to answer numerous personal, sensitive, and allegedly incriminatory questions only after the plaintiff and the district court, through a stipulated Protective Order, guaranteed the confidentiality of her answers. As this Court has long recognized, and as this case shows, "witnesses might be expected frequently

tioners responded, "That's correct, Your Honor." (Id. at 5.) One week after the status conference, on August 21, 2008, the Court entered the agreed Protective Order, (DE26,) and the Petitioners were provided with a copy of the NPA. More than a month later, on September 25, 2008, Petitioners did not dismiss their

ial discovery material (including the two Maxwell depositions) with anyone else, including with the government and law enforcement. Faced with that Protective Order, the government issued a grand jury subpoena for Boies Schiller's file and instituted an ex parte proceeding before Chief Judge McMahon to modify t

rmation that the French Please note that this letter is governed by thill11.1. Minist of Justice rovided to the Government. Ms. is represented by Protective Order in this case. In particular, the letter is designated as "confidential" under the Protective Order. • "met Jeffrey Epstein and his partner Ghislai

tioners responded, "That's correct, Your Honor." (Id. at 5.) One week after the status conference, on August 21, 2008, the Court entered the agreed Protective Order, (DE26,) and the Petitioners were provided with a copy of the NPA. More than a month later, on September 25, 2008, Petitioners did not dismiss their

tioners responded, "That's correct, Your Honor." ( Id. at 5.) One week after the status conference, on August 21, 2008, the Court entered the agreed Protective Order, (DE26,) and the Petitioners were provided with a copy of the NPA. More than a month later, on September 25, 2008, Petitioners did not dismiss thei

the Intervenors' Motion for a Protective Confidentiality Order. [D.E. 255 at 4]. The purpose of the proposed supplement to the previously ordered Protective Order is to require that any party would be required to file under seal any portion of the plea negotiation correspondence between the Government and Eps

trict Judge Kenneth A. Marra ordered the United States to make available to identified victims a copy of the Non-Prosecution Agreement subject to a Protective Order. ag During the hearing, Judge Marra made clear that he wanted the U.S. Attorney's Office to communicate his order to all of the identified victims,

epare for OPR's interview of (c) participate fully in OPR's interview of AUSA Villafafia. Disclosure shall be limited as set forth in the attached Protective Order. To the extent that 10, 2019 Response to OPR's written questions and any drafts thereof disclosed any material that arguably referred to matters o

the Intervenors' Motion for a Protective Confidentiality Order. [D.E. 255 at 4]. The purpose of the proposed supplement to the previously ordered Protective Order is to require that any party would be required to file under seal any portion of the plea negotiation correspondence between the Government and Eps

ork March 17, 2016 Protective Order by United States District Court Judge Sweet The undersigned acknowledges that he has read the above-referenced Protective Order, a copy of which is attached, and agrees to be bound by the provisions thereof. Dated: August 3, 2016 Jeffrey Epstein EFTA_R1_00008739 EFTA01733

tioners responded, "That's correct, Your Honor." (Id. at 5.) One week after the status conference, on August 21, 2008, the Court entered the agreed Protective Order, (DE26,) and the Petitioners were provided with a copy of the NM. More than a month later, on September 25, 2008, Petitioners did not dismiss their

tioners responded, "That's correct, Your Honor." (Id. at 5.) One week after the status conference, on August 21, 2008, the Court entered the agreed Protective Order, (DE26,) and the Petitioners were provided with a copy of the NM. More than a month later, on September 25, 2008, Petitioners did not dismiss their

tioners responded, "That's correct, Your Honor." (Id. at 5.) One week after the status conference, on August 21, 2008, the Court entered the agreed Protective Order, (DE26,) and the Petitioners were provided with a copy of the NPA. More than a month later, on September 25, 2008, Petitioners did not dismiss their

rview of AUSA Villafarla; and (c) participate fully in OPR's interview of AUSA Villafaiia. Disclosure shall be limited as set forth in the attached Protective Order. To the extent that AUSA Villafafla's May 10, 2019 Response to OPR's written questions and any drafts thereof disclosed any material that arguably