…by Plaintiff’s counsel, that their testimony would remain confidential subject to the Protective Order. Nothing further should be required. Apart from the Protocol, there are practical problems with Plaintiff’s position. First, many of the Non-Parties never received…
…to you as soon as possible, in advance of the deposition on the 22 nd. So, this is much ado about nothing, in my view. I request that the plaintiff withdraw the motion for sanctions, in light of the non…
…the unsealing of documents in this matter will not “streamline” this process—it will elongate it. Nothing currently prevents Maxwell from requesting time to appeal a ruling with the Court, as she did prior to filing her most recent appeal…
…237, at 1. There is nothing ambiguous about the January 6 Order or the Protocol in this regard. Rather, the parties advance this assertion as a precursor to asking the Court whether there is a list of Does in Maxwell…
…that took place under the guise of "massages.'' Otherwise Defendant will be able to portray to the jury an inaccurate picture of that what was happening at Epstein's house what nothing more than run-of-the-mill massage therapy…
…that took place under the guise of “massages.” Otherwise Defendant will be able to portray to the jury an inaccurate picture of that what was happening at Epstein’s house what nothing more than run-of-the-mill massage therapy…
…that took place under the guise of "massages.'' Otherwise Defendant will be able to portray to the jury an inaccurate picture of that what was happening at Epstein's house what nothing more than run-of-the-mill massage therapy…
…to people like , and other famous people are substantially true. Whether Ms. Maxwell gave Mr. Epstein a massage in 1992 has nothing to do with this case. In Conduit v. Dunn, 225 F.R.D. 100 (S.D.N.Y…
…that took place under the guise of "massages.'' Otherwise Defendant will be able to portray to the jury an inaccurate picture of that what was happening at Epstein's house what nothing more than run-of-the-mill massage therapy…
…parties who have objected, they have affirmatively stated their grounds for continuing the seal. If the one party who has posited throughout these proceedings that nothing should be sealed – namely, Plaintiff – does not oppose the objections, we submit that the …
…3552 KAMJO, 2012 WL 1078000, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2012) (noting that a forensic examination “would be duplicative, burdensome, overly broad and intrusive, likely to reveal irrelevant material, and constitute an unnecessary expense.”). Accordingly, courts are…