Epstein Secrets

dorsement on letter to Judge Chin from Ellen Yaroshefsky dated 10/8/98; counsel for Den Cohen requests that the Court permit the adjournment of Ms. Cohen's deposition beyond the current discovery cutoff date. I have reviewed this letter; the Govt's letter of today; and Ms. Yarostefsky's 2d letter of

just, speedy, and inexpensive determination' of civil disputes by encouraging full disclosure of all evidence that might conceivably be relevant" Martindell g International TeL & Tel. Corp.. 594 F.2d 291, 295 (2d Cir.1979). Unless protective orders are "fully and fairly enforceable," persons O 2007 Tho

Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Christian R. Everdell COHEN & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 100

2018) 8, 15 Hampton v. United States, 425 U.S. 484 (1976) 20 In re WinNet R CISC, 2017 WL 1373918 (S.D.N.Y. No. 16MC484(DLC), Apr. 13, 2017) 24 Martindell v. Intl Tel. & Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979) 18, 21 McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332 (1943) 20 Morales v. Portuondo, 165 F. Supp.

GG COHEN & GRESSER LLP 1100 Thud twenue New York NY 1002

Obtained in Violation of the Sixth Amendment 10. Motion for a Bill of Particulars and Pretrial Disclosures II. Motion Under the Fourth Amendment, Martindell, and the Fifth Amendment to Suppress All Evidence Obtained from the Government's Subpoena to and to Dismiss Counts Five and Six 12. Motion to Dism

GG COHEN & GRESSER LLP Mark S. Cohen Christian R Fverdel

losures EFTA00097329 The Honorable Alison J. Nathan March 15, 2021 Page 2 II. Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion Under the Fourth Amendment, Martindell, and the Fifth Amendment to Suppress All Evidence Obtained from the Government's Subpoena to and to Dismiss Counts Five and Six 12. Reply Memoran

ffice for the Southern District of New York Mark Cohen Christian Everdell Cohen & Gresser LLP Laura A

2016 depositions, both of which were designated "Confidential." Two, the government had no ability legally to obtain the deposition transcripts. In Martindell v. International Telephone and Telegraph Corp., 594 F.2d 291, 293 (2d Cir. 1979), cited with approval in In re Teligent, Inc., 640 F.3d 53, 58 (2d

MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C. Denver, CO 80203 Mark S. Cohen Christian R. Everdell COHEN & GRESSER LLP Bobb

. CONST. amend. IV passim U.S. CONST. amend. V passim iii EFTA00015306 --- PAGE BREAK --- Ghislaine Maxwell moves under the Fourth Amendment, Martindell v. Intl TeL & TeL Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979), and the Fifth Amendment, to suppress all evidence the government obtained from a grand jury s

uit's II EFTA00015317 --- PAGE BREAK --- decision in Martindell v. International Telephone & Telegraph Corp. and violated Maxwell's rights. In Martindell, the government tried to obtain deposition transcripts of twelve individuals deposed in a private shareholders' derivative lawsuit. 594 F.2d at 292-

e Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 Mark S. Cohen Christian R. Everdell COHEN & GRESSER LLP 800

protective orders if their testimony were to be made available to the Government for criminal investigatory purposes in disregard of those orders." Martindell, 594 F.2d at 295-96. Parties thus rely on protective orders, and courts strictly enforce them. See, e.g., Stewart v. Hudson Hall LLC, 20 Civ. 885 (S

GG COHEN & GRESSER LLP Mark S. Cohen Christian R. Evendell March 15, 2021 VIA ECF

3 --- PAGE BREAK --- The Honorable Alison J. Nathan March 15, 2021 Page 2 II. Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion Under the Fourth Amendment, Martindell, and the Fifth Amendment to Suppress All Evidence Obtained from the Government's Subpoena to and to Dismiss Counts Five and Six 12. Reply Memoran

GG COHEN & GRESSER LLP Mark S. Cohen Christian R Fverdell March 15, 2021 VIA ECF T

5 --- PAGE BREAK --- The Honorable Alison J. Nathan March 15, 2021 Page 2 II. Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion Under the Fourth Amendment, Martindell, and the Fifth Amendment to Suppress All Evidence Obtained from the Government's Subpoena to Boies Schiller and to Dismiss Counts Five and Six 12.

Menninger HADDON MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C. Mark S. Cohen Christian R. Everdell COHEN & GRESSER LLP Bobb

e The Fruits Of That Evidence 1. The role of protective orders in civil litigation. Protective orders serve a "vital function" in civil litigation. Martindell v. Intl Tel. & Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291, 295 (2d Cir. 1979). They promote "the `secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination' of civil di