U.S. DEP’T OF Justice, http://goo.gl/6H6IEk (last visited Dec. 4, 2013). HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014073 --- PAGE BREAK --- 2014] CRIME VICTIMS’ RIGHTS 95 Circuit’s 2008 ruling in In Re Dean, which held that the CVRA extends rights to victims before defendants are charged.”°' We have not seen any reports that p

nth Circuit rebuked a trial judge for permitting an attorney for the bombing victims to participate in oral argument at a sentencing hearing. !*7 The Circuit stated that "in the absence of any authority permitting the participation of victims’ counsel, we harbor concerns about the propriety of the district

s.” R.2140, 1-2, 13. On February 4, 2009, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority bringing to the district court’s attention the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Boim v. Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, 549 F.3d 685, 693 (7th Cir. 2008 (en banc) (Boim IID). R. 2156. In its decisio

576-77 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (“district courts in this Circuit ‘generally grant the extraordinary remedy of a st

ts have recognized a narrow exception to the rule that the assertion of the privilege must be to each specific question. The Courts, including this Circuit, acknowledged "an exception . . . (where,) based on its knowledge of the case and of the testimony expected from the witness, (the trial court) can

irtually dispositive. See, e.g., Sterling Nat’l Bank v. A-1 Hotels Internat’l, 175 F. Supp. 2d 573, 576-77 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (“district courts in this Circuit ‘generally grant the extraordinary remedy of a stay only after the defendant seeking a stay has been indicted.’” (quoting Citibank, N.A. v. Hakim, 19

ever, the statute does not state, as you assert, that where the media seeks grand jury riiaterials based upori its constitutional standing, which the Circuit Court acknowledged at the June 2, 2020 hearing includes The Palm Beach Post, that the statutory GreenbergTraurig, P.A; | Attorneys at Law 5100 Town C

However, the statute does not state, as you assert, that where the media seeks grand jury materials based upon its constitutional standing, which the Circuit Court acknowledged at the June 2, 2020 hearing includes The Palm Beach Post, that the statutory Greenberg Traurig. P.A. | Attorneys at Law 5100 Town

tective order to exclude notes, testimony and materials which were product of grand jury presentation regarding death of decedent in county jail. The Circuit Court, Palm Beach County, Mary E. Lupo, J., granted the protective order, and the personal representative petitioned for writ of common-law certiorar

ever, the statute does riot state, as you assert, that where the media seeks grand jury materials based upon, its; constitutional standing, which the Circuit Court acknowledged at the June 2, 2020 hearing includes ThePalm Beach Post, that the statutory Greenberg Traurigj PA. | Attorneys at Law 5100 Town Ce

nd Jurors of the State of-Florida, inquiring^ Beach, upon their oaths do present that JEFFREYX. EPSTEIN in> the County of Palm Beach aforesaid, inthe Circuit and State. aforesaid, COUNT ONE •FELONY SOLICITATION OF PROSTITUTION On or aboutor betweemthe 1 st day of August in the year.of our Lord Two' Thousan

nitor the company’s confidential e-mails. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision to draw an adverse inference. The Circuit explained that “[t]he decision to invoke the Fifth Amendment does not have to be consequence-free.” Id. Instead, a court need only avoid “an undue

party to that correspondence.” Id. at 325. The Circuit further explained that the government’s subpoena

xplained that “the government must have known of the existence of documents . . . because it was a party to that correspondence.” Id. at 325. The Circuit further explained that the government’s subpoena need not “name every scrap of paper that is produced. Because the government already had sufficien

secution agreement binds offices of the United States Attorney that are not parties to the agreement. This position is at odds with the law in this Circuit, which presumes a narrow reading of the boundaries of a plea agreement unless a defendant can affirmatively establish that a more expansive interpre

stent with prior decisions in the Second Circuit and common law privacy rights of individuals. This language has been adopted by magistrates in this Circuit for civil cases. 3. We have removed the category of "Highly Confidential." If there is a category of documents that think warrants separate treatm

o: MM. .S" Subject: RE: Unsealing Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2020 17:48:17 +0000 Yeah, that's what all this week's fighting with Boies has been about. The Circuit has now given them until the 20th to brief it, I think, so we can ask Boies about this in advance, but the documents have victim names redacted, fo

otective order or sealing order and provides information in discovery, the information must remain sealed. This is incorrect. First, courts in this Circuit have routinely ordered unsealing of documents in cases with protective orders or confidentiality provisions. See, e.g., Gambale v. Deutsche Bank AG,

ation. She should be treated like any other defendant who comes before this Court, including as to bail. Under the Bail Reform Act, case law in this Circuit and other circuits, as well as decisions of this Court, Ms. Maxwell should be released on bail, subject to the strict conditions proposed below. E

fendant's financial status may be presented to the jury during the first phase of the trial by either of the parties to this action. And the Second Circuit says that that's the preferred method. Mr. Cassell, I think, knowing that he's losing this battle, then tries to SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.