Epstein Secrets

ll try to get back to you on Monday or Tuesday with an answer. Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 Main 7 EFTA00792803 In follow up conversations, Mr. Pagliuca indicated that he was unable to provide the information that Mr. Edwards was

unsuccessfully — to arrange service through the Haddon Morgan firm. For example, on May 9, 2017, co-counsel for Jane Doe 43 (Ms. Sigrid McCawley at Boies Schiller) sent an email to Mr. Pagliuca as follows (id. at 3-4): From: Sigrid McCawley Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 017 4:33 PM To: Jeff Pagliuca Subject: Servi

Cir. 2002) 13, 15, 25 Nixon a Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978) 18, 19, 20 Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) 27 Patterson v. Colorado ex rel. Attorney General of Colo., 205 U.S. 454 (1907) 28 Providence Journal Co. v. FBI, 595 F.2d 889 (1st Cir. 1979) 14, 16 S.E.C. v. TheStre

tion that it properly was a recipient of the material: [W]hatever Cooper & Kirk's intentions in requesting and obtaining the Maxwell materials from Boies Schiller, the Maxwell Protective -footnote cont'd on next page- 10 EFTA00074919 Case 20-2413, Document 10-1, 07/30/2020, 2896538, Page18 of 38 On July 23

m, New York 10590 18 BY: STAN POTTINGER, ESQUIRE 19 On Behalf of Defendant: 20 HADDON MORGAN FOREMAN 21 Attorneys for Defendant 22 Denver, Colorado 80203 BY: JEFFREY S. PAGLIUCA, ESQUIRE 23 LAURA A. MENNIGER, ESQUIRE 24 Also Present: 25 MAGNAO LEGAL SERVICES EFTA00083934 Confidential

uca and 11 Laura Menninger, on behalf of Ms. 12 Maxwell. 13 And Ms. McCawley has also entered 14 the room, and we have an assistant from 15 Boies Schiller from the Fort Lauderdale 16 office here today as well today. 17 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Will the court 18 reporter please swear in the witness. 19

ct Court Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007 Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, r.0 Ty Gee 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 PH 303.831.7364 HI 303.832.2628 www.hmtlaw.com [email protected] Re: Reconsideration of the Court's July 23 Ruling Giuffie v. Ghislaine Maxw

tion that it properly was a recipient of the material: [W]hatever Cooper & Kirk's intentions in requesting and obtaining the Maxwell materials from Boies Schiller, the Maxwell Protective Order explicitly provides that (1) discovery materials designated CONFIDENTIAL cannot be EFTA00094806 Case 1:15-cv-07433-

Bank v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 154 F.R.D. 91 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) passim EFTA00099946 Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 567 U.S. 142 (2012) Colorado v. Connelly, 51 479 U.S. 157 (1986) 139, 141, 142 Colorado v. Spring, 479 U.S. 564 (1987) 138 County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (19

The defendant's motion is, at its core, premised on a false factual narrative. The defendant alleges, based on a New York Daily News article, that Boies Schiller and the Government colluded starting in at least early 2016 with the "precise[] design[]" of having the defendant "charged with perjury." (Def. Mot

the police supply a suspect with a flow of information to help him calibrate his self- interest in deciding whether to speak or stand by his rights." Colorado v. Spring, 479 U.S. 564, 576-77 (1987) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also, e.g., id. at 577 (there is no requirement that law enforcement

Boies it was issued. The materials provided by Boies Schiller inclnin addition tIl inscripts of Maxwell and other individuals, materials proday N/14!IME lles, and court-relatedpleadings in the ase. 7. Magi

Chemical Bank v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 154 F.R.D. 91 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) passim Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 567 U.S. 142 (2012) 37 Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 (1986) 97, 98, 99 Colorado v. Spring, 479 U.S. 564 (1987) 97 County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (1998) Cru

The defendant's motion is, at its core, premised on a false factual narrative. The defendant alleges, based on a New York Daily News article, that Boies Schiller and the Government colluded 60 EFTA00095152 starting in at least early 2016 with the "precise[] design[]" of having the defendant "charged with

ct Court Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007 Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P C Ty Gee 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 PH 303.831.7364 HI 303.832.2628 www.hmllaw.com [email protected] Re: Reconsideration of the Court's July 23 Ruling Giuffie v. Ghislaine Maxw

tion that it properly was a recipient of the material: [W]hatever Cooper & Kirk's intentions in requesting and obtaining the Maxwell materials from Boies Schiller, the Maxwell Protective Order explicitly provides that (1) discovery materials designated CONFIDENTIAL cannot be EFTA00075057 Caest 131-63.403481

o do with this Florida Defamation Action; rather, he is trying to find a way to send this victim of sexual trafficking to “Jail.” “She was hiding in Colorado...but we found her and she will have to be deposed. The end * For the limited purpose of the Motion to Quash or for Protective Order and resolving t

e referenced case. His rulings are as follows: Non Party's motion to quash, or for protective order, regarding subpoena served on non party law firm Boies Schiller: | The subpoena, as to the law firm, is quashed As to the "Jane Doe #3" subpoena: The motion is granted as to request #9, 17, 18, 20 and 23. The mo

ct Court Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007 Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.0 Ty Gee 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 ni 303.831.7364 rx 303.832.2628 www.hmtlaw.com tgeefghmflaw.com Re: Reconsideration of the Court's July 23 Ruling Giuffre v. Ghislaine Max

1, 2020, the Court said it was "troubled" to learn that plaintiff's successor counsel, Cooper & Kirk, had received from plaintiff's former counsel, Boies Schiller Flexner, various discovery materials that were subject to the Protective Order. Doc.1071 at 4. The Court rejected Cooper & Kirk's suggestion that i