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

n material should remain sealed to vindicate Ms. Maxwell and other individuals' reasonable reliance on the judicial promise of confidentiality. See TheStreet.Corn, 273 F.3d at 229-31 (recognizing the importance of reliance interests in assessing whether to allow access to sealed documents (citing Martind

3d 132,139 (2d Cir. 2016)). A district court "necessarily abuses its discretion if its conclusions are based on an erroneous determination of law." TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d at 229 (quoting Crescent Publ'g Op., Inc. v. Playboy Enters., Inc., 246 F.3d 142,146 (2d Cir. 2001)). "Reviewable-for-abuse-of-discr

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

OURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. : 20 Cr. 330 (MN) x 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 BOIES SCHILLER AND TO DI

ork, NY 10022 Phone: Bobbi C. Stemheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim 33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York NY 10011 Phone: Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell EFTA00086658 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ii TABLE OF EXHIBITS iv INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT 1 F

ury during two civil depositions conducted by Boies Schiller in a defamation action it filed against Maxwell on behalf of one of the firm's clients.M. Maxwell, Case No. 15-cv-7433 (LAP) (S.D.N.Y). A Protective Order entered in that case prohibited the parties and their lawyers from sharing confidential di

tor, did Boies Schiller have any role instigating the Maxwell inquiry. I EFTA00086663 To paraphrase Mary Mc

ctive orders were easily modified . . . parties would be less forthcoming in giving testimony and less willing to settle their disputes." S.E.C. v. TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d 222, 230 (2d Cir. 2001). In particular, as here, "witnesses might be expected frequently to refuse to testify pursuant to protective o

18-2868; 16-3945-cv(L) Brown v. Maxwell; Dershotvitz v. Giuffre 3n tlje Elute)) i§tateo Court of appeat55 for the i§ecortb Circuit AUGUST TERM 2018 No. 18-2868-cv JULIE BROWN, MIAMI H

tateo Court of appeat55 for the i§ecortb Circuit AUGUST TERM 2018 No. 18-2868-cv JULIE BROWN, MIAMI HERALD COMPANY, Intervenors-Appellants, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant-Appellee, v. VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE, Plaintiff-Appellee. No. 16-3945-cv(L) No. 17-1625 (CON) No. 17-1722(CON) ALAN M. DERSHOW

ons. In response to the allegations, on January 3, 2015, Maxwell's publicist issued a press statement declaring that Giuffre's allegations "against Ghislaine Maxwell are untrue" and that her "claims are obvious lies. "6 B. Giuffre Sues Maxwell On September 21, 2015, Giuffre filed the underlying action against

); the protection of attorney-client privilege, Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 125; "the danger of impairing law enforcement or judicial efficiency," SEC. v. TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d 222, 232 (2d Cir. 2001); and "the privacy interest of those who resist disclosure," id. " Our discussion here focuses specifically on

t be considered a "judicial document" and would enjoy no presumption of public access. 3 Finally, in appropriate o' Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); see also TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d at 229-30. 41 See, e.g., S.D.N.Y. Electronic Case Filing Rules & Instructions, February 1, 2019 Edition, Rule 6.1, http:finysd.us

ase 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 936 Filed 04/06/18 Page 1 of 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Plaintiff, - against - GHISLA1NE MAXWELL, Defendant. : Case No. 15-cv-7433 (RWS) MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSED INTERVENORS JULIE BROWN AND MIAMI HERALD MEDIA COMPANY'S MOTIO

2 of 21 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ii PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1 I. INTERVENORS' COVERAGE OF ALLEGATIONS AGAINST JEFFREY EPSTEIN AND GHISLAINE MAXWELL 2 II. THE OVERBROAD SEALING ORDER AND PRIOR ATTEMPTS TO UNSEAL 3 III. THE ORDER DENYING THE MOTIONS TO UNSEAL 6 ARGUMENT 6 I. MIAM

ABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ii PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1 I. INTERVENORS' COVERAGE OF ALLEGATIONS AGAINST JEFFREY EPSTEIN AND GHISLAINE MAXWELL 2 II. THE OVERBROAD SEALING ORDER AND PRIOR ATTEMPTS TO UNSEAL 3 III. THE ORDER DENYING THE MOTIONS TO UNSEAL 6 ARGUMENT 6 I. MIAMI HERALD

. " or "Plaintiff') against Ghislaine Maxwell ("Ms. Maxwell" or "Defendant") on the grounds that Ms. Maxwell,

ers, pursuant to Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, either as a matter of right or permissively. See, e.g., Sec. and Exch. Conan it v. TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d 222, 227 n.4 (2d Cir. 2001); Schiller v. City of New York, No. 04 CIV. 7921(KMK)(JC), 2006 WL 2788256, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2006

Brown v. Maxwell, — F.3d — (2019) 2019 WL 2814839 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. Julie BROWN,

citation is currently available. United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. Julie BROWN, Miami Herald Company, Intervenors-Appellants, v. Ghislaine MAXWELL, Defendant-Appellee, v. MM. Plaintiff-Appellee. . r owitz, Michael Cernovich, dba Cernovich Media, Intervenors-Appellants, v. Plaintiff-App

ating accusations. In response to the allegations, on January 3, 2015, Maxwell's publiSid a press statement declaring that allegations "against Ghislaine Maxwell are untrue" and that her "claims are obvious lies."6 6 SeMIEv. Maxwell, 325 F. Supp. 3d 428, 434 (S.D.N.Y. 2018). BM Sues Maxwell On

; the protection of attorney-client privilege, Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 125; "the danger of impairing law enforcement or judicial efficiency," SEC. v. TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d 222, 232 (2d Cir. 2001); and "the privacy interest of those who resist disclosure," id. *4 151In this case, the District Court erred

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

ther Judge made the requisite fmdings in his decisions granting the various motions to seal publicly-filed documents that were made in See, e.g., TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d 222, 231 (2d Cir. 2001) ("While Martindell established a general and IS SDNY_GM_00000889 CONFIDENTIAL EFTA_00114973 EFTA01263260