Epstein Secrets

ided Motions. 19 EFTA00075046 CasqaP.1§46t43g-tAltneattarheAFM6804146§k4,26aIniAeL436f 24 Dated: June 24, 2020 20 Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Sigrid S. McCawley Sigrid S. McCawley Counsel for Plaintiji EFTA00075047 caceangfeA1743g ccArelicatiileit7gSrogef0Filgied§(24PagePaO ilof 7 Exhibit A Plaintiff's

2020 20 Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Sigrid S. McCawley Sigrid S. McCawley Counsel for Plaintiji EFTA0

o see how [Maxwell] can reasonably argue that [she] produced documents in reliance on the fact that the documents would always be kept secret." See Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 125. Contrary to Maxwell's argument, Brown is of no help to her here and does not support keeping Maxwell's deposition under seal in i

tive order is an umbrella protective order that "specifically contemplates that relief from the provisions of the order may be sought at any time." Lugosch, 435 at 125; ECF No. 62 fill, 14. Maxwell cannot use such an umbrella order to shield the entirety of her deposition from the public. "Given this pr

Circuit squarely addressed and rejected the argument Maxwell currently makes in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). In Lugosch, "[t]he district court suggested that [a] 10 EFTA00075037 CasqaPIRWM43P4AlaleDiggrfieAnag041401§/234,26a1PaiAcif53tif 24 confidentiality order w

Ty Gee (Adam Mueller, 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 Andr

e Ghislaine Maxwell. Paul G. Cassell (Sigrid S. McCawley, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, Ft. Lauderdale, FL,

narrowly tailored to achieve that aim."I3 12 Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 121 (2d Cir. 2006). We observe that our holding in Lugosch relies on the general principle that parties may "be assumed to have supported their papers with admissible evidence and non-frivolous arguments."

" Id. at 122. Insofar as a district court has, through striking a filing, specifically found that assumption inapplicable, the categorical rule in Lugosch may not apply. See notes 42-43 and accompanying text, post. 13 Id. at 124. Examples of such countervailing values may include, depending on the c

ueller, on the brief), 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

ll. 3 EFTA00092310 PAUL G. CASSELL (Sigrid S. McCawley, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, Ft. Lauderdale, FL,

g order is narrowly tailored to achieve that aim."13 " Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, 814 F.3d 132, 139 (2d Cir. 2016). 12 Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 121 (2d Cir. 2006). We observe that our holding in Lugosch relies on the general principle that parties ma

ann LLP, 814 F.3d 132, 139 (2d Cir. 2016). 12 Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 121 (2d Cir. 2006). We observe that our holding in Lugosch relies on the general principle that parties may "be assumed to have supported their papers with admissible evidence and non- frivolous arguments."

United States District Court for the Sigrid S. McCawley Southern District of New York (smccawley@bsfllp

—and the Court in its Order to Show Cause—rested heavily on Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). With respect, neither Lugosch nor any of the other 6 EFTA00791875 Case 18-2868, Document 141, 03/15/2019, 2519388, Page8 of 27 Second Circuit cases supports the position the

the parties. The Order to Show Cause rests on a number of premises that we respectfully submit are flawed. As the Court noted in the Order, under Lugosch a" strong presumption of access" attaches to documents submitted to a court for its consideration in a summary judgment motion. Doc.138 at 2. But a

. 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: LAURA A. MENNINGER 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.

on to compel defendant to answer deposition questions. Unseal subject to the caveat which I won't keep saying. 144. Plaintiff's declaration of Ms. McCawley in support of the motion. Unseal. 144-1. Exhibit 1. Page 21 of Ms. Maxwell's April 22, 2016 deposition. Unseal. 144-2. Additional pages of Ms. Ma

e minimally redacted material was subject to a "strong presumption" of access under the First Amendment and the common law. Id. at 47 & n.12 (citing Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 121-22). The deposition material at issue here, however, was not submitted to the district court in connection with summary judgment

m managingclerksoffice@cohengressercom Sigrid S. McCawley smccawleyBbsfIlp.com NYC Managing Clerk@bsfIlp.

et on or before November 22, 2021, and to justify any requested redactions by reference to the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 11/19/21)(jw) 1:20-cr-00330-AJN-1 Notice has been elec

nford L. Bohrer, Esq. Counsel for Plaintiff : BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP, 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1200, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301, By: Sigrid S. McCawley, Esq., Meredith L. Schultz, Esq., BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP, 333 Main Street, Armonk, NY 10504, By: David Boies, Esq., EDWARDS POTTINGLER LLC, 4

te 1200, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301, By: Sigrid S. McCawley, Esq., Meredith L. Schultz, Esq., BOIES SCHILLER

008) (finding that where classified information presented at trial, if disclosed, would jeopardize national security weighed against public access); Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) (existence of confidentiality order alone did not defeat presumption of public access); Hanf