Epstein Secrets

s%st:Nabl'AgeRMit ebc4R9d21127P, 41M5§03.13arlis§g4 iea 7 App.-0132 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK X Plaintiff, V. Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. X 15-cv-07433-RWS Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Disclose Alleged "On-going Criminal Investigations by Law Enforcement [sic!" or, In

S. Pagliuca GAN, AND FOREMAN, P.C. EFTA00097352 Cgsfist:i§:4-13-1UPSCRCieSt MAR T; 21Wp, Aia5i441111141P1PfiO4 e& 7 App.-0133 INTRODUCTION Ms. Maxwell, through counsel, requests, pursuant to Rules 37( a) and 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that the Court enter an order requiring Plain

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK X Plaintiff, V. Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. X 15-cv-07433-RWS Motion

5i441111141P1PfiO4 e& 7 App.-0133 INTRODUCTION Ms. Maxwell, through counsel, requests, pursuant to Rules 37(

uire such action.") (quoting SEC v. Dresser Indus., 628 F.2d 1368, 1372 (D.C.Cir. 1980) (en banc)) (ellipses and internal quotation marks omitted); Nosik v. Singe, 40 F.3d 592, 596 (2d Cir. 1994) ("Although civil and criminal proceedings covering the same ground may sometimes justify deferring civil proceeding

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

rorecses to obtain their testimony." 594 F.2d at 296 n.5. Therefore, the mere unavailability of the information was not extraordinary. Similarly, in Nosik v. Singe, 40 F.3d 592 (2d Cir. 1994), the Circuit again declined to find that the Government had made a showing of extraordinary circumstance, explaining, "

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

rocesses to obtain their testimony." 594 F.2d at 296 n.5. Therefore, the mere unavailability of the information was not extraordinary. Similarly, in Nosik v. Singe, 40 F.3d 592 (2d Cir. 1994), the Circuit again declined to find that the Government had made a showing of extraordinary circumstance, explaining, "