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

LLC v. Cnoi. of Nassau, 730 F.3d 156 (2d Cir. 2013) 18, 20 iii EFTA00075480 Case 20-2413, Document 40, 08/20/2020, 2913550, Page5 of 74 Nixon a Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978) Nosik a Singe, 40 F.3d 592 (2d Cir. 1994) Press-Enter. Co. a Superior Ct., 464 U.S. 501 (1984) S.E.C. v. TheStreet.Com,

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

district and appeals court are actively considering the unsealing of "confidential" materials simultaneous with the criminal prosecution. Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, 435 U.S. 589 (1978), is the closest, yet even there, the U.S. Supreme Court refused press access to the tapes obtained from third parties played in

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

le v. JPMorgan Chase, 810 F. Supp. 2d 616 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) passim Martindell v. Intl Tel. & Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979) 10 Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978) 3 Prescient Acquisition Grp., Inc. v. MJ Public Trust, 487 F. Supp. 2d 374 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) 9 S.E.C. v. TheStreet.Com

ING ATTORNEY: Kerrie L. Campbell [name of attorney, whh firm, address. glione number and e-mail] KCampbell-Law, PLLC BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER UP v. Maxwell OPPOSING ATTORNEY:Sigrid moe-awieY 1629 K St., NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20006 401 E. Las Olas Blvd. Suite 1200 Fort Lauderdale, FL, 33301 2

co-counsel with: (name/firm) Defendant-Appellee Ghislaine Maxwell IZIAmicus (in support of: (party/designation)

co-counsel with: (name/firm) Defendant-Appellee Ghislaine Maxwell IZIAmicus (in support of: (party/design

Amicus respectfully submits that the appropriate remedy would be to remand proceedings for an expeditious document-by-document review. See Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 599 (1978) (observing that decisions regarding the appropriateness of sealing the record are "best left to the sound discretio