…¶ 49. Once they arrived, though, they were sexually abused, exploited, and held captive. Id. By way of background, Epstein’s privately-owned islands in the Virgin Islands were essential to the sex-trafficking enterprise. Little St. James is a secluded…
…1999. .................................... 56 2. The January 2015 statement accurately denied that Ms. Maxwell “regularly participate[d] in Epstein’s sexual exploitation of minors” and that “the Government knows” such fact. ..................…
…to raise similar objections. Professor Dershowitz has explained that he is prepared to abide by any applicable court order subject only to reserving the right to seek relief from the Court as to particular items if appropriate, a right which…
…to learn that this clash of the legal titans has been averted, preventing the allegations on all sides from being explored in greater depth in open court. UPDATE (4/9/2016, 10:55 a.m.): Here is the statement of…
…DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 31 Filed 01/28/16 Page 3 of 22 3 G1ETGIUA 1 statements that are referenced but never explained in 2 paragraphs 31 and 34?…
…the scandalous and intimate activities described in most or all of the Confidential Records.” Id. at 3. That is also untrue. As the Court explained in its November 18, 2022, ruling, Doe 171 filed a federal lawsuit against Julie Brown…
…or at a minimum, warrants allowing an independent third party to conduct a forensic review of all of Defendant’s electronic data as explained further herein. I. DEFENDANT’S UNDISCLOSED ACCOUNT 1 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document…
…and because it is anticipated that confidential matters will be discussed. Ms. Giuffre requests expedited consideration of these materials. As the Court recalls, in her opposition to Bradley J. Edward’s pro hac vice motion, Defendant briefly mentioned that Edwards…
…19/20 Page 3 of 13 criminal matter, this Court held, “[a]gain, Ms. Maxwell has relied on [ipse] dixits and has not explained how the sealed material, if released, could, as she posits, ‘inappropriately influence potential witnesses or victims.’”…
…1999. .................................... 56 2. The January 2015 statement accurately denied that Ms. Maxwell “regularly participate[d] in Epstein’s sexual exploitation of minors” and that “the Government knows” such fact. ..................…
…the Court could take expedited briefing on DE 143 and its related pleadings and rule on any Non- Party objections that were interposed to unsealing their names in that set of documents. This would require amending the Order and Protocol…
…would either enable or require her to do so.” Id. Plaintiff never responded. She also has not explained when or how Ms. Maxwell “acknowledged” her “plans to call Mr. Gow for testimony at trial,” nor why that is relevant to…
…of modification. As the court in EDPM explained: An examination of Second Circuit case law reveals the following factors are relevant when determining whether a party has reasonably relied on the protective order: (1) the scope of the protective order;…
…The government has not provided Maxwell with a copy of the subpoena, but the record shows that the subpoena was incredibly broad and, as explained below, ultimately unlawful. The subpoena violated the Fourth Amendment because it was overbroad and because…
…frequently was the case, numerous interests could be identified sufficient to rebut the presumption of access. The three counsel of record completed this project within the time constraints imposed by the Court in this expedited proceeding. That is not a…
…Id. at 3. As was explained in Plaintiff’s previous submission filed on January 12, 2022, opposing the first tranche of non-party objections, the Court is not charged with making a decision on the credibility of deponents or of…
…emphasis added). And the Court has explained in no uncertain terms that parties were justified in their expectation that the Protective Order would not be modified “for purposes external to the lawsuit in which it was entered.” Id. at 12…
…their entirety. Asked to explain how those materials came into the firm’s possession, attorneys from Cooper & Kirk explained that they had obtained access to the materials because Ms. Giuffre retained them “both to represent her in [Giuffre v. Dershowitz…
…13 at 1–2. Nor did Judge McMahon need to impose obligations on the Government; as she explained: “the fact that the request comes from a grand jury, whose proceedings are by law conducted in secret, … gives Maxwell[3…
…documents related to Jeffrey Epstein. See DE 679, It also quotes from Doe 1’s prior sworn statements and testimony, which he explained earlier, e.g., Given Doe 1’s further explanations, which are no…
Comments