Epstein Secrets

Defendant. x 9 New York, N.Y. 10 July 23, 2020 11:30 a.m. 11 Before: 12 HON. LORETTA A. PRESKA, 13 District Judge 14 APPEARANCES 15 BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP 16 Attorney for Plaintiff BY: SIGRID S. MCCAWLEY 17 HADDON, MORGAN, AND FOREMAN, P.C. 18 Attorney for Defendant BY:

n material should remain sealed to vindicate Ms. Maxwell and other individuals' reasonable reliance on the judicial promise of confidentiality. See TheStreet.Corn, 273 F.3d at 229-31 (recognizing the importance of reliance interests in assessing whether to allow access to sealed documents (citing Martind

3d 132,139 (2d Cir. 2016)). A district court "necessarily abuses its discretion if its conclusions are based on an erroneous determination of law." TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d at 229 (quoting Crescent Publ'g Op., Inc. v. Playboy Enters., Inc., 246 F.3d 142,146 (2d Cir. 2001)). "Reviewable-for-abuse-of-discr

; 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."

ctive orders were easily modified . . . parties would be less forthcoming in giving testimony and less willing to settle their disputes." S.E.C. v. TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d 222, 230 (2d Cir. 2001). In particular, as here, "witnesses might be expected frequently to refuse to testify pursuant to protective o

), Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C., Denver, CO, for Defendant-Appellee Ghislaine Maxwell. 3 EFTA00092310 PAUL G. CASSELL (Sigrid S. McCawley, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, on the brief), S.J Quinney College of Law, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, for Plaintiff-Appell

); the protection of attorney-client privilege, Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 125; "the danger of impairing law enforcement or judicial efficiency," SEC. v. TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d 222, 232 (2d Cir. 2001); and "the privacy interest of those who resist disclosure," id. " Our discussion here focuses specifically on

t be considered a "judicial document" and would enjoy no presumption of public access. 3 Finally, in appropriate o' Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); see also TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d at 229-30. 41 See, e.g., S.D.N.Y. Electronic Case Filing Rules & Instructions, February 1, 2019 Edition, Rule 6.1, http:finysd.us

mit the law firm of Boles Schiller Flexner LLP ("Boies Schiller") to comply with a grand jury subpoena.

ther Judge made the requisite fmdings in his decisions granting the various motions to seal publicly-filed documents that were made in See, e.g., TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d 222, 231 (2d Cir. 2001) ("While Martindell established a general and IS SDNY_GM_00000889 CONFIDENTIAL EFTA_00114973 EFTA01263260

, on the brief), Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C., Denver, CO, for Defendant-Appellee Ghislaine Maxwell. Paul G. Cassell (Sigrid S. McCawley, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, on the brief), S.J Quinney College of Law, University of Uta • T, for Plaintiff-Appellee Andrew G. C

; the protection of attorney-client privilege, Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 125; "the danger of impairing law enforcement or judicial efficiency," SEC. v. TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d 222, 232 (2d Cir. 2001); and "the privacy interest of those who resist disclosure," id. *4 151In this case, the District Court erred