…24, 2015 3:36 AM To: G Max; Ph ilip Ba rden Subject: VR cried rape - prior case dismissed as pmsecutors found her 'not credible' Ghislaine Some helpful leakage ... Defendant has been liberal with her own confidentiality designations. In fact…
…No. 1108. The Parties met and conferred on July 26, and discussed ways in which the sealing process can proceed more efficiently. The Parties therefore present the following options to the Court. Plaintiff’s Proposal At the July 1, 2021…
…the materials. The Court provided details of those additional redactions to the parties by email. As the Court has discussed in prior orders, the relevant materials shall be posted on the docket no later than 9:00 a.m. on…
…For reasons having to do with the legal bases for sealing and redacting non-judicial and judicial documents, discussed later in this letter, this was not a project that could be performed by non-lawyers or by lawyers who did…
…able to review Plaintiff’s proposed redactions, however, and each concluded that they sufficiently obscured information such that the public would not be able to identify the nonparty being discussed. In any event, Maxwell’s vague and ambiguous reference to…
…of the materials at issue here will unfairly prejudice Ms. Maxwell’s rights to a fair trial by poisoning any venire and influencing witness testimony. For reasons discussed below, the Court should decline to unseal the identified Sealed Items. I…
…referenced as having some affiliation with or knowledge of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, on the other. As discussed in more detail below, the former group can maintain privacy by narrowly redacting information that would identify those who have not…
…UNSEALED 15, 16, 16‐ 1, 23, 24, 14 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss 12.1.15 37 2.29.16 25, 26, 26‐ 1, 29…
…to modify the protective order entered in this action in order to unseal particular documents submitted in connection with the motion of defendant Ghislaine Maxwell (" Maxwell " or the "Defendant") for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint of plaintiff Virginia L …
…172, Maxwell contends that all redactions should remain in place because the document contains “references” to her deposition testimony and a Non-Party’s deposition testimony, and she cites the same countervailing interests discussed in Part IV, supra. Maxwell Mem…
… Then, of course, as 20 we discussed, as is discussed in the proposed revised protocol, 21 then after the non-parties respond -- if they do -- then you 22 would have an opportunity to put in your countervailing 23 interests. So…
…2019) (Kaplan, J.) (just because “some information relating to the documents in question already has been discussed on the public record or reported in the media does not 1 CRL § 50-b(1) requires public officials to ensure that “[t…
…just because "some information relating to 4 the documents in question already has been discussed on the 5 public record or reported in the media does not mean that the 6 concerned third parties have lost any remaining privacy 7…
…just because "some information relating to 4 the documents in question already has been discussed on the 5 public record or reported in the media does not mean that the 6 concerned third parties have lost any remaining privacy 7…
…the Court notes that Ms. Maxwell has primarily raised issues related to nonparties named in Doe 1’s and Ms. Maxwell’s depositions. As discussed in the Court’s July 29 Order (dkt. no. 1079), those deposition transcripts and documents…
…file them. 15 Someone could file a complaint making a bunch of 16 allegations just to get it in a newspaper and the allegations 17 aren't true and they take a dismissal after the newspaper 18 humiliates a defendant…
…and therefore, at most, begin with a presumption of public access “somewhat lower than the presumption applied to material introduced at trial, or in connection with dispositive motions such as motions for dismissal or summary judgment.” Brown v. Maxwell, 929…
…appropriate to protect not only its own interest in covering this case, but also to protect the interests of the public at large. 2.0 Analysis As discussed herein, there is no proper basis to deny Movant access to the…
…book. This reference to evidence is otherwise discussed in publicly available articles and even the public docket entries in this case. 2 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 833 Filed 04/05/17 Page 3 of 4 Similarly…
…her). If the government’s conduct was unlawful and unconstitutional, as Ms. Maxwell contends it was, Judge Nathan can suppress the evidence and dismiss the perjury counts, as Ms. Maxwell argues she should.1 There is nothing improper, as the…
Comments