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

l defense interest, which cloaks related communications in privilege, and a common problem, to which the privilege does not apply. Cgiazaryan, 290 F.R.D. at 434 (citing Finkeiman v. Klaus, 2007 WL 4303538, at *4 (N.Y.Sup.Ct. Nov. 28, 2007)). "IA] limited common purpose (that) necessitates disclosure"

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

ore difficult to show a party reasonably relied on a blanket order in producing documents or submitting to a deposition.') (quoting In re EPDM, 255 F.R.D. at 319). Since the Protective Order does not address specific deposition testimony or exhibit documents, the parties do not have demonstrated relian

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

[B]road allegations of harm unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning fail to satisfy the test." In re Parmalat Sec. Litig., 258 F.R.D. at 244; see also Tr. of Jan. 16, 2020 Conf. at 7:9-12, 21-23 ("[W]hat we are looking for from you is a specific Plaintiff is cognizant of the Court

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

ore difficult to show a party reasonably relied on a blanket order in producing documents or submitting to a deposition.') (quoting In re EPDM, 255 F.R.D. at 319). Since the Protective Order does not address specific deposition testimony or exhibit documents, the parties do not have demonstrated relian

the Government's witness, subject, or tar et o Ghislaine Maxwell, ▪ Investigation Includi Larry Mo iso

cution/non-prosecution of Epstein; b) Attorney Bruce Reinhart's involvement in and/or awareness of the Government's witness, subject, or tar et o Ghislaine Maxwell, ▪ Investigation Includi Larry Mo iso i 1 ogers, r lam Hammond, and Robert Roxburgh; c) All documents, correspondence, and other information r

nment's witness, subject, or tar et o Ghislaine Maxwell, ▪ Investigation Includi Larry Mo iso i 1 oge

icipation of litigation, and certainly not litigation about the Crime Victims' Rights Act. See, e.g., Southern Union Co. v. Southwest Gas Corp., 205 F.R.D. 542, 549 (D. Ariz. 2002) (documents not protected by work product because not prepared in connection with case at hand). II. Specific Responses to

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

is more difficult to show a party reasonably relied on a blanket order in producing documents or submitting to a deposition.' Id. (quoting EPDM, 255 F.R.D. at 319). The second factor—the language of the Protective Order itself-similarly weighs in favor of modification. The Protective Order provided tha

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

is more difficult to show a party reasonably relied on a blanket order in producing documents or submitting to a deposition." Id (quoting EPDM, 255 F.R.D. at 319). The second factor—the language of the Protective Order itself—similarly weighs in favor of modification. The Protective Order provided tha