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

nt's ex parte application. In a hearing on March 26, 2019, Judge McMahon explained that she believed the Second Circuit's decision in Martindell v. International Telephone & Telegraph Coip., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979), governed the Government's application. Martindell held that a party should not provide documents subject to 3 EFTA0

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

nt's ex parte application. In a hearing on March 26, 2019, Judge McMahon explained that she believed the Second Circuit's decision in Martindell v. International Telephone & Telegraph Coip., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979), governed the Government's application. Martindell held that a party should not provide documents subject to 3 EFTA0

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

nt's ex parte application. In a hearing on March 26, 2019, Judge McMahon explained that she believed the Second Circuit's decision in Martindell v. International Telephone & Telegraph Coip., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979), governed the Government's application. Martindell held that a party should not provide documents subject to 3 EFTA0

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

nt's ex parte application. In a hearing on March 26, 2019, Judge McMahon explained that she believed the Second Circuit's decision in Martindell v. International Telephone & Telegraph Coip., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979), governed the Government's application. Martindell held that a party should not provide documents subject to 3 EFTA0