a <[email protected]>, Laura Menninger <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: RE: U.S. v. Ghislaine Maxwell, S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) — Response to Government's Letter re: Birth Certificates Thanks, Chris. Here are our proposed redactions. Thanks again, From: Christian Everdell <CEverdell@CohenGressercom>

From: To:' (USANYS)" (USANYS)" Subject: FW: U.S. v. Maxwell, Case No. 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) [Ms. Maxwell's Response to Government's Omnibus Motions in Limine] Date: The, 26 Oct 2021 13:08:29 +0000 Attachments: 2021.10.25_Maxwelfs_Respons_to_Government's_Omnibus_Motions_in_Limin

t include applicable reliefs. (Is) (Entered: 12/07/2012) 12/10/2012 181 Notice of Supplemental Authority in support ofJane Doe #1 and Jan Doe #2's Response to Government's Sealed Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction by Jane Doe (Edwards, Bradley) Modified on 12/11/2012 (Is). (Entered: 12/10/2012)

Page 18 of 24 further notice. (mg) (Entered: 12/07/2011) 12/07/2011 2 134 *SEALED* Sealed Document Supplemental Response Regarding Remedies in Response to Government's Sealed Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (mg) (Entered: 12/07/2011) 12/07/2011 SYSTEM ENTRY - Docket Entry 134 [raise] res

e of material protected by Rule 6(e), both of which are remedies which the plaintiffs have said they are seeking. See Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's Response to Government's Sealed Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Doc. 127 at 14. If plaintiffs still intend to pursue the remedy of invalidating M

e of material protected by Rule 6(e), both of which are remedies which the plaintiffs have said they are seeking. See Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's Response to Government's Sealed Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Doc. 127 at 14. While according due respect to Judge Marra's prior opinions indic

standing to argue that rescission of the non- prosecution agreement would violate Mr. Epstein's constitutional rights. Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's Response to Government's Sealed Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Doc. 127) at 11. II. PERMISSIVE INTERVENTION. The Court need not reach the issu

standing to argue that rescission of the non- prosecution agreement would violate Mr. Epstein's constitutional rights. Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's Response to Government's Sealed Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Doc. 127) at 11. II. PERMISSIVE INTERVENTION. The Court need not reach the issu