Epstein Secrets

omments, which serve no compelling law enforcement or investigatory purpose, are prohibited by the local rules of this District. New York attorney David Boies and his partner Sigrid McCawley, who represent several witnesses in this matter, have also made public and presumptively prejudicial statements in

practicing in this District, generally, and lawyers for witnesses, specifically. See Rule 23.1(a) and (b). As reported by the Washington Post, Mr. Boies expressed his views on the prohibited subject of "the possibility of a plea of guilty to the offense charged or a lesser offense" in violation of s

a July 29, 2020 Page 2 courts have recognized, temporary stays of unseal orders are appropriate so that "[t]he genie is [not] out of the bottle," Gambale v. Deutsche Bank AG, 377 F.3d 133, 144 (2d Cir. 2004), before the interested parties have an opportunity to seek review of the orders. See, e.g., United Staten. Martom

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

tive order is a decision committed to the sound discretion of the trial court." TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d at 231 (internal quotation omitted); accord Gambale v. Deutsche Bank AG, 377 F.3d 133, 142 n.7 (2d Cir. 2004) ("If reliance would be unreasonable, it is within the discretion of the court to vacate or modify a protectiv

er and e-mail) Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C. Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP OPPOSING ATTORNEY: Sigrid

wn v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 2019) passim Dubose v. Pierce, 487 U.S. 1229 (1988) 15 Dubose v. Pierce, 761 F.2d 913 (2d Cir. 1985) 15 Gambale v. Deutsche Bank AG, 377 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 2004) 16 Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770 (1987) 13 Hunt v. Enzo Biochem, Inc., 904 F. Supp. 2d 337 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)

fre Action"), in order to permit the law firm of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP ("Boies Schiller") to comply

tive order is a decision committed to the sound discretion of the trial court." TheStreet Com, 273 F.3d at 231 (internal quotation omitted); accord Gambale v. Deutsche Bank AG, 377 F.3d 133, 142 n.7 (2d Cir. 2004) ("If reliance would be unreasonable, it is within the discretion of the court to vacate or modify a protectiv