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

e a sufficient, independent basis to modify a protective order under Martindell notwithstanding the parties' reasonable reliance on that order. See Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity Servs., Inc., 832 F.2d 739, 742 (2d Cir. 1987) (citing Martindell, 594 F.2d at 296). Thus, even assuming that the Government shoul

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

e a sufficient, independent basis to modify a protective order under Martindell notwithstanding the parties' reasonable reliance on that order. See Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity Servs., Inc., 832 F.2d 739, 742 (2d Cir. 1987) (citing Martindell, 594 F.2d at 296). Thus, even assuming that the Government shoul

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

e a sufficient, independent basis to modify a protective order under Martindell notwithstanding the parties' reasonable reliance on that order. See Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity Servs., Inc., 832 F.2d 739, 742 (2d Cir. 1987) (citing Martindell, 594 F.2d at 296). Thus, even assuming that the Government shoul

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

e a sufficient, independent basis to modify a protective order under Martindell notwithstanding the parties' reasonable reliance on that order. See Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity Servs., Inc., 832 F.2d 739, 742 (2d Cir. 1987) (citing Martindell, 594 F.2d at 296). Thus, even assuming that the Government shoul

20-cr-00330-AJN Document 307 Filed 06/25/21 Page 1 of 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK United States of America, —v— Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC 0: DATE FILED: 6/25/2021 20-cr-330 (AJN) OPINION & ORDER ALISON J. NATHAN, District

dant. USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC 0: 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 SDNY 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

e a sufficient, independent basis to modify a protective order under Martindell notwithstanding the parties' reasonable reliance on that order. See Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity Servs., Inc., 832 F.2d 739, 742 (2d Cir. 1987) (citing Martindell, 594 F.2d at 296). Thus, even assuming that the Government shoul

ited States District Court Southern District of New York Re: Reply in Support of Request to Modify Protective Order (Under Seal)i United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (MN) Dear Judge Nathan, Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell filed a simple request: that she be permitted to disclose under seal to the Second

ernment touts its production of "more than 165,000 pages of discovery to the defense," of which (they neglect to mention), nearly 90,000 of the Ms. Maxwell has filed a letter motion which seeks leave to file this reply under seal, while providing the unredacted version to the government and the Court. T

y Protective Order (Under Seal)i United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (MN) Dear Judge Nathan, Def

(they neglect to mention), nearly 90,000 of the Ms. Maxwell has filed a letter motion which seeks leave to fi

investigation in a criminal action." Botha v. Don King Prods., Inc., No. 97 CIV. 7587 (JGK), 1998 WL 88745, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 1998) (citing Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity Servs., Inc., 832 F.2d 739, 743 (2d Cir. 1987) and Martindell, 594 F.2d at 297). Judge Sweet, the same judge who approved the civi

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK X UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. X 20-CR-330 (AJN) NOTICE OF APPEAL PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant in the above-captioned case, hereby

NEW YORK X UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. X 20-CR-330 (AJN) NOTICE OF APPEAL PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant in the above-captioned case, hereby appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from the district court's Septe

y appealable under the collateral order doctrine) (citing Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-47 (1949)); see also Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41,44 (2d Cir. 2019) (appeal by intervenors challenging denial of motions to modify protective order and unseal). Dated: September 3, 20

under the collateral order doctrine to review the denial of the motion to modify the Protective Order and the denial of the motion to reconsider."); Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity Servs., Inc., 832 F.2d 739, 742 (2d Cir. 1987) (denial of motion to modify protective order is immediately appealable under the c