals Jane Doe No. 3 identified by name in her motion (Jeffrey Epstein. Ghislaine Maxwell, Jean Luc Brunel, and Prince Andrew) have also all been afforded opportunities to explain themselves — and all four have declined to take them. Eps

ked questions about his sexual abuse of young girls. including Jane Doe No. I. Jane Doe No. 2, and Jane Doe No. 3. See generally Exhibit 16 at 1-7. Maxwell. In 2009, undersigned counsel (Brad Edwards) served Ghislaine Maxwell with a subpoena for a deposition in a civil case against Jeffrey Epstein. Afte

entified by name in her motion (Jeffrey Epstein. Ghislaine Maxwell, Jean Luc Brunel, and Prince Andrew) have

such intervention is reviewed only for abuse of discretion. Stone'. First Union Corp.. 371 F.3d 1305, 1309 (1Ith Cir. 2004); see also AT&T Corp. '. Sprint Corp., 407 F.3d 560, 561-62 (2nd Cir. 2005) ("[a] denial of permissive intervention has virtually never been reversed" because of the considerable discret

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

Protective Order. Permissive intervention is the appropriate procedural device when any non-party seeks to modify a protective order. AT&T Corp. v. Sprint Corp., 407 F.3d 560, 562 (2d Cir. 2005) ("We have stated that permissive intervention is the proper method for a nonparty to seek a modification of a pro

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

Protective Order. Permissive intervention is the appropriate procedural device when any non-party seeks to modify a protective order. AT&T Corp. v. Sprint Corp., 407 F.3d 560, 562 (2d Cir. 2005) ("We have stated that permissive intervention is the proper method for a nonparty to seek a modification of a pro