Epstein Secrets

ence methodologies." E.E.O.C. v. Bloomberg L.P., No. 07-CV-8383 (LAP), 2010 WL 3466370, at *13-14 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2010) (quoting United States v. Simmons, 470 F.3d 1115, 1123 (5th Cir. 2006)). IL Discussion As a preliminary matter, the Defense argues that the additional materials filed by the Gove

t offer "testimony regarding any specific victim." Dkt. No. 386 at 3. The Defense has the law backwards on this point. As explained above regarding the Second Circuit's Nimely decision, an expert may not testify as to a specific witness's credibility. 414 F.3d at 398. And as other courts have explained in admitting

om) Jay M. Wolman ([email protected]) s/ Nicole Simmons 26 EFTA00791895

at the district court (or the appellees) unjustifiably delayed resolution of the unseal motions and its abuse of discretion in failing to adhere to the Second Circuit's "clear[]"3 precedent. We respectfully submit that neither conclusion warrants the extraordinary action being contemplated by the panel. A. The dist

re convinced that "reasons clearly existed for taking the other course." Lewis v. Bloomsburg Mills, Inc., 773 F.2d 561, 564 (4th Cir. 1985); accord Simmons v. Poe, 47 F.3d 1370, 1382 (4th Cir. 1995). 2. An appellate court must be even more careful in reviewing any factual findings underlying the distr

ntiary standard leaves this circuit alone on an island. The Brown I majority suggested that its lenient view of the necessary evidence aligned with the Second Circuit's decision in Caridad v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad, 191 F.3d 283 (2d Cir. 1999). See Brown I, 576 F.3d at 157 (citing Caridad, 191 F.3d at 293).

reet, 14th Floor Iarford m CT 06103 /s/ Nicole Simmons Nicole Simmons 22 EFTA00074985 CaesR29411403

re "unjustified obstacles" or that the public will never have access to these documents -- reflect unjustified criticisms of the Protocol itself and the Second Circuit's decision in Brown, both of which fairly outline the legal process for parties and Non-Parties alike to be heard with respect to unsealing. Notably,

This Time. via ECF on the following: Is/ Nicole Simmons Nicole Simmons 2 EFTA00075006 Casqakigiegota

19) (emphasis supplied; footnote omitted; quoting United States v. Amodeo, 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995) ("Amodeo r')). Amodeo I, the inception of the Second Circuit's principle that a file stamp is not a judicial-document talisman, is instructive. There an appointed Court Officer tasked parties; DE 204-1 referenc

f the filing to all parties of record. hi Nicole Simmons 2 EFTA00076390 Case Gaga4.407741333-IDARn-Off

Cr. 330 (AJN) (the "Criminal Action"). The information implicates Ms. Maxwell's right to due process and fairness in this civil action and affects the Second Circuit's review of the Court's unsealing order of July 23, 2020. Additionally, the information implicates her rights as a criminal defendant guaranteed unde

to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification." Id. at 238-39; see Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98,112-14 (1977); Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 384 (1968). Federal courts follow a two-step analysis in ruling on the admissibility of identification evidence. P

nment to identify the co-conspirator statements it plans to use at trial in its initial round of pretrial motions. There, the defendant argued that the Second Circuit's practice of conditional admission of co-conspirator statements at trial would prejudice her because "any cautionary instruction would be of doubtful

ence methodologies." E.E.O.C. v. Bloomberg L.P., No. 07-CV-8383 (LAP), 2010 WL 3466370, at *13-14 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2010) (quoting United States v. Simmons, 470 F.3d 1115, 1123 (5th Cir. 2006)). IL Discussion As a preliminary matter, the Defense argues that the additional materials filed by the Gove

t offer "testimony regarding any specific victim." Dkt. No. 386 at 3. The Defense has the law backwards on this point. As explained above regarding the Second Circuit's Nimely decision, an expert may not testify as to a specific witness's credibility. 414 F.3d at 398. And as other courts have explained in admitting

ence methodologies." E.E.O.C. v. Bloomberg L.P., No. 07-CV-8383 (LAP), 2010 WL 3466370, at *13-14 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2010) (quoting United States v. Simmons, 470 F.3d 1115, 1123 (5th Cir. 2006)). IL Discussion As a preliminary matter, the Defense argues that the additional materials filed by the Gove

t offer "testimony regarding any specific victim." Dkt. No. 386 at 3. The Defense has the law backwards on this point. As explained above regarding the Second Circuit's Nimely decision, an expert may not testify as to a specific witness's credibility. 414 F.3d at 398. And as other courts have explained in admitting