Epstein Secrets

l servitude. Id., 11 97. CICO action Defendants Great St. Jim, LLC and Nautilus, Inc.—for which CICO action Defendants and Epstein Estate Executors Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn served, respectively, as Secretary and Treasurer—knowingly participated in the Epstein Enterprise and facilitated the trafficking a

n Defendants and Epstein Estate Executors Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn served, respectively, as Secreta

O action Defendants and Epstein Estate Executors Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn served, respectively, as

e in the grant of the order or some extraordinary circumstance or compelling need.' SEC v. TheStreet.com, 273 F.3d 222, 229 (2d Cir. 2001) (quoting Martindell v. IT&T Corp., 594 F.2d 291, 296 (2d Cir. 1979)). Here, two 11 EFTA00073270 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1111 Filed 09/01/20 Page 12 of 14 ci

l servitude. Id., 11 97. CICO action Defendants Great St. Jim, LLC and Nautilus, Inc.—for which CICO action Defendants and Epstein Estate Executors Darren Indyke and erved, respectively, as Secretary and Treasurer—knowingly participated in the Epstein Enterprise and facilitated the trafficking and sexual se

n Defendants and Epstein Estate Executors Darren Indyke and erved, respectively, as Secretary and Treas

O action Defendants and Epstein Estate Executors Darren Indyke and erved, respectively, as Secretary and

e in the grant of the order or some extraordinary circumstance or compelling need.' SEC v. TheStreet.com, 273 F.3d 222, 229 (2d Cir. 2001) (quoting Martindell v. IT&T Corp., 594 F.2d 291, 296 (2d Cir. 1979)). Here, two 11 EFTA00077321 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1111 Filed 09/01/20 Page 12 of 14 ci

ved to intervene and to stay discovery in Doe v. Indyke, a civil case in which Jane Doe alleges that Epst

argument. As Ms. Maxwell said in her opening brief: The civil case is not the appropriate forum to litigate the government's apparent violation of Martindell. Ms. Maxwell intends to make that argument to Judge Nathan in the criminal case. But if Judge Preska's unsealing order is affirmed and Ms. Maxwell'

to intervene and stay the proceedings in Doe v. Indyke, No. 20 Civ. 484 (JGK), while the Government has

74 8. Unsealing of Maxwell's Depositions 74 9. The New York Daily News Article 75 B. The Defendant's Suppression Motion Should Be Denied 76 1. Martindell Provides No Basis to Grant the Relief the Defendant Seeks 76 a. Applicable Law 76 b. Discussion 79 2. Maxwell's Fourth Amendment Claim Fails 8

to intervene and stay the proceedings in Doe v. Indyke, No. 20 Civ. 484 (JGK), while the Government has

4 8. Unsealing of Maxwell's Depositions. 74 9. The New York Daily News Article 75 B. The Defendant's Suppression Motion Should Be Denied 76 1. Martindell Provides No Basis to Grant the Relief the Defendant Seeks 76 a. Applicable Law 76 b. Discussion 79 2. Maxwell's Fourth Amendment Claim Fails 8

to intervene and stay the proceedings in Doe v. Indyke, No. 20 Civ. 484 (JGK), while the Government has

74 8. Unsealing of Maxwell's Depositions 74 9. The New York Daily News Article 75 B. The Defendant's Suppression Motion Should Be Denied 76 1. Martindell Provides No Basis to Grant the Relief the Defendant Seeks 76 a. Applicable Law 76 b. Discussion 79 2. Maxwell's Fourth Amendment Claim Fails 8

to intervene and stay the proceedings in Doe v. Indyke, No. 20 Civ. 484 (JGK), while the Government has

74 8. Unsealing of Maxwell's Depositions 74 9. The New York Daily News Article 75 B. The Defendant's Suppression Motion Should Be Denied 76 1. Martindell Provides No Basis to Grant the Relief the Defendant Seeks 76 a. Applicable Law 76 b. Discussion 79 2. Maxwell's Fourth Amendment Claim Fails 8

to intervene and stay the proceedings in Doe v. Indyke, No. 20 Civ. 484 (JGK), while the Government has

74 8. Unsealing of Maxwell's Depositions 74 9. The New York Daily News Article 75 B. The Defendant's Suppression Motion Should Be Denied 76 1. Martindell Provides No Basis to Grant the Relief the Defendant Seeks 76 a. Applicable Law 76 b. Discussion 79 2. Maxwell's Fourth Amendment Claim Fails 8

--- TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Appeal ofHughes, 633 F.2d 282 (3d Cir. 1980) 2 Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018). 2, 3 Doe v. Indyke, Case No., 20-cv-00484 (S.D.N.Y.) 6 Giuffre v. Maxwell, 325 F. Supp. 3d 428 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) 6 Matter of Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Feb

re v. Maxwell, No. 15-cv-07433-RWS, Transcript, Apr. 21, 2016 EFTA00019001 --- 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

g modification of the Protective Order absent "good cause shown following notice to all parties and an opportunity for them to be heard"). Second, Martindell affords Maxwell a reasonable expectation of privacy. Martindell, 594 F.2d at 294. In Martindell, the Second Circuit held that "the proper procedure"