Epstein Secrets

Judge McMahon that the prosecutors had no idea what was in Boies Schiller's file. Indeed, he insisted, there had been no contact whatsoever between Boies Schiller and United States Attorney's Office before the government commenced its investigation. Nor, said the prosecutor, did Boies Schiller have any

uring two civil depositions conducted by Boies Schiller in a defamation action it filed against Maxwell on behalf of one of the firm's clients. v. Marvell, Case No. 15-cv-7433 (LAP) (S.D.N.Y). A Protective Order entered in that case prohibited the parties and their lawyers from sharing confidential di

arties and an opportunity to be heard." Ex. A Y 14 (emphasis added). In its ex pane application, the prosecutors professed that they had sought out Boies Schiller's file only because "publicly available information regarding the [ v. Maxwell] 6 EFTA00011462 --- PAGE BREAK --- Litigation, includi

AUSA met with attorneys from Boies Schiller, who "urged n o open an investigation of" Epstein and Maxwell!' Then, after Maxwell's two depositions, David Boies himself apparently approached the government in the summer of 2016, asking "if the Southern District would consider charging Maxwell with perjury."

Judge McMahon that the prosecutors had no idea what was in Boies Schiller's file. Indeed, he insisted, there had been no contact whatsoever between Boies Schiller and United States Attorney's Office before the government commenced its investigation. Nor, said the prosecutor, did Boies Schiller have a

uring two civil depositions conducted by Boies Schiller in a defamation action it filed against Maxwell on behalf of one of the firm's clients. v. Marvell, Case No. 15-cv-7433 (LAP) (S.D.N.Y). A Protective Order entered in that case prohibited the parties and their lawyers from sharing confidential di

, AUSA met with attorneys from Boies Schiller, who "urged to open an investigation of Epstein and Maxwell!' Then, after Maxwell's two depositions, David Boies himself apparently approached the government in the summer of 2016, asking "if the Southern District would consider charging Maxwell with perjury."

Judge McMahon that the prosecutors had no idea what was in Boies Schiller's file. Indeed, he insisted, there had been no contact whatsoever between Boies Schiller and United States Attorney's Office before the government commenced its investigation. Nor, said the prosecutor, did Boies Schiller have a

uring two civil depositions conducted by Boies Schiller in a defamation action it filed against Maxwell on behalf of one of the firm's clients. v. Marvell, Case No. 15-cv-7433 (LAP) (S.D.N.Y). A Protective Order entered in that case prohibited the parties and their lawyers from sharing confidential di

met with attorneys from Boies Schiller, who "urged Kramer to open an investigation of" Epstein and Maxwell!' Then, after Maxwell's two depositions, David Boies himself apparently approached the government in the summer of 2016, asking "if the Southern District would consider charging Maxwell with perjury."

; the law firm had provided that information well before the investigation began. The government did indeed have previous contact with the firm. And Boies Schiller was instrumental in fomenting the Maxwell prosecution. The record is surpassingly clear: But for the government's misrepresentation, witti

, AUSA met with attorneys from Boies Schiller, who "urged to open an investigation of Epstein and Maxwell!' Then, after Maxwell's two depositions, David Boies himself apparently approached the government in the summer of 2016, asking "if the Southern District would consider charging Maxwell with perjury."

or who was deposed in the case. The prosecutor defended the subpoena's breadth—which sought all "copies of discovery and related materials" irMv. Marvell—on the ground that the government simply had too little knowledge of what was in the law firm's files to craft a more narrowly tailored subpoena:

effrey Epstein sexually abusing her. The law firm Boies Schiller Flexner LLP (BSF) represented in the d

. No. 134-1 ¶ 13. A court may (as here) unseal documents covered by a civil protective order in the public interest. See Brown, 929 F.3d at 47; v. Marvell, 827 F. App'x 144, 145 (2d Cir. 2020); Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 126 (2d Cir. 2006). Civil litigants have neither a reasonab