…11 Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, through counsel, submits this Response to plaintiff’s “Motion to Compel All Work Product and Attorney Client [sic] Communications with Philip Barden” (Doc.637). PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On February 24, 2016, we served on plaintiff’s counsel…
…as Jeffrey Epstein and Leslie Groff, cannot challenge this Court’s Protective Order. Therefore, the Court should summarily deny this motion. PROCEDURAL HISTORY On March 18, 2016, this Court entered a Protective Order (DE 62) for the privacy of the…
…Letter Motions, and grant Professor Cassell and Mr. Edward’s Motions to Appear Pro Hac Vice. I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Upon Defendant’s April 6, 2016, Letter in opposition to Professor Cassell’s Motion for Appearance Pro Hac Vice, the Court…
…Modify the Protective Order for the reasons set forth below. The Proposed Intervenors are two non-parties, Jeffrey Epstein and Leslie Groff (“Epstein Defendants”). PRELIMINARY STATEMENT PROCEDURAL HISTORY On March 18, 2016, this Court entered a Protective Order (DE 62…
… TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... ii I. …
…Defendant. West Headnotes (37) Civil Action No. 14–30211–MGM | Signed October 9, 2015 [1] Federal Courts Substance or procedur
…at 1.1 Doe 171’s motion is procedurally and substantively deficient and should be denied outright. While Doe 171 filed her letter as a “motion to seal,” it is instead clearly a motion for reconsideration governed by Local Civil…
…his case and in Maxwell allowing him access to all discovery materials and pleadings in Maxwell. Of course, if the Court prefers a different procedural route to accomplish what he requests, then Professor Dershowitz will follow the Court’s directive. …
…after January 1, 2007, is permitted and is governed by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and this Court’s Local Rule 32.1.1. When citing a summary order in a document filed with this Court, a party…
…after January 1, 2007, is permitted and is governed by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and this Court’s Local Rule 32.1.1. When citing a summary order in a document filed with this Court, a party…
…unnamed victims, Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4, moved to join as petitioners in this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21. (DE 280). Petitioners (Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2) support the Rule 21 Motion. …
…for various reasons, most of which will be apparent, e.g., the protocol did not address various substantive and procedural issues, it did not account for the Court’s rulings and comments at the January 16 status conference, and, in…
…Decl. Ex. B. The parties have been unable to reach a resolution without the need for Court intervention. I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY On February 12, 2016 Ms. Maxwell served her First Set of Discovery Requests on Plaintiff. Request Number 19…
…unnamed victims, Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4, moved to join as petitioners in this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21. ( DE 280). Petitioners ( Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2) support the Rule 21 Motion. …
…unnamed victims, Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4, moved to join as petitioners in this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21. (DE 280). Petitioners (Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2) support the Rule 21 Motion. …
…unnamed victims, Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4, moved to join as petitioners in this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21. (DE 280). Petitioners (Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2) support the Rule 21 Motion. …
…A. The USVI’s Motion to Intervene Should be Granted. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 provides for intervention as of right by anyone claiming “an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action…
…writing a letter to the court (as was the case here), insinuate itself into a private civil lawsuit between others. The proper procedure, as the government should know, was either to subpoena the deposition transcripts for use in a pending…
…without 20 access to the entirety of the record in Giuffre v. Maxwell, the 21 procedural history, but when the Second Circuit spoke with 22 regard to this issue, it was very clear that there had been no 23 effective…
…her That she relied on the Protective Order in answering questions, or refusing to answer questions, is obvious from the procedural posture of the case: • March 2, 2016 (DE 38): Defendant moved for a Protective Order, citing Plaintiff’s anticipated…
Comments