Browse by Document Type
Court Filings (12,056 documents)
Case 20-3061, Document 82, 10/02/2020, 2944267, Page36 of 37
30
CONCLUSION
The District Court’s order denying Maxwell’s
motion to modify the Protective Order should be
affirmed.
Dated: |New York,
Case 20-3061, Document 82, 10/02/2020, 2944267, Page30 of 37
24
does not suggest that Judge Nathan committed legal
error when issuing the Order denying her motion.
Second, Judge Nathan did not abus
Case 20-3061, Document 82, 10/02/2020, 2944267, Page25 of 37
19
Maxwell nevertheless argues that reversal of the
Order is necessary to prevent documents in a civil case
from being unsealed. As furth
Case 20-3061, Document 82, 10/02/2020, 2944267, Page23 of 37
17
“issue is finally resolved and is independent of the is-
sues to be tried, and the order becomes moot if review
awaits conviction and
Case 20-3061, Document 82, 10/02/2020, 2944267, Page22 of 37
16
judgment appeal whether publicity biased trial ju-
rors); United States v. Nelson, 277 F.3d 164, 201-04,
213 (2d Cir. 2002) (vacating
Case 20-3061, Document 82, 10/02/2020, 2944267, Page20 of 37
14
protective order’); Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 46
(2d Cir. 2019) (third party intervenors, including mem-
bers of the press, appea
Case 20-3061, Document 82, 10/02/2020, 2944267, Page19 of 37
13
opening brief, Maxwell concedes that her appeal of the
Order does not concern one of the four types of pretrial
orders that the Suprem
Case 20-3061, Document 82, 10/02/2020, 2944267, Page16 of 37
10
The Supreme Court has made clear that the collat-
eral order exception should be “interpreted ... with the
utmost strictness in crimin
Case 20-3061, Document 82, 10/02/2020, 2944267, Page13 of 37
opportunity to do so in her pretrial motions in the
criminal case before Judge Nathan. (A. 93-94).
D. Judge Nathan’s Order
On September
Case 20-3061, Document 82, 10/02/2020, 2944267, Page14 of 37
with the appeal currently pending in Giuffre v. Max-
well, No. 20-2418. (2d Cir. Dkt. 17). The Government
is not a party to the appeal in
Case 20-3061, Document 82, 10/02/2020, 2944267, Page of 37
charging Maxwell in six counts. (A. 4).! On July 2,
2020, Maxwell was arrested and the original indict-
ment was unsealed. (A. 4). On July 8
Case 20-3061, Document 82, 10/02/2020, 2944267, Page10 of 37
in discovery in the criminal case. (A. 75-86). The Pro-
tective Order expressly provides that any and all dis-
covery material produced to
Case 20-3061, Document 82, 10/02/2020, 2944267, Page8 of 37
girls by, among other things, helping Epstein to re-
cruit, groom, and ultimately abuse minor victims. The
Indictment further alleges that
Case 20-3061, Document 77, 09/30/2020, 2941292, Page‘ of 1
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE FOR SUBSTITUTE, ADDITIONAL, OR AMICUS COUNSEL
Short Title: United States v. Maxwell Docket No.: 20-3061
Substitute, Ad
Case 20-3061, Document 82, 10/02/2020, 2944267, Page’ of 37
20-3061
To Be Argued By:
LARA POMERANTZ
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
Docket No. 20-3061
—————saal-+-¢-¢ f=
UN
Case 20-3061, Document 69, 09/28/2020, 2940206, Page15 of 15
Respectfully submitted,
s/ Adam Mueller
Ty Gee
Adam Mueller
HADDON, MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C.
150 East 10th Avenue
Denver, CO 80203
T
Case 20-3061, Document 69, 09/28/2020, 2940206, Page14 of 15
with the benefit of knowing what everyone else knows will become moot once the
deposition material is unsealed (as this Court already reco
Case 20-3061, Document 69, 09/28/2020, 2940206, Page12 of 15
is that, unless the unsealing order is reversed, she likely won’t be able to “properly
litigate” the Martindell issue at all.
Nor is this
Case 20-3061, Document 69, 09/28/2020, 2940206, Page6 of 15
In Flanagan v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that an order
disqualifying criminal counsel pretrial was not immediately appealable
Case 20-3061, Document 69, 09/28/2020, 2940206, Paged of 15
Ms. Maxwell asks is for permission to share, under seal, the relevant facts with
another Article III judge.
The government argues there is
Case 20-3061, Document 69, 09/28/2020, 2940206, Page3 of 15
other unsealing requests and Ms. Maxwell’s intended motion to stay the unsealing
process, all without the benefit of knowing information re
Case 20-3061, Document 69, 09/28/2020, 2940206, Page2 of 15
Background
This appeal challenges the district court’s order denying Ms. Maxwell’s
motion to modify the protective order. Ms. Maxwell’s li
Case 20-3061, Document 69, 09/28/2020, 2940206, Page of 15
20-3061
United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff-Appellee,
—against—
GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
De
Case 20-3061, Document 68, 09/28/2020, 2940170, Page‘ of 1
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE
SECOND CIRCUIT
At a Stated Term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held a
Case 20-3061, Document 63, 09/24/2020, 2938282, Page6 of 6
Certificate of Compliance
Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32(g) and Rule 27(d)(2)(A), the
undersigned counsel hereby certifies th
Case 20-3061, Document 63, 09/24/2020, 2938282, Page4 of 6
redacted copy of her response to the government’s opposition to the motion to
consolidate.
Appendix Volume 2, however, cannot be redacted s
Case 20-3061, Document 63, 09/24/2020, 2938282, Page1 of 6
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse 40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007 Telephone: 212-85
Case 20-3061, Document 63, 09/24/2020, 2938282, Page3 of 6
yesterday). Ms. Maxwell also requests leave to be excused from publicly filing a
redacted version of Appendix Volume 2 on ECF. As grounds fo
Case 20-3061, Document 63, 09/24/2020, 2938282, Page2 of 6
20-3061
United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
—against —
GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
Case 20-3061, Document 62, 09/24/2020, 2938281, Page‘ of 2
20-3061
United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff-Appellee,
— against —
GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
Case DORESO0BSOUNIENt DocOMAALSE 0 FACE RI04 0g Pagoitid . ;
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
el
SEP 04 2020
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff, S.D.N.Y. - APPEALS
Vv.
G
Cae POOL O0BSOuANENt DocOmeh Ae 0 Fuedsis0sRagehagenl 3
My) Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, p.c
Jeffrey Pagliuca
HADDON
pene aceite 150 East 10th Avenue
FOREMAN Denver, Colorado 80203
PH 303.831.7364 F
Case PACE ONBSOANENt DocOReA Aa 0 Fued S02 Rag erage? 1B
The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
August 17, 2020
Page 7
Further, and as this Court knows, ample Second Circuit authority supports staying a civ
Came 200206 00BB0AUENt DocUMeAAS 0 Filed DS02 Rag eR ager ts
Page 2
> The items to be referred to (and not filed) are confidential:
accordingly, referring to them under seal in the Other Matters wil
Came POBCEONBSOuENt DocOReAIAa 0 Fued S902 ager agent iB
USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #;
DATE FILED: 9/2/20 Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, Pp.c
Jeffrey Pagliuca
HADDON
MORGA = 150 E
Come 2OGO6 O0BB0iAdeNt DocORAA ANP 0 Fxed B02 Rag eh Agel iS
USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT |
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DATE FILED:__ 9/2/20
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
United
Cased ZB acl S 20s ANTE (dc Wher 402 FIER ES AOL /Pagéeagefsl ab4
Honorable Alison J. Nathan
August 21, 2020
Page 3
Here, even assuming the materials at issue constitute judicial documents, any pres
Casecl ZDAPCOSBOs ATE (ido MB Gt/ 402 CiRAB68EOL/Pagéagefil ab4
U.S. Department of Justice
United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
The Silvio J. Mollo Building
One Saint Andrew's Plaza
Case POSE ONBSOANeNt DocORehi202 0 FOG S692 1 ager aged ia
Honorable Alison J. Nathan
August 21, 2020
Page 4
Finally, the Government respectfully proposes that the Court set a date approximately 180
Cased ADAH SB0s AT en dc WHE 302 CF iRABS2A80/Pageewelleo2
USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT hit ieee 3.5, 7 aa
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DATE FILED://30/2020
C&sxs@:20-60603B0-AuNenDOtunteAd B® 2 Fila 2878 0/20a ge gent its
USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT tp nee
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DATE FILED:7/30/2020_
ee ee
CaSede220eBOOBI0kUNe Dict Mr? B2-42 OF RES O7828/20g Paget 1 Ob 12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
~- eee eee ett LL
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
-v.-
GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
Defe
Casedl ADAH SROs Aden (ide WH Eit/ 362 CF iRAB62A18/Peg Raxyef7l 867
The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
July 28, 2020
Page 7
of such materials provided by the defendant to the Government. But there is n
Casecl ADAP SROs ATEN (dc MH Ert/ 362 Ci 6 2A18/Peg Retyefil 867
U.S. Department of Justice
United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
The Silvio J. Mollo Building
One Saint Andrew's Plaz
CaGede22Q0eROOBI0o8UINe Dot Mer? 29-42 OF R88 078277 20g Fagef 4 2 13
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ote tt te tt tL
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA [PROPOSED ]
PROTECTIVE ORDER
Casecl ZDAPCOOSB0s ATE (ido WB Ert/ 202 FiRAB6 ZR /PagPiigefil ab4
COHEN & GRESSER LLP
Mark S. Cohen
+1 (212) 957-7600
[email protected]
Christian R. Everdell
+1 (212) 957-7600
cevetdell@coh
CAsedl ADAP FSBOs tid MAG 262 F iRABOZAB/ POF Ute
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED |
DOC #: ;
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DATE FILED:7/23/2020
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
United States of America,
Casecl ZDAHCO SROs Aden tide WR Et/ 202 iRAB6 280) /Pag éeyef7l 867
The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
July 21, 2020
Page 7
Respectfully Submitted,
Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
ce:
Alex Rossmiller
Allison Moe
Casedl ZDAHAO SROs ATE (dc WR Et/ 202 Ci 6280) /Pag éeiyeftl 867
My) Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.c
Jeffrey Pagliuca
HADDON
MOOR CN 150 East 10th Avenue
FOREMAN Denver, Colorado 80203
PH 303.831.7
Casese Act QGISSOOAUN eS GourMAr41 70 iAP PAH) 26 ageyeds dP18
wit, transportation of minors, in violation of Title 18, United
States Code, Section 2423(a).
16. It was a part and object of the consp