MEMY-1805 harvest: vision-fixhub (part 25)

vision-fixhub/court-04/de22e7079462c261236a84df67350215b94e98a0c31373ffa25a917f0fed9056.md

@@ -0,0 +1,279 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 785-2 Filed 03/24/17 Page 1 of 11
+
+
+
+Case 9.695ev-öb5r58-RAA3 bRum Resument on on Files 9334K67 0487920391 page 1 of 10
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+CASE NO.:08-CV-80736-KAM
+JANE DOE 1 and JANE DOE 2,
+Petitioners,
+VS.
+UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
+Respondent.
+ORDER DENYING PETITIONERS' MOTION TO JOIN UNDER RULE 21 AND
+MOTION TO AMEND UNDER RULE 15
+This cause is before the Court on Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4's Corrected Motion
+Pursuant to Rule 21 for Joinder in Action ("Rule 21 Motion") (DE 280), and Jane Doe 1 and Jane
+Doe 2's Protective Motion Pursuant to Rule 15 to Amend Their Pleadings to Conform to
+Existing Evidence and to Add Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4 as Petitioners ("Rule 15 Motion") (DE
+311). Both motions are ripe for review. For the following reasons, the Court concludes that they
+should be denied.
+I. Background
+This is an action by two unnamed petitioners, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2, secking to
+prosecute a claim under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 377l. (DE 1).
+Generally, they allege that the respondent Government violated their rights under the CVRA by
+failing to consult with them before negotiating a non-prosecution agreement with Jeffiey Epstein,
+who subjected them to various sexual crimes while they were minors. (Id.). Petitioners initiated
+this action in July 2008. (Id.).
+GIUFFRE002844
+
+
+Case 9.6958.36558-RAA3 b6RumeRpsumenteRed on Files 93534k67 04 37920391 Hage 2 of 10
+On December 30, 2014, two other 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. (Id. at 11). Jane Doe 3 and
+Jane Doe 4 argue that they "have suffered the same violations of their rights under the [CVRA]
+as the" Petitioners, and they "desire to join in this action to vindicate their rights as well." (Id. at
+1). The Government vehemently opposes joinder under Rule 21. (DE 290). The Government
+argues that Rule 15 is the proper procedural device for adding parties to an action, not Rule 21.
+(ld. at I).
+"[OJut of an abundance of caution," Petitioners filed a motion to amend their petition
+under Rule 15, conforming the petition to the evidence and adding Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4 as
+petitioners. (DE 311 at 2). The Government opposes the Rule 15 Motion as well. (DE 314).
+Among other things, the Government argues that amending the petition to include Jane Doe 3
+and Jane Doe 4 should be denied because of their undue delay in seeking to join the proceedings,
+and the undue prejudice that amendment will cause. (Id.).
+After considering the parties' submissions and the proposed amended petition, the Court
+finds that justice does not require amendment in this instance and exercises its discretion to deny
+the amendment.
+Il. Discussion
+"The decision whether to grant leave to amend a complaint is within the sole discretion of
+the district court." Laurie v. Ala. Ct. Crim. Apps., 256 F.3d 1266, 1274 (11th Cir. 2001). "The
+court should freely give leave when justice so requires." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Justice does
+not require amendment in several instances, "including] undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive
+2
+GIUFFRE002845
+
+
+Case 96958v-öb558-RAA3 bRum Resument 8F63 on Files 0334K67 04 87920491 bage 3 of 10
+on the part of the movant, ... undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the
+amendment, [and] futility of amendment.?" Laurie, 256 F.3d at 1274 (quoting Foman v.
+371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). In addition to considering the effect of amendment on the parties, the
+court must consider "the importance of the amendment on the proper determination of the merits
+of a dispute." 6|
+&
+Fed. Prac. & Fed. P. § 1488, p. 814 (3d ed. 2010). Justice does
+not require amendment where the addition of parties with duplicative claims will not materially
+advance the resolution of the litigation on the merits. See Herring v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 894
+F.2d 1020, 1024 (9th Cir. 1989).
+A. Rule 21 Motion
+Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4's first attempt to join in this proceeding was brought under
+Rule 21. (DE 280). "If parties seek to add a party under Rule 21, courts generally use the
+standard of Rule 15, governing amendments to pleadings, to determine whether to allow the
+addition." 12
+Fed. Prac. & Fed. P.., p. 432 (3d ed. 2013); see also Galustian v.
+Peter, 591 F.3d 724, 729-30 (4th Cir. 2010) (collecting cases and noting that Rule 15(a) applies
+to amendments seeking to add parties); [
+v. U.S. West, Inc., 3 F.3d 1357, 1365 (10th Cir.
+1993) ("A motion to add a party is governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) ....").
+Rule 21, "Misjoinder and Non-joinder of Parties," provides the court with a tool for
+correcting the "misjoinder" of parties that would otherwise result in dismissal. Fed. R. Civ. P.
+21. Insofar as Rule 21 "relates to the addition of parties, it is intended to permit the bringing in
+of a person, who through inadvertence, mistake or for some other reason, had not been made a
+party and whose presence as a party is later found necessary or desirable." United States v. Com.
+Bank of N. Am., 31 F.R.D. 133, 135 (S.D.N.Y. 1962) (internal quotation marks omitted).
+3
+GIUFFRE002846
+
+
+In their Rule 21 Motion, Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doc 4 do not claim that they were omitted
+from this proceeding due to any "inadvertence" or "mistake" by Petitioners; rather, they seck to
+join this proceeding as parties that could have been permissively joined in the original petition
+under Rule 20 ("Permissive Joinder of Parties"). As courts generally use the standards of Rule
+15 to evaluate such circumstances, the Court will consider the joinder issue as presented in the
+Rule 15 Motion.' The Court will consider the arguments presented in the Rule 21 Motion as if
+they are set forth in the Rule 15 Motion as well. Because the arguments are presented in the Rule
+15 Motion (and because the Court is denying the Rule 15 Motion on its merits, as discussed
+below), the Rule 21 Motion will be denied.
+The Court also concludes that portions of the Rule 21 Motion and related
+filings should be stricken from the record. Pending for this Court's consideration is a Motion
+for Limited Intervention filed by Alan M. Dershowitz, who seeks to intervene to "strike the
+outrageous and impertinent allegations made against him and [to] request[] a show cause order to
+the attorneys that have made them." (DE 282 at I). The Court has considered Mr. Dershowitz's
+arguments, but it finds that his intervention is unnecessary as Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
+12(f) empowers the Court "on its own" to "strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any
+redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f).
+Petitioners' Rule 21 Motion consists of relatively little argumentation regarding why the
+Court should permit them to join in this action: they argue that (1) they were sexually abused by
+' The Court notes that, regardless of which motion it considers, the same standard
+governs the addition of parties under Rule 21 and Rule 15. See Goston v. Potter, No. 08-cv-478
+FJS ATB, 2010 WL 4774238, at *5 (N.D.N.Y. 2010) (citing Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Universal
+Music Grp., Inc., 248 F.R.D. 408, 412 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)).
+4
+GIUFFRE002847
+
+
+Jeffrey Epstein, and (2) the Government violated their CVRA rights by concealing the nonprosecution agreement with them. (DE 280 at 3; see id. at 7-8). However, the bulk of the Rule
+21 Motion consists of copious factual details that Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4 "would prove" "Ti]f
+allowed to join this action." (Id. at 3, 7). Specifically, Jane Doe 3 proffers that she could prove
+the circumstances under which a non-party introduced her to Mr. Epstein, and how Mr. Epstein
+sexually trafficked her to several high-profile non-party individuals, "including numerous
+prominent American politicians, powerful business executives, foreign presidents, a well-known
+Prime Minister, and other world leaders." (Id. at 3-6). She names several individuals, and she
+offers details about the type of sex acts performed and where they took place. (See id. at 5)?
+At this juncture in the proceedings, these lurid details are unnecessary to the
+determination of whether Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4 should be permitted to join Petitioners'
+claim that the Government violated their rights under the CVRA. The factual details regarding
+with whom and where the Jane Does engaged in sexual activities are immaterial and impertinent
+to this central claim (i.e., that they were known victims of Mr. Epstein and the Government owed
+them CVRA duties), especially considering that these details involve non-parties who are not
+related to the respondent Government. These unnecessary details shall be stricken.
+The original Rule 21 Motion (DE 279) shall be stricken in its entirety, as it is wholly
+superseded by the "corrected" version of the Rule 21 Motion (DE 280). From the corrected Rule
+21 Motion, the Court shall strike all factual details regarding Jane Doc 3 between the following
+sentences: "The Government then concealed from Jane Doe #3 the existence of its NPA from
+" Jane Doe 4's proffer is limited to sexual acts between Mr. Epstein and herself. (See DE
+280 at 7-8).
+5
+GIUFFRE002848
+
+
+Jane Doe #3, in violation of her rights under the CVRA" (id. at 3); and The Government was
+well aware of Jane Doe #3 when it was negotiating the NPA, as it listed her as a victim in the
+attachment to the NPA" (id. at 6). As none of Jane Doe 4's factual details relate to non-parties,
+the Court finds it unnecessary to strike the portion of the Rule 21 Motion related to her
+circumstances. Regarding the Declaration in support of Petitioners' response to Mr.
+Dershowitz's motion to intervene (DE 291-1), the Court shall strike paragraphs 4, 5, 7, 11, 13,
+15, 19 through 53, and 59, as they contain impertinent details regarding non-parties. Regarding
+the Declaration of Jane Doe 3 in support of the Rule 21 Motion (DE 310-1), the Court shall strike
+paragraphs 7 through 12, 16, 39, and 49, as they contain impertinent details regarding nonparties. Jane Doe 3 is free to reassert these factual details through proper evidentiary proof,
+should Petitioners demonstrate a good faith basis for believing that such details are pertinent to a
+matter presented for the Court's consideration.
+As mentioned, Mr. Dershowitz moves to intervene "for the limited purposes of moving to
+strike the outrageous and impertinent allegations made against him and requesting a show cause
+order to the attorneys that have made them." (DE 282 at 1). As the Court has taken it upon itself
+to strike the impertinent factual details from the Rule 21 Motion and related filings, the Court
+concludes that Mr. Derschowitz's intervention in this case is unnecessary. Accordingly, his
+motion to intervene will be denied as moot.? Regarding whether a show cause order should
+" This also moots Mr. Dershowitz's Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Reply in
+Support of Motion for Limited Intervention. (DE 317). Denying Mr. Dershowitz's motion to
+¡tervene also renders moot Petitioners' motion (DE 292) to file a sealed document supporting i
+'sponse to Mr. Dershowitz's motion. It will accordingly be denied as moot, and DE 293 (th
+6
+GIUFFRE002849
+
+
+Case 96958v-öb598-RAA3 bRumeRpsument eFe on Files 93534k67 04 87920991 page 7 of 10
+issue, the Court finds that its action of striking the lurid details from Petitioners' submissions is
+sanction enough. However, the Court cautions that all counsel are subject to Rule |1's mandate
+that all submissions be presented for a proper purpose and factual contentions have evidentiary
+support, Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(I) and (3), and that the Court may, on its own, strike from any
+pleading "any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter," Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f).
+B.
+Rule 15 Motion
+Between their two motions (the Rule 21 Motion and Rule 15 Motion), Jane Doe 3 and
+Jane Doe 4 assert that "they desire to join in this action to vindicate their rights [under the
+CVRA] as well." (DE 280 at I). Although Petitioners already seek the invalidation of Mr.
+Epstein's non-prosecution agreement on behalf of all "other similarly-situated victims" (DE 189
+at 1; DE 311 at 2, 12, 15, 18-19), Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doc 4 argue that they should be fellow
+travelers in this pursuit, lest they "be forced to file a separate suit raising their claims" resulting
+in "duplicative litigation" (DE 280 at 11). The Court finds that justice does not require adding
+new parties this late in the proceedings who will raise claims that are admittedly "duplicative" of
+the claims already presented by Petitioners.
+The Does' submissions demonstrate that it is entirely unnecessary for Jane Doe 3 and
+Jane Doe 4 to proceed as parties in this action, rather than as fact witnesses available to offer
+relevant, admissible, and non-cumulative testimony. (See, c.g., DE 280 at 2 (Jane Doe 3 and
+Jane Doe 4 "are in many respects similarly situated to the current victims"), 9 ("The new victims
+will establish at trial that the Government violated their CVRA rights in the same way as it
+violated the rights of the other victims."), 10 (Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doc 4 "will simply join in
+motions that the current victims were going to file in any event."), 11 (litigating Jane Doe 3 and
+7
+GIUFFRE002850
+
+
+Jane Doe 4's claims would be "duplicative"); DE 298 at 1 n.1 ("As promised ... Jane Doe No. 3
+and Jane Doe No. 4 do not seek to expand the number of pleadings filed in this case. If allowed
+to join this action, they would simply support the pleadings already being filed by Jane Doe No. 1
+and Jane Doe No. 2."); DE 311 at 5 n.3 ("[A]ll four victims (represented by the same legal
+counsel) intend to coordinate efforts and avoid duplicative pleadings."), 15 (Jane Doe 3 and Jane
+Doe 4 "challenge the same secret agreement i.e., the NPA that the Government executed with
+Epstein and then concealed from the victims. This is made clear by the proposed amendment
+itself, in which all four victims simply allege the same general facts.")). As the Does argue at
+length in their Rule 15 Motion, Jane Doe I's original petition "specifically allege[s] that the
+Government was violating not only her rights but the rights of other similarly-situated victims."
+(DE 311 at 2). The Court fails to see why the addition of "other similarly-situated victims" is
+now necessary to "vindicate their rights as well." (DE 280 at I).
+Of course, Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4 can participate in this litigated effort to vindicate
+the rights of similarly situated victims there is no requirement that the evidentiary proof
+submitted in this case come only from the named parties. Petitioners point out as much, noting
+that, regardless of whether this Court grants the Rule 15 Motion, "they will call Jane Doe No. 3
+as a witness at any trial." (DE 311 at 17 n.7). The necessary "participation" of Jane Doe 3 and
+Jane Doe 4 in this case can be satisfied by offering their properly supported and relevant,
+admissible, and non-cumulative testimony as needed, whether through testimony at trial
+(see DE 280 at 9) or affidavits submitted to support the relevancy of discovery requests' (sce
+* The non-party Jane Does clearly understand how to submit affidavits. (See DEs 291-1,
+310-1).
+8
+GIUFFRE002851
+
+
+id. at 10). Petitioners do not contend that Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4's "participation in this
+case" can only be achieved by listing them as parties.
+As it stands under the original petition, the merits of this case will be decided based on a
+determination of whether the Government violated the rights of Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, and all
+"other similarly situated victims" under the CVRA. Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4 may offer
+relevant, admissible, and non-cumulative evidence that advances that determination, but their
+participation as listed parties is not necessary in that regard. See Herring, 894 F.2d at 1024
+(District court did not abuse its discretion by denying amendment where "addition of more
+plaintiffs
+... would not have affected the issues underlying the grant of summary judgment."); cf
+Arthur v. Stern, 2008 WL 2620116, at *7 (S.D. Tex. 2008) (Under Rule 15, "courts have held
+that leave to amend to assert a claim already at issue in [another lawsuit] should not be granted if
+the same parties are involved, the same substantive claim is raised, and the same relief is
+sought.")! And, as to Jane Doe 4 at least, adding her as a party raises unnecessary questions
+about whether she is a proper party to this action.®
+Petitioners also admit that amending the petition to conform to the evidence by
+including references to the non-prosecution agreement itself is "unnecessary" as the "existing
+petition is broad enough to cover the developing evidence in this case." (DE 311). The Court
+" The Court expresses no opinion at this time whether any of the attestations made by
+Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4 in support of their motion will be relevant, admissible, and noncumulative.
+Any "duplicative" litigation filed by Jane Doe 4 would necessarily raise the issue of whether she
+9
+GIUFFRE002852
+
+
+Case 90958v865§8-RA3 belumeRpsument 78553 onfiles 0334K7 0488992045 obae 10 of 10
+agrees, and it concludes that justice does not require amending the petition this late in the
+proceedings.
+III. Conclusion
+Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: the Rule 21 Motion
+(DE 280) is DENIED; the Rule 15 Motion (DE 311) is DENIED; Intervenor Dershowitz's
+Motion for Limited Intervention (DE 282) and Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Reply in
+Support of Motion for Limited Intervention (DE 317) are DENIED AS MOOT; Petitioners'
+Motion to Seal (DE 292) is DENIED AS MOOT; the following materials are hereby
+STRICKEN from the record:
+•
+•
+DE 279, in its entirety.
+DE 280, all sentences between the following sentences:
+"The Government then concealed from Jane Doe #3 the
+existence of its NPA from Jane Doe #3, in violation of her
+rights under the CVRA" (DE 280 at 3); and "The
+Government was well aware of Jane Doe #3 when it was
+egotiating the NPA, as it listed her as a victim in th
+tachment to the NPA" (DE 280 at 6
+•
+DE 291-1, paragraphs 4, 5, 7, 11, 13, 15, 19 through 53,
+and 59.
+•
+•
+DE 310-1, paragraphs 7 through 12, 16, 39, and 49.
+DE 293, in its entirety.
+DONE AND ORDERED in
+•at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County,
+Florida, this 6" day of April, 2015.
+KENNETH A. MARRA
+United States District Judge
+10
+GIUFFRE002853

vision-fixhub/court-04/de22e7079462c261236a84df67350215b94e98a0c31373ffa25a917f0fed9056.receipt.json

@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -147,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "de22e7079462c261236a84df67350215b94e98a0c31373ffa25a917f0fed9056",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 15,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "4eebb1c6684f490c3731930fdede56e5b417707b0aea531541618c8ab82b2506",
+  "output_sha256": "e8482301bf5711daa0832866eb397aa6754ef5d48e1df79edd1fca6061028bf0",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}

vision-fixhub/court-04/de26615e73646799f92936a5f23bee1ccd7f97d5c6aa2a24b93cd0f9356a3c62.md

@@ -0,0 +1,75 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 165-1 Filed 03/09/21 Page 1 of 2
+MINISTÈRE
+DE LA JUSTICE
+Liberté
+Egalité
+Fraternité
+Direction des affaires criminelles et des grâces
+Sous-direction de la justice pénale spécialisée
+Bureau de l'entraide pénale internationale
+Paris, le 9 mars 2021
+Monsieur le garde des Sceaux, ministre de la Justice
+à
+Department of Justice (D.O.J)
+Par l'intermédiaire d'Andrew FINKELMAN, magistrat de liaison
+Ambassade des Etats-Unis d'Amérique à Paris
+J'ai l'honneur de porter à votre connaissance que la procédure et les conditions
+d'extradition sont régies en France par les articles 696 et suivants du code de procédure pénale.
+L'article 696-2 de ce code prévoit ainsi que « le gouvernement français peut remettre, sur leur
+demande, aux gouvernements étrangers, toute personne n'ayant pas la nationalité française qui, étant l'objet d'une
+poursuite intentée au nom de l'Etat requérant ou d'une condamnation prononcée par ses tribunaux, est trouvée sur
+le territoire de la Républigue. »
+L'article 694 4 précise expressément que :
+« L'extradition n'est pas accordée :
+1° Lorsque la personne réclamée a la nationalité française, cette dernière étant appréciée à
+l'époque de l'infraction pour laquelle l'extradition est requise».
+Ainsi, le fait que la personne recherchée ait la nationalité française constitue un obstacle
+insurmontable à son extradition. Dès lors que cette nationalité s'apprécie au moment de la
+commission de l'infraction, la perte de la nationalité, postérieurement à la commission de cette
+dernière, est sans incidence sur la procédure d'extradition, et ne permet pas de lever cet obstacle.
+Le Chef du Bureau de l'Éntraide Pénale Internationale
+Philippe JEGALE
+13, place Vendôme - 75042 Paris Cedex 01
+Téléphone : 01 44 77 60 60
+www.justice.gouv.fr
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 165-1 Filed 03/09/21 Page 2 of 2
+MINISTRY OF JUSTICE
+Liberty
+Equality
+Fraternity
+Directorate of Criminal Affairs & Pardons
+Specialized Criminal Justice Sub-Directorate
+International Criminal Assistance Bureau
+Paris, March 9, 2021
+His Honor the Keeper of Seals, Minister of Justice
+To the
+Department of Justice (D.O.J)
+Through Andrew FINKELMAN, Liaison Magistrate on behalf of the
+Embassy of the United States of America located in Paris, France
+I hereby inform you that in France, all removal proceedings and conditions are
+governed by Articles 696 et sq. of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
+Article 696-2 of said Code provides that: "The
+government is able to remit to
+foreign governments upon their request any individual who is not a l
+citizen and who is subject to a
+lawsuit brought on behalf of the requesting State, or who is subject to a sentence passed by the Court of said
+requesting State, and who is located on the territory of the
+Republic."
+Article 694-4 expressly specifies as follows:
+"Removal is not granted:
+1- When the individual claimed to have
+citizenship, said citizenship having been
+assessed at the time of the offense on the basis of which removal is being
+requested."
+WHEREBY, the fact that the wanted individual is a
+national constitutes an
+insuperable obstacle to his/her removal. As long as said nationality is assessed at the time the
+offense was committed, any loss of nationality subsequent to said offense has no bearing upon
+the removal proceedings and shall not supersede said assessment of nationality.
+Head of the International Criminal Assistance Bureau
+Philipe ME gE
+13, place Vendôme - 75042 Paris Cedex 01 - France
+Telephone: (011) 33.1.44.77.60.60
+www.justice.gouv.fr

vision-fixhub/court-04/de26615e73646799f92936a5f23bee1ccd7f97d5c6aa2a24b93cd0f9356a3c62.receipt.json

@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -24,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "de26615e73646799f92936a5f23bee1ccd7f97d5c6aa2a24b93cd0f9356a3c62",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "75fa5dba0369ebccb7b30d331d5349f5e0965c05051ff1aad8a6f54ca9a58aed",
+  "output_sha256": "3ed1dc472c5a2156ea3074df9091025c65dd9beb31fbe5798b1b59523a55b78e",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}

vision-fixhub/court-04/de281cfc8c57ee6cd3163e746a6de5ec99b60b3703c317a17e9fa07a9404fdaa.md

@@ -0,0 +1,178 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 232-1 Filed 06/20/16 Page 1 of 6
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+Plaintiff,
+Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS
+V.
+Ghislaine Maxwell,
+Defendant.
+/
+PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE AND OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT'S
+FIRST SET OF DISCOVERY REQUESTS TO PLAINTIFE
+Plaintiff hereby serves her responses and objections to Defendant's First Set of
+Discovery Requests.
+GENERAL OBJECTIONS
+Defendant's First Set of Discovery Requests violates Local Civil Rule 33.3. Defendant
+has served interrogatories that are in direct violation of that Rule because the interrogatories are
+not "restricted to those seeking names of witnesses with knowledge of information relevant to
+the subject matter of the action, the computation of each category of damage alleged, and the
+existence, custodian, location and general description of relevant documents, including pertinent
+insurance agreements, and other physical evidence, or information of a similar nature." Local
+Civil Rule 33.3(a). Instead, they seek information under subsections (b) and (c) of Local Civil
+Rule 33.3, and therefore, they should not be served because they are not "a more practical
+method of obtaining the information sought than a request for production or a deposition," and
+because they were served in advance of the period "30 days prior to the discovery cut-off date."
+Local Civil Rule 33.3(b), (c). The interrogatories you served violate Local Rule 33.3 and we ask
+1
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 232-1 Filed 06/20/16 Page 2 of 6
+the nature of the Income, whether a loan, investment proceeds, legal settlement, asset sale,
+gift, or other source.
+Response to Interrogatory No. 10
+objects to this interrogatory in that it violates Local Rule 33.3.
+objects to this request in that it is overly broad and seeks confidential financial
+information.
+objects to this interrogatory in that it seeks information covered by
+confidentiality provisions.
+objects to this information in that any payment
+information for the sexual trafficking she endured at the hands of Jeffrey Epstein and
+Ghislaine Maxwell is in the possession, custody and control of the Defendant and Jeffrey
+Epstein.
+11.
+Identify any facts upon which You base Your contention that You have suffered
+as a result of the Alleged Defamation by Ghislaine Maxwell "past and future lost wages and
+past and future loss of earning capacity and actual earnings - precise amounts yet to be
+computed, but not less than $5,000,000."
+Response to Interrogatory No. 11
+objects to this interrogatory in that it violates Local Rule 33.3.
+objects to this interrogatory in that it prematurely seeks expert witness disclosures.
+incorporates by reference herein her Revised Rule 26 disclosures, which includes her
+computation of damages.
+12.
+Identify any Health Care Provider from whom You received any treatment for any
+physical, mental or emotional condition, that You suffered from subsequent to any
+Alleged Defamation by Ghislaine Maxwell, including:
+the Health Care Provider's name, address, and telephone number;
+14
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 232-1 Filed 06/20/16 Page 3 of 6
+b.
+the type of consultation, examination, or treatment provided;
+c. the dates You received consultation, examination, or treatment;
+d.
+whether such treatment was on an in-patient or out-patient basis;
+e.
+the medical expenses to date;
+whether health insurance or some other person or organization or entity
+has paid for the medical expenses; and
+g.
+for each such Health Care Provider, please execute the medical and mental
+health records release attached hereto as Exhibit A.
+Response to Interrogatory No. 12
+objects to this interrogatory in that it violates Local Rule 33.3.
+objects to this request in that it is overbroad and seeks confidential medical information of a sex
+abuse victim and is not limited in scope to the issues in this case.
+objects in that it
+seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product privilege,
+joint defense/common interest privilege, the agency privilege, investigative privilege, spousal
+privilege, accountant client privilege, and any other applicable privilege.
+13.
+Identify any Health Care Provider from whom You received any treatment for any
+physical, mental or emotional condition, including addiction to alcohol, prescription or illegal
+drugs, that You suffered from prior to the Alleged Defamation by Ghislaine Maxwell, including:
+a.
+the Health Care Provider's name, address, and telephone number;
+b.
+the type of consultation, examination, or treatment provided;
+the dates You received consultation, examination, or treatment;
+d.
+whether such treatment was on an in-patient or out-patient basis;
+e.
+the medical expenses to date;
+15
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 232-1 Filed 06/20/16 Page 4 of 6
+f.
+whether health insurance or some other person or organization or entity
+has paid for the medical expenses; and
+For each such Health Care Provider, please execute the medical and mental
+health records release attached hereto as Exhibit A.
+Response to Interrogatory No. 13
+objects to this interrogatory in that it violates Local Rule 33.3.
+objects to this request in that it is overbroad and seeks confidential medical information of a sex
+abuse victim and is not limited in scope to the issues in this case.
+objects in that it
+seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product privilege,
+joint defense/common interest privilege, the agency privilege, investigative privilege, spousal
+privilege, accountant client privilege, and any other applicable privilege.
+objects to
+this request in that it is not limited in scope to the medical information relating to the abuse she
+suffered from Defendant and Jeffrey Epstein.
+14.
+Identify any Person who You believe subjected You to, or with whom You
+engaged in, any illegal or inappropriate sexual contact, conduct or assault prior to June 1999,
+including the names of the individuals involved, the dates of any such illegal or inappropriate
+sexual contact, conduct or assault, whether Income was received by You or anyone else
+concerning such event, whether a police report was ever filed concerning such event and the
+outcome of any such case, as well as the address and location of any such event.
+Response to Interrogatory No. 14
+objects to this interrogatory in that it violates Local Rule 33.3.
+objects to this request in that it is overbroad and seeks confidential medical information of a sex
+abuse victim.
+objects to this request in that it seeks sexual assault information for a
+16
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 232-1 Filed 06/20/16 Page 5 of 6
+Response to Request No. 37
+objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
+the attorney work product privilege, joint defense/common interest privilege, the agency
+privilege, investigative privilege, spousal privilege, accountant client privilege, and any other
+applicable privilege.
+objects to this request in that it seeks personal financial
+information.
+objects to this request in that it is overly broad as it has no time
+limitation.
+produces herewith documents
+labelled GIUFFRE000001 to
+GIUFFRE003190 and will continue to supplement her production.
+Dated: March 16, 2016
+Respectfully Submitted,
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
+By: Is/ Sigrid McCawley
+Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice)
+Boies Schiller & Flexner LLF
+401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+(954) 356-0011
+David Boies
+Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
+333 Main Street
+Armonk, NY 10504
+Ellen Brockman
+Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
+575 Lexington Ave
+New York, New York 10022
+(212) 446-2300
+38
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 232-1 Filed 06/20/16 Page 6 of 6
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I certify that on March 16, 2016, I electronically served Plaintiff
+Responses and Objections to Defendant's First Set of Discovery Requests on the following:
+Laura A. Menninger, Esq.
+HADDON,
+&
+150 East 10'" Avenue
+Denver, Colorado 80203
+Tel: (303) 831-7364
+Fax: (303) 832-2628
+Email: Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+P.C.
+By: Is/ Sigrid McCawley
+Sigrid McCawley
+39

vision-fixhub/court-04/de281cfc8c57ee6cd3163e746a6de5ec99b60b3703c317a17e9fa07a9404fdaa.receipt.json

@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -72,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "de281cfc8c57ee6cd3163e746a6de5ec99b60b3703c317a17e9fa07a9404fdaa",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 6,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "f359d243306bca25917cebe54be94666196d5168b3ca7f82f7e20a0b30e162a9",
+  "output_sha256": "64a9d47a8c4cbb87b132b59f0bddf7de3112a5f50f601943ebe4612f1bb34f41",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}

vision-fixhub/court-04/de2e09f3c68a841aad05d9a538cd4fc385ef243827070fb4c74b604145b6d9ac.md

@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 408-4 Filed 08/29/16 Page 1 of 1
+
+(File Under Seal)

vision-fixhub/court-04/de2e09f3c68a841aad05d9a538cd4fc385ef243827070fb4c74b604145b6d9ac.receipt.json

@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -21,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "de2e09f3c68a841aad05d9a538cd4fc385ef243827070fb4c74b604145b6d9ac",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "2501abc4a82a1e1b512f03538b6b122b38bb8f141de05f32708883c228e1d79e",
+  "output_sha256": "8dd7346f7e73b95f7d39f85d986a50fc04c0aafdf88c9dcbc932c57160cf4a52",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}

vision-fixhub/court-04/de351d217be144af46533ae06f76f784054920f147bbc84ed2fc67b2ad95a871.md

@@ -0,0 +1,815 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 406 Filed 08/29/16 Page 1 of 31
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+Plaintiff,
+Case No.: 15-cv-07433-R WS
+V.
+Ghislaine Maxwell,
+Defendant.
+/
+RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO INTERVENE (DE 362)
+Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice)
+Meredith
+(Pro Hac Vice)
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
+401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+(954) 356-0011
+
+
+Filed 08/29/16 Page 2 of 31
+TABLE OF CONTENTS
+TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
+Page
+. ii
+I.
+INTRODUCTION
+II.
+FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
+•
+B.
+II.
+The Litigation Involving Dershowitz - The Florida Defamation Case.
+DERSHOWITZ RELEASES CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION IN VIOLATION
+OF A FLORIDA COURT ORDER...
+THE PROTECTIVE ORDER IN THIS CASE
+IV. ARGUMENT
+A.
+Legal Standard
+B. These Are Not Judicial Documents and Therefore Should Not be Disclosed
+C. Even Were the Court to Deem the Documents to be Judicial Documents, the
+Presumption of Access is Weak
+No Right of Access Exists Under the First Amendment
+E.
+..1
+3
+...5
+8
+9
+10
+10
+. 11
+15
+18
+The Second Circuit Has a Presumption Against Modifying Protective Orders
+Upon Which Parties Reasonably Relied
+20
+The Record in this Case Shows That the Protective Order Was Not
+Improvidently Granted
+20
+The Parties and Deponents in This Case Have Reasonably Relied Upon
+the Protective Order..
+21
+Dershowitz Seeks These Materials For an Illegitimate Purpose Which
+Disqualifies Him from Relief.
+. 22
+4.
+Under This Court's Order, Non-Parties Cannot Challenge Confidentiality
+Designations and Dershowitz has Already Agreed to be Bound by the
+Parties' Confidentiality Designations
+V.
+CONCLUSION
+24
+. 25
+i
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 406 Filed 08/29/16 Page 3 of 31
+TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
+Page
+Cases
+Alexander Interactive, Inc. v. Adorama, Inc.,
+No. 12 Civ. 6608, 2014 WL 4346174 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 2, 2014)
+v. Cryovac, Inc.,
+805 F.2d 1 (Ist Cir. 1986).
+Bond v. Utreras,
+585 F.3d 1061 (7th Cir.2009)
+Calloway v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp.,
+115 F.R.D. 73 (M.D. Ga. 1987).
+Chi. Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc.,
+263 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir.2001) .
+Dandong v. Pinnacle Performance Ltd.,
+No. 10 Civ. 8086, 2012 WL 6217646 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 2012)
+Dorsett v. County of Nassau,
+289 F.R.D. 54 (E.D.N.Y. 2012)...
+Dorsett v. County of Nassau,
+762 F.Supp.2d 500 (E.D.N.Y. 2011)
+Edmondson v. State of Neb. ex. rel. Meyer,
+383 F.2d 123 (8th Cir. 1967).
+Flynn v. Hubbard,
+82 F.2d 1084 (1st Cir. 1986)
+Forsyth County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
+2009 WL 1312511 (N.D. Ga. May 8, 2009).
+Gosmile, Inc. v. Dr. Jonathan Levine, D.M.D. P.C.,
+2012 WL 1382557 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)...
+In re September 11 Litigation,
+262 F.R.D. 274 (S.D. N.Y. 2009).
+In re Teligent, Inc.,
+640 F.3d 53 (2d Cir.2011)..
+In re Zyprexa Injunction,
+474 F.Supp.2d 385 (E.D.N.Y. 2007)
+15,16
+13
+13
+24
+13
+15
+22,23
+17
+25
+. 25
+25
+. 14
+. 21
+21
+17,19
+ii
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 406 Filed 08/29/16 Page 4 of 31
+Iridium India Telecom Ltd. v. Motorola, Inc.,
+165 Fed.Appx. 878 (2d Cir.2005)..
+Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein,
+No. 9:08-cv-80119-cv-KAM (S.D. Fla. Sept. 8, 2009)
+Joy v. North,
+692 F.2d 880 (2d Cir.1982).
+Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu,
+447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006) ..
+Leucadia, Inc. v. Applied Extrusion Technologies, Inc.,
+998 F.2d 157 (3d Cir. 1993)..
+Levin v. U.S.,
+633 Fed. Appx. 69 (2nd Cir. 2016)
+LiButti v. United States,
+107 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 1997)..
+Liz Claiborne, Inc. v. Mademoiselle Knitwear, Inc.,
+1996 WL 346352 (S.D.N.Y. June 26, 1996)
+Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. My Other Bag, Inc.,
+156 F.Supp.3d 425 (S.D.N.Y. 2016)...
+Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga,
+435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006).
+Martindell v. International Telephone & Telegraph Corp.,
+594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir.1979).
+Master Card Intern. Inc. v. Visa Intern. Service Ass'n, Inc.,
+471 F.3d 377 (2d Cir. 2006)..
+Medical Diagnostic Imaging, PLLC v. Carecore Nat., LLC,
+2009 WL 2135294 (S.D.N.Y. 2009).
+Newsday LLC v. County of Nassau,
+730 F.3d 156 (2d Cir. 2013).
+Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc.,
+98 S.Ct. 1306, 435 U.S. 589 (1978).
+S.E.C. v. TheStreet.Com,
+273 F.3d 222 (2d Cir. 2001).
+23
+4
+17
+12
+13
+• 1,10
+• 5
+• 1,10
+17
+15
+22
+11
+.. 23
+19,20
+24
+14
+ili
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 406 Filed 08/29/16 Page 5 of 31
+Stern v. Cosby,
+529 F.Supp.2d 417 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)
+U.S. v. Amodeo ("Amodeo I"),
+44 F.3d 141 (2d Cir. 1995).
+U.S. v. Amodeo ("Amodeo II"),
+71 F.3d 1044 (2d Cir. 1995).
+Rules
+Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(3).
+Other Authorities
+8A Richard L. Marcus,
+Federal Practice and Procedure § 2044.1 (3d ed. Westlaw 2012)
+ALAN DERSHOWITZ, TAKING THE STAND: My LIFE IN THE LAW (2013).
+"Did Dershowitz Shell Out Big Bucks to Get Settlement in Sex Case?"
+by Vivia Chen, April 12, 2016
+Federal Practice and Procedure § 2044.1 (3d ed. Westlaw 2012)
+How Alan Dershowitz Bullied Rape Victims to Protect a Serial Child Molester,"
+by Rania Khalek, January 10, 2015
+The Talented Mr. Epstein, by Vicky |
+in Vanity Fair (Jan. 2005).
+Vanity Fair Reminds Us When Jeffrey Epstein Wasn't a Creep,
+by Ray Gustini, in The Wire (June 21, 2011)
+16
+..passim
+.. passim
+1,10
+21
+24
+..9
+21
+..5
+. 3
+..3
+iv
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 406 Filed 08/29/16 Page 6 of 31
+I.
+INTRODUCTION
+The Court has before it a request from a non-party (Alan Dershowitz) to intervene in this
+case for the purpose of extracting and publicizing several emails and a draft manuscript from the
+Protective Order that has long been entered in this case. Dershowitz does not seek public access
+of these documents for the legitimate purpose of informing the public on this Court's
+adjudication of its Article III powers. Instead, Dershowitz make clear that his purpose is to
+advance his own agenda, and continue to wage his media war on
+as he has already
+appeared on national news calling her a "prostitute" and a "bad mother."' This is not the typical
+intervention case where a non-party seeks documents it lacks access to, or where a news
+organization seeks to inform the public on court proceedings. Here, Alan Dershowitz seeks to
+inject himself into this litigation for the wrongful purpose of conducting a public smear
+campaign of
+He has no interests beyond his own. And, he has already violated
+another court order directing him to stop wrongfully leaking confidential information to the
+media. Unsurprisingly, Dershowitz's motion fails to cite a single case in which a court granted a
+non-party, who already possessed the sealed documents in dispute, the right to freely disseminate
+those documents in the public domain for self-serving purposes.
+His motion for permissive intervention is committed to the discretion of the Court, and
+the Court should deny it. Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(3); Liz Claiborne, Inc. v. Mademoiselle Knitwear,
+Inc., 1996 WL 346352, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. June 26, 1996) (Sweet, J.) (denying leave to intervene);
+Levin v. U.S., 633 Fed. Appx. 69, 70 (2nd Cir. 2016) (affirming denial of motion to intervene,
+"[bjecause of the fact-intensive nature of an intervention decision, we review for "abuse of
+discretion' a district court's order denying intervention ... by permission.")
+'McCawley Dec. at Exhibit 1, Local 10 News, January 22, 2015.
+1
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 406 Filed 08/29/16 Page 7 of 31
+His attenuated reasoning hardly
+provides the kind of compelling reason needed to pierce the Protective Order. Instead,
+Dershowitz seeks these documents for the primary purpose of conducting a media blitz against
+in advance of trial - clearly to assist his joint defense partner, Defendant Maxwell,
+by poisoning the jury pool in this case.
+Dershowitz has no legal basis for his request. The documents in questions are not judicial
+documents, and thus neither a First Amendment nor common law right of access applies.
+Moreover, both the parties in this case have long reasonably relied on the existing Protective
+Order.
+If Dershowitz is permitted to cherry pick the documents
+that he finds favorable and extract them from the protective order to serve his purposes, it would
+seem only fair that
+be permitted to lift the protective order from currentlyconfidential documents and testimony in the court file which would support her position.
+This Court entered the Protective Order "upon a showing of good cause." Dershowitz is
+not a party to this litigation and provides no sound reason for modification. Accordingly, this
+Court should deny Dershowitz's motion in its entirety.
+2
+
+
+Filed 08/29/16 Page 8 of 31
+FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
+3
+
+
+Filed 08/29/16 Page 9 of 31
+4
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 406 Filed 08/29/16 Page 10 of 31
+Finally, in Dershowitz's vociferous attacks on
+here, the Court will see an
+eerie parallel to the Jeffiey Epstein criminal investigation. Back in 2005, when the Palm Beach
+Police Department was first investigating Epstein's sexual abuse, the Department accumulated
+overwhelming evidence placing underage girls at Epstein's residence who gave statements that
+they were being sexually abused, the accounts bearing chillingly similar details. As he did to
+, Dershowitz called those girls liars and defamed them as prostitutes," in an effort to
+convince the State Attorney that these girls could not even believably establish that they had ever
+even gone to Epstein's mansion. Later, Dershowitz would remarkably write to tell the Justice
+Department that "Epstein never targeted minors."
+B.
+The Litigation Involving Dershowitz - The Florida Defamation Case's
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 406 Filed 08/29/16 Page 11 of 31
+Dershowitz also misleadingly describes the Florida defamation action' between himself
+and Cassell and
+Remarkably, Dershowitz fails to note that same documents he seeks
+here (to use in the next installment of his media campaign) are the exact type of documents that
+Judge
+quashed from Dershowitz's subpoena he served on
+in the Florida
+Action. In short, a judge has already ruled that Dershowitz should be denied access to these
+documents. This baseless motion is nothing more than an attempt to make an end-run around
+Judge
+Order, by coming to this Court, and asking for what he was denied by another
+court.
+Indeed, Dershowitz fails to reveal three significant facts to this Court. First, Dershowitz
+fails to reveal to this Court is that he has already been sharply rebuked by a Florida judge for his
+efforts to take confidential materials to the media. Second, Dershowitz fails to tell this Court that
+the only ongoing component to his Florida Action concerns sanctions against him for violating
+that Court's Order by his continuing to reveal confidential materials. Third, Dershowitz fails to
+tell this Court that the judge in the Florida Action already denied his request to access these
+materials.' The parties to the Florida Action have settled all claims.
+was not a party to the litigation between the attorneys in the Florida Action.
+During the course of the litigation, however, Dershowitz subpoenaed discovery from
+and Cassell v. Dershowitz, Case No. CACE 15-000072, in the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial circuit
+in and for Broward County, Florida (the "Florida Action"). presided over by Judge
+1 MeCawley Dec. at Exhibit 12, November 12, 2015 Order on Motion to Quash.
+6
+
+
+Filed 08/29/16 Page 12 of 31
+7
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 406 Filed 08/29/16 Page 13 of 31
+DERSHOWITZ RELEASES CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION IN VIOLATION
+OF A FLORIDA COURT ORDER
+The pending sanction motion in the Florida Court is an illustrative example of how
+Dershowitz willingly violates Court orders. On December 11, 2015, in a transparent attempt to
+play his case to the media rather than try it before the court, Dershowitz filed a false affidavit
+with the Florida court purporting to describe confidential settlement communications with
+counsel and attempting to discredit
+He filed his affidavit in the public court
+file, despite knowing
+standing objections. He then alerted the media (specifically
+the New York Times) to these statements. After
+filed an emergency motion to seal the
+affidavit, the court found in favor of
+that the communications in the affidavit were in
+fact confidential settlement negotiations that should not have been disclosed and granted
+motion. McCawley Dec., Ex. 15. During the hearing, the Florida court admonished
+Dershowitz not to reveal any other confidential settlement negations:
+MS. MCCAWLEY: Your Honor, if the intent here is to continue to spew the
+onfidential settlement negotiations and have Dershowitz go to New York or othe
+ocations to say these things again, I would object to that. I think this Court needs to b
+very stern in its response that these are not appropriate to be disclosed.
+THE COURT: Well, I think he is aware of that.
+MR. SAFRA [Dershowitz's attorney]: I'm aware, and I will convey to my client... ?
+had a pending motion for sanctions against Dershowitz for his conduct in
+wrongfully revealing and flatly mischaracterizing these settlement disclosures. McCawley Dec.
+2 McCawley Dec. at Exhibit 14, December 18, 2015, Emergency Motion to Seal Hr. Tr. at 25:23-26:9 (emphasis
+added).
+8
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 406 Filed 08/29/16 Page 14 of 31
+Sealed Ex. 16, Motion for Sanctions. Before that motion was heard, Dershowitz willfully
+violated the court's order and again disclosed the confidential settlement communications, for
+which
+again sought sanctions. McCawley Dec. Sealed Ex. 17, Supplement to Motion for
+Sanctions. However, before the sanction motions were heard, Dershowitz settled the underlying
+litigation. Dershowitz has insisted upon keeping confidential the monetary settlement that
+resolved the claims against him.3 The trial court declined to retain jurisdiction to hear
+sanctions claims after the settlement.
+attorneys have appealed the ruling
+to the Florida Court of Appeals and filed an opening brief on August 25, 2016.
+III. THE PROTECTIVE ORDER IN THIS CASE
+This is a case concerning sex abuse of minors, brought by a woman who was herself a
+minor victim of sex abuse. Accordingly, this Court has recognized from the outset the paramount
+importance of a protective order in this case, announcing at one of the first hearings in the case
+that that "of course there should be a protective order in this case."4 Thereafter, on March 18,
+2016, "[u]pon a showing of good cause," the Protective Order was entered (DE 62 at p. 1). The
+following month,
+Furthermore, as this Court will remember,
+se March 17, 2016. Hearing Transcript at 4:25-S:1. McCawley Dee. at Exhibit 18.
+-
+9
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 406 Filed 08/29/16 Page 15 of 31
+Indeed,
+this Court temporarily placed the entire docket under seal. June 23, 2016, Order. DE 251. Under
+these rulings, both parties designated hundreds of pages of materials confidential under the
+Court's Order.
+IV.
+ARGUMENT
+A. Legal Standard
+The Court may deny Dershowitz's motion without even reaching the merits of whether
+the contested documents are judicial documents, which they absolutely are not. Fed. R. Civ. P.
+24(b)(3); Liz Claiborne, Inc. v. Mademoiselle Knitwear, Inc., 1996 WL 346352, at *4 (S.D.N.Y.
+June 26, 1996) (Sweet, J.) (denying leave to intervene); Levin v. U.S., 633 Fed. Appx. 69, 70
+(2nd Cir. 2016) (affirming district court's denial of motion to intervene, explaining "[bJecause of
+the fact-intensive nature of an intervention decision, we review for 'abuse of discretion' a district
+court's order denying intervention ... by permission."). Accordingly, this Court can deny
+Dershowitz's motion on the grounds that taking these documents to the media
+and because, having sat on the documents for months, the motion is untimely,?
+Dershowitz's motion mentions, then proceeds to ignore, the policy rationale that
+underlies both the First Amendment and common law right of access to judicial documents. Both
+10
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 406 Filed 08/29/16 Page 16 of 31
+legal principles exist so that courts may have accountability to the public; they do not exist to
+enable individuals on a personal vendetta to advance a public smear campaign against a victim of
+childhood sexual abuse. U.S. v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995) ("Amodeo II") ("The
+presumption of access is based on the need for federal courts, although independent—indeed,
+particularly because they are independent—to have a measure of accountability and for the
+public to have confidence in the administration of justice."). Indeed, the motion to intervene is
+devoid of any citations to precedent that allows an individual to exploit these bedrock legal
+principles solely for his personal benefit, rather than the public at large. Furthermore, the Court
+should not overlook the fact that that Dershowitz already possesses these documents because
+they were sent to him by Maxwell's counsel who has named him as a witness, and, as
+demonstrated below, the Second Circuit does not provide a right of access to protected material
+when an individual seeks to use it solely for harm.
+B. These Are Not Judicial Documents and Therefore Should Not be Disclosed
+The Court can end its legal analysis of this motion quickly, as, contrary to Dershowitz's
+suggestion, the documents in question are not judicial documents. This fact is fatal to the motion,
+as neither the First Amendment nor the common law right of access applies in a scenario where
+the materials in question are not judicial documents. U.S. v. Amodeo, 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir.
+1995) ("Amodeo ") (noting material must be a "judicial document" to be "accessible to the
+public").
+Dershowitz only became aware of the documents he now seeks because
+produced them in discovery. It is established law in the Second Circuit that documents simply
+exchanged in the civil discovery context do not come within the purview of the First Amendment
+or the common law right of access. "Documents that play no role in the performance of Article
+IIl functions, such as those passed between the parties in discovery, lie entirely beyond the
+11
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 406 Filed 08/29/16 Page 17 of 31
+presumption's reach..." Amodeo I, 71 F.3d at 1050. Dershowitz suggests that because a
+subpoenaed third party filed one of the documents as an attachment to a motion to quash, and
+because Defendant filed the others as an exhibit to an opposition to extend discovery, that
+converts them into judicial documents and triggers the presumption of access. This argument is
+unavailing. The Second Circuit has held that the "mere filing of a paper or document with the
+court is insufficient to render that paper a judicial document subject to the right of public access.
+We think that the item filed must be relevant to the performance of the judicial function and
+useful in the judicial process in order for it to be designated a judicial document." Amodeo I, 44
+F.3d at 145.
+A review of the case law reveals that every circuit to have directly addressed this point
+has found that documents filed as exhibits to non-dispositive discovery motions do not qualify as
+judicial documents. Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir.
+2006) ("We have, however, carved out an exception to the presumption of access to judicial
+records for a sealed discovery document [attached] to a non-dispositive motion, such that the
+usual presumption of the public's right of access is rebutted"') (internal citation and quotations
+omitted); Bond v. Utreras, 585 F.3d 1061, 1075 n. 8 (7th Cir.2009); Chi. Tribune Co. v.
+Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1312-13 (11th Cir.2001) (holding that "material
+filed with discovery motions is not subject to the common-law right of access, whereas discovery
+material filed in connection with pretrial motions that require judicial resolution of the merits is
+subject to the common-law right");
+v. Cryovac, /nc., 805 F.2d 1, 10 (Ist Cir. 1986)
+("Although we agree that the public has a right of access to some parts of the judicial process, we
+conclude that this right does not extend to documents submitted to a court in connection with
+discovery proceedings."); Leucadia, Inc. v. Applied Extrusion Technologies, Inc., 998 F.2d 157,
+12
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 406 Filed 08/29/16 Page 18 of 31
+164 (3d Cir. 1993) ("holding that discovery motions and supporting materials are subject to a
+presumptive right of access would make raw discovery, ordinarily inaccessible to the public,
+accessible merely because it had to be included in motions precipitated by inadequate discovery
+responses or overly aggressive discovery demands. This would be a holding based more on
+expediency than principle.")
+Therefore, five federal appellate courts have already rejected the argument that
+Dershowitz advances here. Dershowitz acknowledges that the Second Circuit has not yet reached
+this specific issue, but the holdings in Amodeo I and Amodeo II demonstrate that when the
+Second Circuit reaches this issue, it will reach exactly the same result. In Amodeo I/ the Second
+Circuit held that documents "passed between the parties in discovery, lie entirely beyond the
+presumption's reach..." Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1050. In Amodeo I the Second Circuit noted the
+"mere filing of a paper or document with the court is insufficient to render that paper a judicial
+document subject to the right of public access." Amodeo I, 44 F.3d at 145. Additionally, in the
+case cited by Dershowitz, S.E.C. v. TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d 222, 233 (2d Cir. 2001), the Second
+Circuit rejected an argument that would *transform every document that a court reviews into a
+"judicial document' presumptively open to the public, despite well-settled law to the contrary."
+The Second Circuit has held (1) discovery materials are not judicial documents; (2) the
+mere filing of a document with the court does not render it a judicial document; and (3) a court
+simply reviewing a piece of discovery material does not make the document a "judicial
+document." Therefore, there is no question that the Second Circuit would resolve the issue at
+hand in exactly the same way that every other circuit to address the issue has. This Court should
+follow every other circuit, and the guidance from the Second Circuit, and find that the mere
+13
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 406 Filed 08/29/16 Page 19 of 31
+filing of a piece of discovery material as part of a non-dispositive discovery motion does not
+convert the material into a judicial document.
+Finally, the
+cannot qualify as "judicial documents" on the separate and
+independent basis that the Court has not considered them, as the motion to which they are
+attached is still pending. Here again, Dershowitz's motion misses the point of the First
+Amendment and common law rights of access. It is not the filing of a piece of discovery that
+makes it a judicial document, it is the Court's review and consideration of that document that
+converts the document's status. Gosmile, Inc. v. Dr. Jonathan Levine, D.M.D. P.C., 2012 WL
+1382557, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) ("Court did not weigh these documents [attached as exhibits] in
+its review of the parties' motions, considers them immaterial to the motions, and therefore does
+not consider them to be judicial documents."). As
+has shown, these principles exist
+for the accountability of the courts to the public, not for the personal benefit of an individual.
+In the face of this uniform precedent from the courts of appeal, Dershowitz cites only to a
+handful of district court opinions, many of which do not support the relief he seeks. For example,
+in Dershowitz's first-cited case, Alexander Interactive, Inc. v. Adorama, /nc., No. 12 Civ. 6608,
+2014 WL 4346174, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 2, 2014), the Court proceeded to deny access and
+instead sealed the materials at issue. In Dandong v. Pinnacle Performance Ltd., No. 10 Civ.
+8086, 2012 WL 6217646, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 2012) the court noted the materials at issue
+were nothing more than legal argument, and it gave the parties time to show "good cause" for
+keeping the documents sealed. The Court can reject these outlier opinions out of hand, as they do
+not comport with the holdings of the First, Third, Seventh, Ninth and Eleventh Circuits, nor are
+they in-line with the Second Circuit's case law in Amodeo I, Amodeo Il and TheStreet.Com.
+* It may well be the case that the Court never considered
+in ruling on the motion for
+extension of time in relation to the opposition motion to which it was attached. The Order makes no mention of it.
+DE June 20, 2016, Order. If the Court did not consider those exhibits, they do not qualify as judicial documents.
+14
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 406 Filed 08/29/16 Page 20 of 31
+There simply is no legal basis for this Court to find that the documents Dershowitz seeks
+qualify as "judicial documents." First, it is not clear that this Court has even reviewed or
+considered them, and if it has not, that fact alone is dispositive. Second, the law throughout the
+country is clear that routine, raw discovery materials submitted as exhibits to non-dispositive
+discovery motions do not convert into "judicial documents" and trigger a right of public access.
+The Court should find that these documents are not "judicial documents" and summarily deny
+Dershowitz's motion.
+C. Even Were the Court to Deem the Documents to be Judicial Documents,
+the Presumption of Access is Weak
+Even if the Court found these documents to be judicial documents - which they
+categorically are not - Dershowitz's motion still fails because the common law presumption of
+access is extremely weak and easily overcome here by countervailing factors. Lugosch v.
+Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2006) (noting that if a court finds
+documents to be judicial, it must then assess the weight of the presumed access and determine if
+countervailing factors override the presumption).
+Once again, Dershowitz's own cited cases are his undoing. In Alexander Interactive, the
+Court found that because the documents were submitted merely as exhibits to a motion to
+compel, "the presumption in favor of public access is weak."2014 WL 4346174 at *2. It then
+proceeded to seal the documents in question, despite acknowledging the public right of access.
+See also Stern v. Cosby, 529 F.Supp.2d 417, 422 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) ("the presumption of public
+access - if any - that attaches to the transcript and videotape is low, at best. No such presumption
+attaches at all to the videotape, and even if the transcript is filed for purposes of a motion to
+compel, the presumption that would attach to the transcript would be low. On any such motion, I
+15
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 406 Filed 08/29/16 Page 21 of 31
+would not be making any decision on the merits, but I would simply be reviewing excerpts of the
+transcripts to resolve a discovery dispute.").
+This ruling is in-line with the Second Circuit's directive regarding how to assess the
+weight of the presumption of access. "[T]he presumption of access must be governed by the role
+of the material at issue in the exercise of Article III judicial power and the resultant value of such
+information to those monitoring the federal courts. Generally, the information will fall
+somewhere on a continuum from matters that directly affect an adjudication to matters that come
+within a court's purview solely to insure their irrelevance." Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1049. This is
+not a situation where the documents were relied upon as part of a dispositive summary judgment
+motion (where the presumption is highest). If the Court relied on the documents at all, which is
+not clear, it was for the limited purpose of determining entitlement to discovery. In this context,
+as the courts in Alexander Interactive, Stern and Amodeo I/ noted, the presumption is weakest.
+Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1050 ("Where testimony or documents play only a negligible role in the
+performance of Article III duties, the weight of the presumption is low and amounts to little more
+than a prediction of public access absent a countervailing reason."). Joy v. North, 692 F.2d 880,
+893 (2d Cir.1982) ("Discovery involves the use of compulsory process to facilitate orderly
+preparation for trial, not to educate or titillate the public."); In re Zyprexa Injunction, 474
+F.Supp.2d 385, 423 (E.D.N.Y. 2007) ("Nonparties who are prohibited from accessing
+confidential documents ... cannot claim an infringement on their freedom of speech: The right
+to speak and publish does not carry with it the unrestrained right to gather information...
+Discovery involves the use of compulsory process to facilitate orderly preparation for trial, not to
+educate or titillate the public.") (internal citations and quotations omitted); Dorsett v. County of
+Nassau, 762 F.Supp.2d 500, 519 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) ("Assuming for the sake of argument that the
+16
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 406 Filed 08/29/16 Page 22 of 31
+IAU Report did satisfy the judicial document inquiry, since the Report was passed between the
+parties in discovery, it lies entirely beyond the presumption's reach.").
+Given that the presumption of access here is weak, if it exists at all, [
+overcomes it with her countervailing evidence.
+easily
+Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. My Other Bag, Inc.,
+156 F.Supp.3d 425, 445 N7 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) ("As for competing considerations that counsel in
+favor of allowing the parties to file their briefs under seal, the privacy interests of the parties in
+preventing the public disclosure of private business figures and communications are not
+insignificant. The Court therefore concludes that the balance of interests is in favor of allowing
+the parties' briefs to be filed under seal."). This decision is particularly instructive here, as it
+involved summary judgment filings, where the access presumption is highest, as opposed to the
+discovery brief exhibits at issue here, where the presumption is lowest.
+17
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 406 Filed 08/29/16 Page 23 of 31
+otherwise protected material to enable a non-party to conduct a public smear campaign. Amodeo
+II, 71 F.3d at 1051 ("The nature and degree of injury must also be weighed. This will entail
+consideration not only of the sensitivity of the information and the subject but also of how the
+person seeking access intends to use the information..personal vendettas….need not be aided.")
+(Emphasis added).
+In sum, the documents Dershowitz seeks involve no presumption of access whatsoever,
+as they are not judicial documents, but were the Court to find otherwise, the applicable
+presumption of access would be the lowest that exists under Second Circuit law.
+requests that, in accord with the governing law, the Court hold that
+outweigh any weak presumption of access.
+D.
+No Right of Access Exists Under the First Amendment
+Dershowitz should not have advanced a First Amendment right of access argument
+because it is wholly without merit. First and foremost, the documents at issue must be "judicial
+documents" to trigger a First Amendment right of access, and, as stated above, the materials at
+issue here are not. Newsday LLC v. County of Nassau, 730 F.3d 156, 166 (2d Cir. 2013) ("We
+must conduct an independent review of the Report to determine (a) whether it is a judicial
+document to which the First Amendment right applies") (emphasis added).
+Should the Court find otherwise, there remains no right of access under the First
+Amendment. As the Second Circuit has said, "[e]ven when it applies, moreover, the First
+Amendment right creates only a presumptive right of access." Id. at 164 (Emphasis original). The
+right does not attach here because Dershowitz's motion fails the Second Circuit's "experience
+and logic" test for triggering a First Amendment right of access. That test "asks both whether the
+documents have historically been open to the press and general public and whether public access
+plays a significant positive role in the functioning of the particular process in question." Id.
+18
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 406 Filed 08/29/16 Page 24 of 31
+Dershowitz's motion fails both parts of the test. "Protective orders prohibiting dissemination of
+materials discovered before trial are not the kind of classic prior restraint that require[ ] exacting
+First Amendment scrutiny." In re Zyprexa Injunction, 474 F.Supp.2d at 417 (Internal quotations
+omitted).
+That argument is meritless, as it ignores the existence of the Protective
+Order in this case. Moreover, there is no "historical openness" to the press of a party's raw
+discovery materials, quite the opposite. As _
+established above, the Second Circuit has
+found that there is no public right of access to material exchanged in discovery. Amodeo II, 71
+F.3d at 1050 (documents "*passed between the parties in discovery, lie entirely beyond the
+presumption's reach..."). And again, the Court should not lose sight of the policy rationale
+behind the First Amendment right of access: the accountability of the courts to the public.
+19
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 406 Filed 08/29/16 Page 25 of 31
+Second, public interest in a case would only
+matter if the material was sought to allow the public to monitor the Court's actions (which is
+why the courts in this district often recognize a news agency's standing to challenge protective
+orders"*), not to feed any purported interest in Dershowitz personally. Again, the First
+Amendment right protects the public's right to oversee the function of the Court; it does not exist
+Newsday, 730 F.3d at
+164 ("the need for public access to court proceedings is grounded in the need for federal courts ...
+to have a measure of accountability and for the public to have confidence in the administration
+of justice.") (emphasis added). The Court must reject Dershowitz's misguided attempt to
+manipulate a public right for his personal benefit.
+E.
+The Second Circuit Has a Presumption Against Modifying Protective
+Orders Upon Which Parties Reasonably Relied
+The Second Circuit has expressly acknowledged that its protective order modification test
+has, as a general matter, a "strong presumption against the modification of a protective order, and
+orders should not be modified absent a showing of improvidence in the grant of the order or
+some extraordinary circumstance or compelling need." In re Teligent, Inc., 640 F.3d 53, 59 (2d
+Cir. 2011) (affirming denial of motion to lift confidentiality provisions of the protective order). 33
+The Record in this Case Shows That the Protective Order Was Not
+Improvidently Granted
+20
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 406 Filed 08/29/16 Page 26 of 31
+Despite Dershowitz's argument, the Protective Order, entered "[u]pon a showing of good
+cause," was not improvidently granted. (DE 62 at p.1). Indeed, even after the entry of the
+Protective Order,
+Indeed, "once a discovery
+protective order is in place, the applicable standard requires plaintiff seeking to modify the
+order to show improvidence in the grant of the protective order or some extraordinary
+circumstance or compelling need." In re September 11 Litigation, 262 F.R.D. 274 (S.D. N.Y.
+2009). Dershowitz's attempts to claim improvidence, carelessness, or shortsightedness of this
+Court in granting the Protective Order are unavailing. To the contrary, this Court has,
+The Parties and Deponents in This Case Have Reasonably Relied
+Upon the Protective Order
+The Second Circuit has been hesitant to permit modifications that might "unfairly disturb
+the legitimate expectations of the parties or deponents." Dorsett v. County of Nassau, 289 F.R.D.
+54, 64 (E.D.N.Y. 2012). Indeed, "[i]t is presumptively unfair for courts to modify protective
+orders which assure confidentiality and upon which the parties have reasonably relied." Id., 289
+F.R.D. at 64 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (internal citations and quotations omitted) (denying motion to lift
+21
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 406 Filed 08/29/16 Page 27 of 31
+confidentiality of report of policing failures surrounding the murder of a young mother).
+"Consequently, in a major decision in this field, Martindell v. International Telephone &
+Telegraph Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir.1979), the Second Circuit determined that 'absent a
+showing of improvidence in the grant of a Rule 26(c) protective order or some extraordinary
+circumstance or compelling need ... a witness should be entitled to rely upon the enforceability of
+a protective order against any third parties."" Id., quoting Martindell v. International Telephone
+& Telegraph Corp., 594 F.2d at 296 (denying governmental access for criminal investigative
+purposes civil deposition transcripts taken under a protective order).
+In this case,
+- and multiple other deponents - reasonably relied on this
+Court's Protective Order in giving testimony and producing documents.
+Medical Diagnostic Imaging, PLLC v. Carecore Nat.,
+LLC, 2009 WL 2135294, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (denying motion to modify protective order
+because parties and third parties have reasonably relied upon the terms of the protective order).
+Under Martindell, this Court cannot take away those protections after the fact.3®
+3.
+Dershowitz Seeks These Materials For an Illegitimate Purpose Which
+Disqualifies Him from Relief
+"A litigant's purpose in seeking modification of an existing protective order is also
+relevant for determining whether to grant a modification. Requests to modify protective orders so
+that the public may access discovery materials is arguably subject to a more stringent
+3é "The Second Circuit has explicitly rejected the notion that the Martindell standard should be limited to cases
+where the government seeks to modify a protective order. Rather, Martindell has been applied even when the third
+party seeking access to discovery is a private litigant. Dorsett v. County of Nassau, 289 F.R.D. at 66, citing Iridiun
+India Telecom Ltd. v. Motorola, Inc., 165 Fed.Appx. 878, 880 (2d Cir.2005).
+22
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 406 Filed 08/29/16 Page 28 of 31
+presumption against modification because there is no public right of access to discovery
+materials." Dorsett, 289 F.R.D. at 65 (Internal citations and quotations omitted). Dershowitz's
+own words admit the true purpose behind the instant motion, and wholly contradict the flimflam
+he has presented to this Court: "My goal is to bring charges against the client and require her to
+speak in court."?
+Indeed, in over 50 statements to the press, he has explained to the world (if not this
+Court) his reasons for maintaining his attacks on
+in the media, in which he has
+publicly called her a "prostitute" and a "bad mother" to her three minor children. McCawley
+Dec. at Exhibit 20, Local 10 News, January 22, 2015. For example, Dershowitz has made the
+following statements:
+• "The end result of this case should be she [Jane Doe No. 3] should go to jail, the lawyers
+should be disbarred and everybody should understand that I am completely and totally
+innocent." McCawley Dec. at Exhibit 21, CNN International, New Day, January 6, 2015.
+Dershowitz also stated, in an interview in Newsmax, that he is "considering" bringing a
+lawsuit against Jane Doe No. 3. "And we're considering suing her for defamation as well, but
+ight now she was trying to hide in Colorado and avoid service, but we found her and w
+erved her and now she'll be subiected to a deposition "3
+By his own words, Dershowitz wants to intimidate and harass
+with the specter of his
+sending her "to jail. *39
+Even Dershowitz's own cited cases militate against the Court feeding his proposed public
+relations campaign: Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 98 S.Ct. 1306, 1312, 435 U.S. 589,
+598 (1978) ("It is uncontested that the right to... copy judicial records is not absolute... access
+has been denied where court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes"). In
+37 McCawley Dec. at Exhibit 22, Australian Broadcasting System (ABC), January 6, 2015.
+38 McCawley Dec. at Exhibit 23, Newsmax, April 8, 2015
+3ª Dershowitz has previously written: "There's an old saying: 'If you have the law on your side, bang on the law. If
+you have the facts on your side, bang on the facts. If you have neither, bang on the table.' I have never believed
+that, but I do believe in a variation on that theme: If you don't have the law or legal facts on your side, argue your
+case in the court of public opinion." ALAN DERSHOWITZ, TAKING THE STAND: MY LIFE IN THE LAW (2013).
+23
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 406 Filed 08/29/16 Page 29 of 31
+Nixon, the Supreme Court warned that lower courts should "exercise an informed discretion as to
+the release" of materials, because, "[o]therwise, there would exhibit a danger that the court could
+become a partner in the use of the subpoenaed material to gratify private spite or promote public
+scandal, with no corresponding assurance of public benefit." Nixon v. Warner Communications,
+Inc., 98 S.Ct. at 1315, 435 U.S. at 603 (internal citations and quotations omitted). Under Nixon,
+this Court should not allow itself to be Dershowitz's partner in gratifying his private spite
+40
+4.
+Under This Court's Order, Non-Parties Cannot Challenge
+Confidentiality Designations and Dershowitz has Already Agreed to
+be Bound by the Parties' Confidentiality Designations in Exchange for
+Receipt of Documents
+The Protective Order (DE 62) does not allow non-parties, like Dershowitz, to make a
+challenge to the confidentiality designations or the efficacy of the Order. To the contrary, the
+Protective Order only states that parties can object to the confidentiality designations: "A party
+may object to the designation of particular CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION by giving written
+notice to the party designating the disputed information ... it shall be the obligation the party
+designating the information as CONFIDENTIAL to file an appropriate motion requesting that
+the Court determine whether the disputed information should be subject to the terms of this
+Protective Order." (DE 62 at 9| 11, p. 4). This Court's Protective Order does not allow for nonparties to challenge these designations. Accordingly, Dershowitz cannot challenge the
+designations under this Order.
+' Similarly, under applications to intervene under Rule 24(a), numerous courts have declined to allow a mere
+"reputational" interest to justify intervention. Calloway v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 115 F.R.D. 73, 74 (M.D. Ga.
+1987) (interest in his reputation alone ... does not constitute the required interest relating to the property or
+transaction which is the subject of the present action necessary to allow intervention"); Flynn v. Hubbard, 82 F.2d
+1084, 1093 (Ist Cir. 1986) (*the church merely claimed] a generalized injury to reputation [that] identifies no legal
+detriment arising from a default judgment against Hubbard."); Edmondson v. State of Neb. ex. rel. Meyer, 383 F.2d
+123 (8th Cir. 1967) (The mere fact that Edmondson's reputation is thereby injured is not enough [to support
+intervention]."); Forsyth County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2009 WL 1312511, at *2 (N.D. Ga. May 8, 2009)
+(interest in protecting its reputation ... is not direct, substantive, or derived from a legal right").
+24
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 406 Filed 08/29/16 Page 30 of 31
+Importantly, Dershowitz admits that he has agreed to be bound by the provisions of the
+Protective Order in exchange for receiving the documents. Accordingly, he has agreed to the
+confidentiality restrictions placed on the documents, no matter what the documents contained. As
+Dershowitz explicitly admits that he agreed to be bound by the Protective Order so that he could
+be privy to all of the discovery in this case, he also agreed to be bound by its confidentiality
+provisions, as well as the provisions that only allow parties to bring challenges to the Protective
+Order.
+V.
+CONCLUSION
+Based on the foregoing, the Court should deny Dershowitz's motion in its entirety.
+August 29, 2016
+Respectfully Submitted,
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
+By: Is/ Sigrid McCawley
+Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice)
+Meredith
+(Pro Hac Vice
+Boies Schiller & Flexner LLI
+401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+(954) 356-0011
+25
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 406 Filed 08/29/16 Page 31 of 31
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that on August 29, 2016, I electronically filed the foregoing
+document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the foregoing
+document is being served to all parties of record via transmission of the Electronic Court Filing
+System generated by CM/ECF.
+Laura A. Menninger, Esq.
+Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esg.
+HADDON,
+150 East 10" Avenue
+Denver, Colorado 80203
+Tel: (303) 831-7364
+Fax: (303) 832-2628
+Email: Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+jpagliuca @hmflaw.com
+P.C.
+/s/ Meredith
+Meredith
+26

vision-fixhub/court-04/de351d217be144af46533ae06f76f784054920f147bbc84ed2fc67b2ad95a871.receipt.json

@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -533,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "de351d217be144af46533ae06f76f784054920f147bbc84ed2fc67b2ad95a871",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 34,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "b4b7d80eb236542ee45d60295fa0f6e8f8097bdb93489271c0c6d62ea4086636",
+  "output_sha256": "c383e58cb2069f4092b3307501b628c080faa8d5ea9a7cc38c689ee642e749e7",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}

vision-fixhub/court-04/de4bcb35939f85ee2d49cf02ef97d4dd73725eaf1cc14ca8871b1c4621c92d42.md

@@ -0,0 +1,306 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE
+Document 435
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+Filed 11/11/21 Page 1 of 11
+USDC SDNY
+DOCUD
+ELECTRONICALLY FILED
+DOC #:
+DATE FILED: 11/11/21
+United States of America,
+20-CR-330 (AJN)
+-v-
+OPINION & ORDER
+Ghislaine Maxwell,
+Defendant.
+ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:
+Before the Court is the Defense's motion to exclude the Government's expert witness,
+Dr. Lisa Rocchio, pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the standard in Daubert v.
+Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Dkt. No. 386. The Government filed
+a response brief, Dkt. No. 397, and Defendant filed a reply, Dkt. No. 398. The Court conducted
+a Daubert hearing on November 10, 2021, at which both parties examined Dr. Rocchio. Dkt.
+No. 431. The Court stated its oral opinion at that hearing that it would deny and grant in part
+Defendant's motion, to be followed by this opinion.
+I.
+Legal standard
+Federal Rule of Evidence 702 governs the admissibility of expert testimony. That rule
+states:
+A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or
+education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if:
+(a) the expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier
+of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;
+1
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 435 Filed 11/11/21 Page 2 of 11
+(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;
+(c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and
+(d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.
+The Court exercises a "gatekeeper function" in assessing the admissibility of expert
+testimony. Restivo v. Hessemann, 846 F.3d 547, 575 (2d Cir. 2017). To determine whether an
+expert's method is reliable, the Court considers the non-exhaustive list provided by the Supreme
+Court in Daubert, including whether the expert's method has been tested, whether it has been
+subjected to peer review, the rate of error, standards controlling the method's operation, and
+whether the method is accepted by the expert community. United States v. Kidd, 385 F. Supp. 3d
+259, 263 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (citing Daubert, 509 U.S. at 593-94).
+But Rule 702 ultimately sets a "liberal" and "permissive" standard of admissibility.
+Nimely v. City of New York, 414 F.3d 381, 395-96 (2d Cir. 2005). In particular, not every expert
+admissible under Daubert need rely on a method that conforms with "the exactness of hard
+science methodologies." E.E.O.C. v. Bloomberg L.P., No. 07-CV-8383 (LAP), 2010 WL
+3466370, at *13-14 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2010) (quoting United States v.
+470 F.3d
+1115, 1123 (5th Cir. 2006)).
+Il. Discussion
+As a preliminary matter, the Defense argues that the additional materials filed by the
+Government in support of Dr. Rocchio's expertise should be excluded as failing to comply with
+the Court's order that the Government make all expert witness disclosures by April 23, 2021.
+Dkt. No. 250. But that Order, made pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(a)(1)(G),
+required only that the Government provide an adequate summary of the intended topics and
+opinions of Dr. Rocchio's testimony, which the Government did here in a timely manner. See
+2
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 435 Filed 11/11/21 Page 3 of 11
+Kidd, 385 F. Supp. 3d at 262. The Defense cites only one case, United States v. L
+which
+involved the distinct situation where a district court excluded expert testimony because the notice
+itself was untimely. 818 F. App'x 74, 79 (2d Cir. 2020). The Court concludes that the
+Government's supplemental materials in further response to the Defense's motion are timely and
+may be considered in resolving the Daubert motion.
+Turning to the proffered expert opinions, as articulated in the Government's disclosure
+and at the Daubert hearing, Dr. Rocchio would offer five expert opinions. First, that perpetrators
+of sexual abuse of minors frequently use manipulation or coercion short of physical force as part
+of a strategic pattern, often referred to as grooming, to make the minor vulnerable to abuse.
+Second, that manipulation and grooming can prevent the minor from understanding their
+experience as abuse and so prevent disclosure. Third, that abuse can cause long-term traumatic
+and psychological consequences. Fourth, that the presence of another individual can facilitate
+sexual abuse of minors. And fifth, that nondisclosure, incremental disclosure, and secrecy are
+common among victims of sexual abuse and that memory can be affected by a variety of factors,
+including the effects of trauma.
+The Defense does not contest that Dr. Rocchio has the qualifications to express opinions
+on these subjects. Dr. Rocchio has a PhD in clinical psychology and is a clinical instructor at the
+Alpert Medical School of |
+University. She has more than two decades of experience
+treating hundreds of victims of trauma, many of which were minor victims of sexual abuse. She
+has published peer-reviewed articles on trauma and sexual abuse and has given numerous talks in
+addition to her teaching. Given these papers, and her credible and extensive hearing testimony,
+the Court therefore finds Dr. Rocchio qualified as an expert.
+3
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 435 Filed 11/11/21 Page 4 of 11
+The Defense instead argues that Dr. Rocchio's method is unreliable, that it is not relevant
+to the jury's determination, and that its prejudicial effect would substantially outweigh its
+probative value. These arguments rely heavily on a district court opinion from outside this
+circuit, United States v. Raymond, 700 F. Supp. 2d 142 (D. Me. 2010). After careful
+consideration of the Defense's arguments and the thorough reasoning in Raymond, the Court
+concludes that Dr. Rocchio's anticipated testimony is admissible with one exception. The Court
+will address first why Dr. Rocchio's testimony is admissible and then address the one opinion
+that it will exclude.
+First, Dr. Rocchio's method is reliable and well-accepted in her profession. It is for this
+reason that several courts in this circuit have admitted the testimony of similar experts, such as
+testimony on so-called trauma bonding to explain why prostitutes may not flee from their pimps
+even when not physically restrained. In United States v. Kidd, the court admitted the testimony,
+finding it to be "quite common[ I" and accepted in the academic literature. 385 F. Supp. 3d at
+263. Identical testimony was admitted by Judge Furman in United States v. Dupigny, No. 18-
+Cr.-528 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y. 2019), Dkt. No. 198 at 27, by Judge Engelmayer in United States v.
+Randall, 19 Cr. 131 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y. 2020), Dkt. No. 335 at 24-30, and by Judge Cote in United
+States v.
+,. No. 20-CR-608 (DLC), 2021 WL 1947503, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. May 13, 2021).
+Their decisions are consistent with the vast majority of courts to consider the admission
+of such experts. A number of courts have admitted experts on the particular topic of grooming at
+issue here, a sample of which include the Seventh Circuit in United States v. Romero, 189 F.3d
+576, 585 (7th Cir. 1999), the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Hitt, 473 F.3d 146, 158 (5th Cir.
+2006), the Ninth Circuit in United States v. Halamek, 5 F.4th 1081, 1087-89 (9th Cir. 2021), the
+Tenth Circuit in United States v. Batton, 602 F.3d 1191, 1201-02 (10th Cir. 2010), the Eighth
+4
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 435 Filed 11/11/21 Page 5 of 11
+Circuit in United States v.
+860 F.3d 1133, 1141 (8th Cir. 2017), and the District of
+Massachusetts in Doe ex rel. Pike v. Pike, 405 F. Supp. 3d 243, 249 (D. Mass. 2019).
+Here, Dr. Rocchio has extensive experience treating minors who have been sexually
+abused, and those decades of relevant experience, combined with her formal training, are an
+adequate basis for her to testify on methods that perpetrators of sexual abuse often use to build
+trust with their victims, whether that be grooming or other forms of manipulation and coercion.
+The Government has also provided several articles on the subject of grooming that convince the
+Court that it is a well-accepted theory in Dr. Rocchio's field. Though the Second Circuit has not
+ruled on the admissibility of a grooming expert, it has previously recognized the academic
+literature on grooming to facilitate sexual abuse of minors. See United States v. Brand, 467 F.3d
+179, 203 (2d Cir. 2006). The Defense cites to several contrary articles that suggest experts
+disagree on the kinds of behaviors that define grooming. But if experts disagree on the proper
+interpretation of evidence, "it is not the Court's role to resolve the dispute through exclusion of
+one of the expert's opinions." In re Digital Music Antitrust Litig., 321 F.R.D. 64, 80 (S.D.N.Y.
+2017).
+Moreover, Dr. Rocchio addressed these contrary articles during the Daubert hearing,
+identifying points of agreement and disagreement. Based on her testimony, the parties'
+submission and accompanying exhibits, the Court concludes that the core concept of grooming is
+well-accepted in the relevant literature, even if experts continue to debate the details.
+The Defense's primary argument is that Dr. Rocchio's method is unreliable because it is
+based on her personal experience with the clients she has treated, that Dr. Rocchio did not verify
+whether those clients were truthful, and that Dr. Rocchio has not and cannot identify an error
+rate. The Court finds that these objections are misplaced in the field of clinical psychology,
+5
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 435 Filed 11/11/21 Page 6 of 11
+particularly when studying the causes and effects of sexual abuse of minors. The Court agrees
+with Judge Engelmayer's response to this argument:
+The absence of large quantity statistical studies is explained by a practical reason
+that should be obvious to all. Studying the circumstances and psychological
+drivers of trafficked women is not like studying diseases or potential cures in
+laboratory animals. In those studies, laboratory conditions literally can be
+achieved. ...
+That strictly quantitative mode of inquiry is not realistic or even ethical in the
+context of studying sex trafficking. The causes and contributors to sex trafficking
+by their nature must be studied retrospectively. They cannot ethically be studied
+otherwise. Subjects cannot be tested to see under what circumstances they would
+and would not, on a going forward basis, tall prey to the predations of sex
+traffickers. Given the necessarily retrospective nature of such a study, given the
+small size of the populations under review, and given the inherently
+individualized circumstances presented by different perpetrators, victims, and
+contexts in this tumultuous and emotionally fraught area of criminal conduct, the
+vocabulary of error rates and statistical significance is an unusually poor fit.
+Tr. at 29-30, United States v. Randall, 19-Cr.-131 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y. 2020), Dkt. No. 335.
+For the reasons Judge Engelmayer gave—which Dr. Rocchio echoed in her testimony—
+the Court finds that the error-rate factor listed by Daubert is not determinative as to the reliability
+of Dr. Rocchio's method.
+For similar reasons, the Court rejects the Defense's argument that Dr. Rocchio's method
+is unreliable because she relied on the reports of her clients. Given the realities of studying
+sensitive criminal acts like sexual abuse, a researcher can only rarely verify reports with absolute
+certainty. Yet that does not mean a clinical or forensic psychologist accepts all statements at
+face value. Rather, as the Government notes, part of Dr. Rocchio's profession is to examine and
+diagnose her patients consistent with her significant training and specialized knowledge.
+Further, on the forensic side of her practice, Dr. Rocchio regularly investigates and verifies
+sexual abuse. She reports "remarkable consistency" between the reports of her clinical patients
+6
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 435 Filed 11/11/21 Page 7 of 11
+and her forensic findings. Nov. 10 Tr. at 40. That said, the Defense is of course free to crossexamine Dr. Rocchio about how she evaluates her patients.
+The Defense also suggests that Dr. Rocchio's experience is based on an unrepresentative
+sample of alleged victims because her patients self-selected seeking treatment with her. Yet the
+Defense does not explain why Dr. Rocchio's experience with a large number of patients would
+not be applicable to the alleged victims in this case. To the extent the Defense wishes to argue
+that Dr. Rocchio's experience is under-representative, that is a topic for cross-examination.
+Further, the Defense argues that Dr. Rocchio's experience treating victims of sexual
+abuse does not make her an expert on grooming, which would require experience with
+perpetrators themselves. This argument overlooks the fact that, as she testified, Dr. Rocchio also
+relied on literature that includes studies of sexual abusers' reported behaviors. But more
+importantly, the Court concludes, as other courts like the Ninth Circuit have, that extensive
+experience with victims can be used to study perpetrators' process of victimization. See
+Halamek, 5 F.4th at 1088. That is especially so here where the crux of Dr. Rocchio's expected
+testimony is the effect that grooming behaviors have on the minor, not the perpetrator's mental
+state when performing the behaviors.
+Second, the Court finds that Dr. Rocchio's opinions are relevant to the Government's
+case against Ms. Maxwell. Two points of law bear mention here. For one, as the Second Circuit
+has explained, expert testimony cannot "constitute evaluations of witness credibility"- that is,
+expert testimony is inadmissible if it "comments] directly, under the guise of expert opinion, on
+the credibility of trial testimony from" specific fact witnesses. Nimely, 414 F.3d at 398.
+Additionally, if the expert's "opinion is one that the jury could reach with their own 'common
+knowledge and common sense,' no expert testimony is warranted." Edmondson v. RCI Hosp.
+7
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 435 Filed 11/11/21 Page 8 of 11
+Holdings, Inc., No. 16-CV-2242 (VEC), 2020 WL 1503452, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2020)
+(quoting 4 Weinstein's Federal Evidence § 702.03 (2019)); see also United States v. Mulder, 273
+F.3d 91, 101 (2d Cir. 2001) (explaining that "the district court should not admit testimony that is
+"directed solely to lay matters which a jury is capable of understanding and deciding without the
+expert's help"" (quoting United States v. Castillo, 924 F.2d 1227, 1232 (2d Cir. 1991))). Dr.
+Rocchio's first and second opinions may assist the jury in understanding how a minor may be
+enticed, induced, or coerced into illegal sexual activity without physical force. These opinions
+may also assist a jury in assessing evidence that some alleged victims repeatedly interacted with
+Jeffrey Epstein, seemingly voluntarily, even after they suffered abuse. Dr. Rocchio's fourth
+opinion is similarly relevant to the charges that require proving intentional enticement or
+inducement.
+Dr. Rocchio's third and fifth opinions pertain to issues that will arise in the case based on
+anticipated cross-examination by the Defense. Specifically, the third opinion becomes relevant if
+the Defense impeaches an alleged victim based on their substance abuse. And the fifth opinion
+may become relevant if the Defense impeaches an alleged victim based on an ostensible delay in
+fully disclosing sexual abuse. At the Daubert hearing, the Defense stated that they intended to
+pursue both lines of impeachment at trial. Nov. 10 Tr. at 156-57. The Court therefore finds
+these elements of Dr. Rocchio's testimony relevant to matters the Defense intends to put in issue
+during anticipated cross-examination. The Court also concludes that these opinions satisfy the
+other relevant Daubert requirements. Namely, they would assist the jury in understanding
+concepts that require expert knowledge without directing the jury to reach any conclusion as to a
+witness's credibility. Additionally, both Dr. Rocchio's opinion about sexual abuse's connection
+to substance abuse and her opinion about delayed disclosure are "are outside the ken of the
+8
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 435 Filed 11/11/21 Page 9 of 11
+average person," and so appropriate for expert testimony. United States v. Felder, 993 F.3d 57,
+72 (2d Cir. 2021). Nor would admission of these opinions cause unfair Rule 403 prejudice since
+they are relevant rebuttal to impeachment points that the Defense will put in issue.
+The Defense argues that Dr. Rocchio's testimony is not relevant because the Government
+represents that she will testify only to general principles and not offer "testimony regarding any
+specific victim." Dkt. No. 386 at 3. The Defense has the law backwards on this point. As
+explained above regarding the Second Circuit's Nimely decision, an expert may not testify as to a
+specific witness's credibility. 414 F.3d at 398. And as other courts have explained in admitting
+similar testimony, Dr. Rocchio's testimony is appropriate because she does not testify as to any
+specific witness's credibility. See, e.g..
+, No. 20-CR-608 (DLC), 2021 WL 1947503, at
+*7;
+, 860 F.3d at 1140 (8th Cir. 2017) (explaining that an expert may testify "regarding
+the general characteristies that sexually abused children exhibit" but may not usurp the jury's
+role of assessing the credibility of any specific victim); United States v. Telles, 6 F.4th 1086,
+1097-98 (9th Cir. 2021) (same).
+This analysis is referred to in the case relied upon by the Defense, United States v.
+Raymond, and in portions of the Defense's briefing, as a question of "fit." 700 F. Supp. 2d at
+149. But Daubert's "fit" requirement is really just a specialized relevance inquiry that asks
+"whether expert testimony proffered in the case is sufficiently tied to the facts of the case that it
+will aid the jury in resolving a factual dispute." Alto v. Sun Pharm. Indus., Inc., No. 1:19-CV-
+09758 (GHW), 2021 WL 4803582, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 13, 2021) (quoting Daubert, 509 U.S. at
+591). Fit is satisfied if the expert's opinion would assist the jury's decision on a relevant
+question of fact without "usurp[ing] either the role of the trial judge in instructing the jury as to
+the applicable law or the role of the jury in applying that law to the facts before it." Id. (quoting
+9
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 435 Filed 11/11/21 Page 10 of 11
+United States v. Duncan, 42 F.3d 97, 101 (2d Cir. 1994)). For the reasons already provided, the
+Court finds that fit is satisfied here.
+Third, the probative value of Dr. Rocchio's testimony is not substantially outweighed by
+403 prejudice to Ms. Maxwell. The Court finds that Dr. Rocchio's testimony would not unduly
+""'simplify' an otherwise complex case" or mislead jurors by a supposedly infallible expert. Dkt.
+No. 386 at 11. Dr. Rocchio's opinions speak only to concepts and will not (and indeed may not)
+suggest that the jury find any alleged victim witness to be credible or to find Ms. Maxwell guilty.
+The more general nature of Dr. Rocchio's opinions, which the Court heard in detail at the
+Daubert hearing, therefore mitigates its prejudicial effect. Telles, 6 F.4th at 1097. It is the jury's
+role to determine whether and how Dr. Rocchio's opinions apply to the facts of this case and the
+credibility of the witnesses.
+Last, as previously mentioned, the Court will grant in part the Defense's Daubert motion.
+The Defense argues that Dr. Rocchio's opinion that grooming can be done to facilitate sexual
+abuse by a third party or that the presence of a third party can otherwise facilitate grooming is
+unreliable. The Defense calls this "grooming-by-proxy." E.g., Dkt. No. 386 at 9. Terminology
+aside, the Court agrees with this narrower objection to Dr. Rocchio's testimony. As discussed at
+the hearing, this phenomenon is not identified in the relevant literature regarding child sexual
+abuse and has not been subjected to peer review. Instead, the Court understands this opinion to
+be an extrapolation of the broader principle of how grooming functions through the development
+of trust. That extrapolation may be logical and follow common sense, but it is for the jury to
+make on the facts of this case. The Court therefore excludes Dr. Rocchio's opinion that the
+presence of a third party can facilitate grooming. Dr. Rocchio's core opinions about grooming,
+however, remain admissible under the Rule 702 and Daubert standard and remain relevant
+10
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 435 Filed 11/11/21 Page 11 of 11
+pursuant to Rule 401 and not unduly prejudicial. As discussed, the jury may extrapolate from the
+opinions that the presence of a third party creates the atmosphere of trust that can facilitate
+grooming. Moreover, as the Government explains, Dr. Rocchio's testimony is still relevant
+because the Government alleges both that Ms. Maxwell "in fact participated in sexual abuse of
+minors" and that she "conspired with a predator who groomed and sexually abused minors."
+Dkt. No. 397 at 27.
+The Court therefore denies the Defense's motion to exclude Dr. Rocchio's testimony
+except as to the opinion that the presence of a third party can facilitate grooming.
+This resolves docket number 386.
+SO ORDERED.
+Dated: November 11, 2021
+New York, New York
+Alie So Matter
+ALISON J. NATHAN
+United States District Judge
+1]

vision-fixhub/court-04/de4bcb35939f85ee2d49cf02ef97d4dd73725eaf1cc14ca8871b1c4621c92d42.receipt.json

@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -134,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "de4bcb35939f85ee2d49cf02ef97d4dd73725eaf1cc14ca8871b1c4621c92d42",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 12,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "80171be658c735c5a93470aef0c090e1350a76d3d8d7b5cc011c6af22124216a",
+  "output_sha256": "8c4bdad013f4f5b8688950cfdb6491b628286f29ed8f2f8213f8a510ef63622c",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}

vision-fixhub/court-04/de4e3983f0d15bdbb5482ca0e4b722ffd713797129fa78b3baa5a8a48118c3e0.md

@@ -0,0 +1,79 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 822
+Filed 03/30/17 Page 1 of 4
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+--X
+Plaintiff,
+V.
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+Defendant.
+15-cv-07433-RWS
+------
+Defendant's Reply in Support of Motion for Bifurcated Trial
+Relating to Punitive Damages and Exclusion of
+Any Reference to Financial Information in the Liability Phase
+Laura A. Menninger
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+Ty Gee
+HADDON, |
+150 East 10" Avenue
+Denver, CO 80203
+303.831.7364
+1, AND
+I, P.C.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 822 Filed 03/30/17 Page 2 of 4
+REDACTED
+PAGES 1-8
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP |
+Document 822
+Filed 03/30/17
+
+Conclusion
+Dated: March 30, 2017.
+Respectfully submitted,
+Is/ Laura A. Menninger
+Laura A. Menninger (LM-1374)
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca (pro hac vice)
+Ty Gee (pro hac vice)
+HADDON,
+150 East 10* Avenue
+Denver, CO 80203
+Phone: 303.831.7364
+303.832.2628
+Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell
+P.C.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 822 Filed 03/30/17 Page 4 of 4
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I certify that on March 30, 2017, I electronically served this Defendant's Reply in Support of
+Motion for Bifurcated Trial Relating to Punitive Damages and Exclusion of Any Reference to
+Financial Information in the Liability Phase via ECF on the following:
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+Meredith
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
+401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Ste. 1200
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+smccawley@bsfllp.com
+mschultz@bsfllp.com
+Paul G. Cassell
+383 S. University Street
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+cassellp@law.utah.edu
+_ JAFFE, WEISSING,
+FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
+425 North Andrews Ave., Ste. 2
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+brad@pathtojustice.com
+J. Stanley Pottinger
+49 Twin Lakes Rd.
+South Salem, NY 10590
+StanPottinger@aol.com
+/s/ Nicole
+Nicole
+10

vision-fixhub/court-04/de4e3983f0d15bdbb5482ca0e4b722ffd713797129fa78b3baa5a8a48118c3e0.receipt.json

@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -59,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "de4e3983f0d15bdbb5482ca0e4b722ffd713797129fa78b3baa5a8a48118c3e0",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 5,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "99c46198f1f8ff0f70cdd963ee0c42986000dbcfabd42bb5d7416933ea17027c",
+  "output_sha256": "4a2931b40bc36da3ae1be72f0ee53dd67bc49c6cbf55da109db70364833c35c9",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}

vision-fixhub/court-04/de734daada086c49bd55b8299f40e46ba3e78c89eeedffa7d51d090a584e0a36.md

@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 782-1 Filed 03/24/17 Page 1 of 1
+
+(FILE UNDER SEAL)

vision-fixhub/court-04/de734daada086c49bd55b8299f40e46ba3e78c89eeedffa7d51d090a584e0a36.receipt.json

@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -21,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "de734daada086c49bd55b8299f40e46ba3e78c89eeedffa7d51d090a584e0a36",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "0b71efaac37784954e189654759ce07a60c84b870ec32a842b0ca8aa2324f47d",
+  "output_sha256": "120a83150df78b46c69ec1b760c46477952fb55d6606c6be93e3245c798dfbb8",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}

vision-fixhub/court-04/de79ea56d1f03e4b7a116d8219be1107d3872e0e1532a24d94fc4fd99e97a4b0.md

@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 184 |
+Filed 03/26/21 Page 1 of 1
+BSF
+BOIES
+| SCHILLER
+FLEXNER
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+Telephone: (954) 377-4223
+Email: smccawley@bsfllp.com
+March 26, 2021
+VIA ECF
+The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+40 Foley Square
+New York, New York 10007
+Re:
+United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
+Dear Judge Nathan:
+I write on behalf of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP ("BSF") and the victims it represents. On
+March 24, 2021
+Me Dezendant proposed rile 3S su pens to B on the peter dain bictions ta
+in ate lines of che don t else ailrom piece o
+Respectfully submitted,
+Is/ Sigrid S. McCawley
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
+401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1200, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 | (t) 954 356 0011 | (f) 954 356 0022 | www.bsfllp.com

vision-fixhub/court-04/de79ea56d1f03e4b7a116d8219be1107d3872e0e1532a24d94fc4fd99e97a4b0.receipt.json

@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -12,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "de79ea56d1f03e4b7a116d8219be1107d3872e0e1532a24d94fc4fd99e97a4b0",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 1,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "3c1cde1c8f522890e47186f8e5e44e70ca9c72e294ba77d865aba1b02a77c347",
+  "output_sha256": "8863f01d4c24d30a7d352f6cde6375e1edaa4c89b3c56f581845f3812d86acc6",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}

vision-fixhub/court-04/de8101b66612ea34313365c38a1b44df6277e343527b4f246a2d13d4fc2b47ef.md

@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 340-9 Filed 08/08/16 Page 1 of 1
+REDACTED
+

vision-fixhub/court-04/de8101b66612ea34313365c38a1b44df6277e343527b4f246a2d13d4fc2b47ef.receipt.json

@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -21,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "de8101b66612ea34313365c38a1b44df6277e343527b4f246a2d13d4fc2b47ef",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "82865d9d2c1879119f226aad5abf2c0ee1e913c16a3044cefbfe92c3f375d7b1",
+  "output_sha256": "e8b5360f80c8dbe6a5fb6eb7a0a49c33c8981eaafce6f341e2bfc16fe797b550",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}

vision-fixhub/court-04/de8e7c81a7472453f298d5604a2506919ab5ca41a2eb623f2d6cfc432c835c00.md

@@ -0,0 +1,56 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 751-9 Filed 03/17/17 Page 1 of 3
+
+
+
+Case 1:15-CV-07433-LAP Document 751-9 Filed 03/17/17 Page 2 of 3
+Buckingham Palace issues second denial of underage sex
+claims against Prince Andrew
+www.foxnews.com/world/2015/01/04/buckingham-palace-issues-second-denial-underage-sex-claims-againstprince.html
+June 6, 2012: In this file photo, Britain's Prince Andrew leaves
+father Prince Philip. (AP)
+Edward VIl hospital in London after visiting his
+Buckingham Palace officials have again denied claims made by a woman who alleged that she was forced to have
+sex while underage with Prince Andrew,
+of York.
+The second denial comes after two Sunday papers in Britain published interviews with the woman in which she
+claimed that she was forced by American financier Jeffrey Epstein to have sex with Prince Andrew at least three
+times between 1999 and 2002. The woman alleges that the encounters took place in London, New York, and on a
+Caribbean island owned by Epstein.
+A Palace spokesman has said that the allegations are "false and without any foundation."
+"It is emphatically denied that the
+of York had any form of sexual contact or relationship with (the woman)," the
+statement continued. The denials are unusual because
+officials typically do not comment on allegations
+against members of the
+family.
+The woman's claims are part of a lawsuit in a Florida court relating to how prosecutors handled a sexual abuse case
+against American financier Jeffrey Epstein. The woman, identified in court papers only as "Jane Doe No. 3," is one
+of two new accusers asking a West Palm Beach, Florida, judge to allow them to join the existing lawsuit against
+Epstein. The
+is not named as a defendant in the case, and no criminal charges or formal allegations have
+been made against him.
+1/2
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 751-9 Filed 03/17/17 Page 3 of 3
+The women have objected to how U.S. prosecutors handled Epstein's case, and want authorities to reconsider a
+plea deal that allowed Epstein to avoid much more serious federal charges and potentially longer prison time.
+Epstein served 13 months of an 18-month sentence after pleading guilty to a single charge of soliciting prostitution
+before being released in 2009.
+It was not the first time Prince Andrew has faced media scrutiny over his friendship with Epstein. In July 2011 the
+stepped down from his role as a U.K. trade ambassador after he was photographed with Epstein in New York.
+Prince Andrew is the second son and third child of Queen Elizabeth Il and Prince Philip,
+of Edinburgh. He is
+fifth in line to the British throne behind his older brother Prince Charles, nephew Prince William, grandnephew
+Prince
+and nephew Prince Harry.
+The Sunday Mirror reported that Prince Andrew was on a skiing holiday in Switzerland, where he had been staying
+with his ex-wife Sarah
+and their daughters, Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie.
+In a further bizarre twist to the story, prominent attorney Alan Dershowitz, who is also named in the court
+documents, told the BBC that he is planning legal action against the woman.
+"If she believes she has been hurt by me and Prince Andrew, she should be suing us for damages," the former
+Harvard Law professor said. "I welcome that lawsuit. I welcome any opportunity that would put her under oath and
+require her to state under oath these false allegations."
+The Associated Press contributed to this report.
+2/2

vision-fixhub/court-04/de8e7c81a7472453f298d5604a2506919ab5ca41a2eb623f2d6cfc432c835c00.receipt.json

@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -47,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "de8e7c81a7472453f298d5604a2506919ab5ca41a2eb623f2d6cfc432c835c00",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 5,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "58b17f1fae48c8be0c1e86abac921d7237eac48888f884acf1a8a8ba37a21f66",
+  "output_sha256": "6a4e1171e8131370dd2e5abfe85a38a7c65d8addd0bb7f29f8f9069b0cd2dce7",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}

vision-fixhub/court-04/de9476e00c6ac1204edbe8b459fda7c68c8ee75b5cecff28dd984d7811e4c4bf.md

@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 148-3 Filed 02/04/21 Page 1 of 1
+
+(Filed Under Seal)

vision-fixhub/court-04/de9476e00c6ac1204edbe8b459fda7c68c8ee75b5cecff28dd984d7811e4c4bf.receipt.json

@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -21,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "de9476e00c6ac1204edbe8b459fda7c68c8ee75b5cecff28dd984d7811e4c4bf",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "f4672b7ac070531e43838a19f67f342c2f00fb2274a119bff488ea6cf894e755",
+  "output_sha256": "610db1fe631f8c288f8b8afe33c2c046743bc945082bd8a85b65c29ebcee261b",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}

vision-fixhub/court-04/deabadf6ddb3d837e2a732b5cbca8037727deae901ca30dc8d12febc7139ffa2.md

@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 185-14 Filed 06/01/16 Page 1 of 1
+
+(Filed Under Seal)

vision-fixhub/court-04/deabadf6ddb3d837e2a732b5cbca8037727deae901ca30dc8d12febc7139ffa2.receipt.json

@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -22,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "deabadf6ddb3d837e2a732b5cbca8037727deae901ca30dc8d12febc7139ffa2",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "b35204d2c72b1587d47e52891b79311c37a841a23450a3fd80787f017a1fd5f2",
+  "output_sha256": "b9522550c33737e2b9ee71a18cfa9b341bcf063e530e070e1dd790c804a65ecc",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}

vision-fixhub/court-04/deacaef93bbe9f3ac02c879e5cb65cc6720066b3053bfd6b1ad2d9bd2a956ae9.md

@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 50 Filed 08/26/19 Page 1o/‡
+USDC SDNY
+DOCUMENT
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+ELECTRONICALLY FILED
+DOC#:
+UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
+DATE FORD: 8/26/19
+Government,
+- against -
+19 CR. 490 (RMB)
+ORDER
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+Defendant.
+The hearing scheduled for Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 10:30 a.m. will be held in
+Courtroom 110 of the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse located at 40 Foley Square.
+Dated: New York, New York
+August 26, 2019
+Richard 1. Berman
+RICHARD M. BERMAN, U.S.D.J.

vision-fixhub/court-04/deacaef93bbe9f3ac02c879e5cb65cc6720066b3053bfd6b1ad2d9bd2a956ae9.receipt.json

@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -12,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "deacaef93bbe9f3ac02c879e5cb65cc6720066b3053bfd6b1ad2d9bd2a956ae9",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 1,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "61ad906cb86e18f76cd20555fd713e5a45be4b0cfa2f6d3ea94548f0cedb9122",
+  "output_sha256": "de7761802168b7084ce45e1b044b504685159973a4c3fbe5a547aaee874906cb",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}

vision-fixhub/court-04/deca7e1eb7ec5171cf5bce9736e0eb662083a516f4f6e49f945fbc3d197da4ff.receipt.json

@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -7987,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "deca7e1eb7ec5171cf5bce9736e0eb662083a516f4f6e49f945fbc3d197da4ff",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 410,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.digits-only\", \"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]",
+  "idempotent": false,
+  "input_sha256": "2638acf56ec1e6d92d9b75491544abc6ef23d64d088236e6ae3e14ae95a15edc",
+  "output_sha256": "61804824fe6b7a889a52cb0630ded0cf725c82bb3ca5d4e597821225fc70537f",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}

vision-fixhub/court-04/decb563680e41a798b6a1cb6d7843c4c769c565cebca3f78cfb7a457d353c2c5.md

@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 382-1 Filed 10/29/21 Page 1 of 1
+
+FILED UNDER SEAL

vision-fixhub/court-04/decb563680e41a798b6a1cb6d7843c4c769c565cebca3f78cfb7a457d353c2c5.receipt.json

@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -21,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "decb563680e41a798b6a1cb6d7843c4c769c565cebca3f78cfb7a457d353c2c5",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "34c142cbfc4cf0d9b8113cd3389855abfcc9ef775a2af5fb8005886bc9ce660e",
+  "output_sha256": "51efcca9df41e8d07f382ec368542ad90296b59727e98de2176242db038df4fe",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}

vision-fixhub/court-04/ded8442e7113f123a22a99583bba2a18a30ce5a150cc4c9c47fc049c35a6e55c.md

@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 355-2 Filed 08/10/16 Page 1 of 1
+REDACTED
+

vision-fixhub/court-04/ded8442e7113f123a22a99583bba2a18a30ce5a150cc4c9c47fc049c35a6e55c.receipt.json

@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -21,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "ded8442e7113f123a22a99583bba2a18a30ce5a150cc4c9c47fc049c35a6e55c",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "3d473cb3fa43032b108c56c2cc2dad72c407998609027519c0eca3658a78fe72",
+  "output_sha256": "2dab3abe4dfcbf9bd14becc4c58e3392185219f0c55326441014e4f69a3b4a26",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}

vision-fixhub/court-04/df01a0dafa73461a604a3db33700f637484023ff38586251c15b476b397154ed.md

@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 247-2 Filed 06/22/16 Page 1 of 1
+REDACTED
+

vision-fixhub/court-04/df01a0dafa73461a604a3db33700f637484023ff38586251c15b476b397154ed.receipt.json

@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -21,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "df01a0dafa73461a604a3db33700f637484023ff38586251c15b476b397154ed",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "a0a2ed9f4286c4ce45d4de3f12bbc190ee827f208918e3744dc552146ed24894",
+  "output_sha256": "24f710ab99539299520972e8d131daddeb3cc4d503255e65617f75aea8c0638c",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}

vision-fixhub/court-04/df0a4ca3046cfd0a7f30ff914eab141cfb160347bce0f89f7472da961d0ea166.md

@@ -0,0 +1,74 @@
+Casse 1996079625AMBEr Bocument 39 Fillarh 27045139 pagede di2f 3
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+VE,
+Plaintifi,
+Case No. 1:19-cv-07625-AJN
+V.
+DARREN K. INDYKE AND RICHARD D. KAHN
+AS JOINT PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF
+THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, NINE
+EAST 71st STREET, CORPORATION,
+FINANCIAL TRUST COMPANY, INC., NES,
+LLC,
+Defendants.
+DEC n 5 2019
+ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S ANONYMITY
+IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that any person subject to this Order, including the parties to
+this action and their respective counsel of record, shall adhere to the following terms:
+1. Within three (3) days of entry of this Order, Counsel of Record for Plaintiff shall disclose
+Plaintiff's identity to Counsel of Record for Defendants, in writing.
+2. Counsel of Record for Defendants may disclose Plaintiff's identity only to Defendants and
+any attorneys, paralegals, and clerical or other assistants working with or for Defendants
+on matters related to this action; and the recipients of such information shall not disclose it
+to any other persons.
+3. If Defendants wish to disclose Plaintiff's identity to any person not otherwise permitted to
+receive such information under this Order, Defendants are limited to doing so in connection
+with detending this action, and must require such person to first execute a non-disclosure
+agreement, in a form agreed to by the parties, that prevents such person from disclosing
+Plaintiff's identity to any other persons. Defendants must maintain a list of all such persons
+to whom Plaintiff's identity is disclosed and copies of the executed non-disclosure
+agreements, all of which are subject to in camera inspection.
+4. All portions of pleadings, motions or other papers filed with the Court that disclose
+Plaintiff's identity shall be filed under seal with the Clerk of the Court and kept under seal
+until further order of the Court. The parties shall use their best efforts to minimize such
+sealing. Any party filing a motion or any other papers with the Court under seal shall also
+
+
+caase 1.9540-79625-AУNP6EF Bocument 39 mila 27045139 pagage 8taf 3
+publicly file a redacted copy of the same, via the Court's Electronic Case Filing system,
+that redacts the Plaintiff's identity and text that would reveal Plaintiff's identity.
+5. The parties may seek to modify or amend this Order at any time upon motion to the Court
+or by stipulation.
+SO ORDERED.
+Date:
+Ver J.dol
+lew York, New Yor
+United States District Judge
+2
+
+
+Ease 1:19:8V-87625 AN BEF 002mmen 391 Filed 12/85/19 påg893P13
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+VE,
+Plaintiff,
+Case No. 1:19-cv-07625-AJN
+DARREN K. INDYKE AND RICHARD D. KAHN AS
+JOINT PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
+ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, NINE EAST 71st
+STREET, CORPORATION, FINANCIAL TRUST
+COMPANY, INC., NES, LLC,
+Defendants.
+NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT
+I,
+_, acknowledge that I understand that the identity of the
+Plaintiff in this action is confidential. I agree that: (1) I will hold in confidence Plaintiff's identity;
+(2) I will use Plaintiff's identity only in connection with this litigation; and (3) I will take all due
+precautions to prevent the unauthorized or inadvertent disclosure of Plaintiff's identity.
+By acknowledging these obligations under this Non-Disclosure Agreement, I understand
+hat I am submitting myself to the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Souther
+District of New York for the purpose of any issue or dispute arising hereunder, and that my willfu
+coolation of coy term of the Non-Disclosure Agrement could subject me to punishment for
+Dated:
+[Signature]

vision-fixhub/court-04/df0a4ca3046cfd0a7f30ff914eab141cfb160347bce0f89f7472da961d0ea166.receipt.json

@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -36,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "df0a4ca3046cfd0a7f30ff914eab141cfb160347bce0f89f7472da961d0ea166",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 3,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "8a0e1b06d001e2a9f84c0a74b2719cc0da608bf8004c7be67e895326ae860a4d",
+  "output_sha256": "b71e628ddb124ee8f7c8f701a6214c09b8ba52894b7dd2f1ab37e5646c4228fa",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}

vision-fixhub/court-04/df27b2099c7ab5dec153d2641bb0deeae5ce8e4341cb1644a41689466cbd964e.md

@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 603-1 Filed 02/09/17 Page 1 of 1
+
+(File Under Seal)

vision-fixhub/court-04/df27b2099c7ab5dec153d2641bb0deeae5ce8e4341cb1644a41689466cbd964e.receipt.json

@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -21,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "df27b2099c7ab5dec153d2641bb0deeae5ce8e4341cb1644a41689466cbd964e",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "3983b8dd4943b1559e3e41e0bb2825c2f44aee7fddc6e14fec95b1c01d034245",
+  "output_sha256": "4817430d17b7428c9d20000fd58c086c556417dd00cf6e50a76e8e1efd6305b7",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}

vision-fixhub/court-04/df3ca49d6583af6ff4db3b9c60fd34e00223faaba85f5faaf4881cb13ed6b758.md

@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 306
+Filed 06/30/21 Page 1 of 1
+U.S. Department of Justice
+United States Attorney
+Southern District of New York
+The Silvio J. Mollo Building
+One Saint Andrew's Plaza
+New York, New York 10007
+June 30, 2021
+BY ECF
+The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+United States Courthouse
+40 Foley Square
+New York, New York 10007
+Re:
+United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
+Dear Judge Nathan:
+
+Respectfully submitted,
+AUDREY STRAUSS
+United States Attorney
+By:
+S/
+Maurene Comey / Alison Moe /
+Lara Pomerantz / Andrew Rohrbach
+Assistant United States Attorneys
+Southern District of New York
+Ce: Defense counsel (By ECF)

vision-fixhub/court-04/df3ca49d6583af6ff4db3b9c60fd34e00223faaba85f5faaf4881cb13ed6b758.receipt.json

@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -18,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "df3ca49d6583af6ff4db3b9c60fd34e00223faaba85f5faaf4881cb13ed6b758",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.digits-only\", \"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "d109a56ed15015aa4b3f27356e9a89332413273f59df790446a2e80903802735",
+  "output_sha256": "3783fe748cba943edea2545afa66ba2cd5e801ce53d896c8c526a251cc175c52",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}

vision-fixhub/court-04/df3de82b9fbd22214de8131d9aff832cc119f8bc3eec9729cd7851391be69cdc.md

@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 420
+Filed 11/08/21 Page 1 of 1
+U.S. Department of Justice
+United States Attorney
+Southern District of New York
+The Silvio J. Mollo Building
+One Saint Andrew's Plaza
+New York, New York 10007
+November 8, 2021
+BY ECF
+The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+United States Courthouse
+40 Foley Square
+New York, New York 10007
+Re:
+United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
+Dear Judge Nathan:
+The Government respectfully submits this letter in response to the Court's Order dated
+November 2, 2021, attaching the Court's draft preliminary remarks to be recorded and played
+before each voir dire session and directing the parties to suggest any proposed edits or additions
+by letter. (Dkt. No. 404). The Government has no objections or suggestions to the Court's
+proposed remarks.
+Respectfully submitted,
+DAMIAN I
+United States Attorney
+By:
+s/
+Maurene Comey
+Alison Moe
+Lara Pomerantz
+Andrew Rohrbach
+Assistant United States Attorneys
+Southern District of New York
+Cc: Defense Counsel (By ECF)

vision-fixhub/court-04/df3de82b9fbd22214de8131d9aff832cc119f8bc3eec9729cd7851391be69cdc.receipt.json

@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -12,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "df3de82b9fbd22214de8131d9aff832cc119f8bc3eec9729cd7851391be69cdc",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 1,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "b03ff9b5908f6549ec6576747cc4211ff7436fb7c57f04c340f9eef3f2c27457",
+  "output_sha256": "f3cf1f4273cd834dc81ee35b9f72c83f2771d94aad5092204b75861827672d51",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}

vision-fixhub/court-04/df4a6478a72487151086336b0091d1e7a8b8b3b1b162f0363291e31c52c2fb31.md

@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 390-1 Filed 10/29/21 Page 1 of 1
+
+FILED UNDER SEAL

vision-fixhub/court-04/df4a6478a72487151086336b0091d1e7a8b8b3b1b162f0363291e31c52c2fb31.receipt.json

@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -21,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "df4a6478a72487151086336b0091d1e7a8b8b3b1b162f0363291e31c52c2fb31",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "096882ba860cd4e2d60f662b3315ad0bce2685261a6fca9c19a799e958804ae9",
+  "output_sha256": "af58465165f43f627947eb3ada20ce2507f34bf1df9ee69185e0b82112ed1699",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}

vision-fixhub/court-04/df4c34b29e5fb7cce0705ee81773500878a4c1f97edee09f612da1414a0c68b0.md

@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+CG
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 591 Filed 02/01/22 Page 1 of 1
+& GRESSER LLP
+800 Third Avenue
+New York, NY 10022
++1 212 957 7600 phone
+www.cohengresser.com
+Christian R. Everdell
++1 (212) 957-7600
+ceverdell@)cohengresser.com
+February 1, 2022
+BY ECF
+The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+United States Courthouse
+40 Foley Square
+New York, NY 10007
+Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
+Dear Judge Nathan:
+We write on behalf of our client, Ghislaine Maxwell, to respectfully request a one-week
+extension of time until Friday, February 11, 2022 to file our post-trial motions. The motions are
+currently due on Friday, February 4, 2022. We have conferred with the government, which has
+consented to the requested extension.
+The requested extension is necessary because we need to meet with Ms. Maxwell in person
+to review work product related to the motions. In-person visits at the MDC only recently became
+available again this week. Due to other commitments, we are unable to meet with Ms. Maxwell
+until the end of this week. This is the defense's first request for an extension. We would consent
+to a similar one-week extension for the government to file its response.
+Sincerely,
+Is/ Christian Everdell
+Christian R. Everdell
+& GRESSER LLP
+800 Third Avenue, 21st Floor
+New York, New York 10022
+(212) 957-7600
+cc:
+2087993.1
+All Counsel of Record (By ECF)

vision-fixhub/court-04/df4c34b29e5fb7cce0705ee81773500878a4c1f97edee09f612da1414a0c68b0.receipt.json

@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -12,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "df4c34b29e5fb7cce0705ee81773500878a4c1f97edee09f612da1414a0c68b0",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 1,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "0b627451f5462dce524f957b917ef829f1b486f0e1c1ce51c76dfec9d8686588",
+  "output_sha256": "235feebc56a74bea8133415aa72aac68bf323d149e969e0be71f1b808bb074aa",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}

vision-fixhub/court-04/df64e99a32745b4e245d1a2b88a86602c08db786bf59df2be0a606a18cb69535.md

@@ -0,0 +1,287 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 330 Filed 08/03/16 Page 1 of 10
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+Plaintiff,
+Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS
+V.
+Ghislaine Maxwell,
+Defendant.
+!
+APPLICATION FOR LETTER ROGATORY
+Plaintiff,
+pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 28(b)(2) and 28
+U.S.C. § 1781(b)(2,) by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby submits this application
+that the Court issue a Letter Rogatory pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4(f(2)(b) to
+the appropriate Judicial Authority of the United Kingdom to permit the production of documents
+from and the taking of the deposition of
+Gow, a witness located outside the United States, ,
+and states as follows:
+INTRODUCTION
+As was explained in
+Motion for Extension of time to Serve Process Upon
+and Depose
+| Gow (DE 306), even though Mr. Gow is Defendant's press agent - and is
+represented by one of Defendant's attorneys -- Defendant has refused to assist in making him
+available for a deposition. And, Mr. Gow has been attempting to thwart service of process in
+England, now necessitating the intervention of an English court.
+has been advised
+that it is likely that an English court will order Mr. Gow to sit for his deposition; however, in
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 330 Filed 08/03/16 Page 2 of 10
+order to petition an English court, it is necessary for this Court to issue a Letter Rogatory.
+Accordingly,
+respectfully requests that this Court issue a Letter Rogatory, a draft of
+which is attached to this exhibit, and will be emailed to
+as a Microsoft Word document
+for the Court's convenience.
+II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
+The Court will recall that Mr.
+Gow is an important witness in this defamation case,
+because he was Defendant's "image consultant" and public relations agent who facilitated the
+publication of some of the Defendant's most significant defamatory statements. Given Mr.
+Gow's significant role in the case,
+has been attempting to depose him.
+has requested the assistance of Defendant in scheduling his deposition, and sought Mr. Gow's
+cooperation directly, but those efforts have failed. Additionally,
+has tried to work
+through Ms. Gow's legal counsel to schedule a deposition, but Mr. Gow's counsel has refused to
+accept service. It turns out that Defendant's attorney, Philip Barden, now also represents
+Gow. The Court will recall that Mr. Barden is Defendant's attorney who participated in relevant
+communications that this Court ordered Defendant to produce to
+after in camera
+review. Mr. Barden has recently informed the undersigned that he now represents Mr. Gow as
+his attorney. It appears that Mr. Barden's joint representation of both Defendant and Mr. Gow
+arose in response to
+efforts to obtain Mr. Gow's deposition testimony.
+This Court has previously granted
+motion to take Mr. Gow's deposition. See
+June 20, 2016, Redacted Omnibus Order, filed in redacted version at D.E. 264-1. Upon
+information and belief, Mr. Gow is a British national who resides in England, and therefore
+attempted to work with both Defendant and Mr. Gow to secure Mr. Gow's voluntary
+appearance. Counsel for
+sent Mr. Gow two requests to take his deposition in relation
+2
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 330 Filed 08/03/16 Page 3 of 10
+to this matter. See
+Decl. at Composite Exhibit 1, June 12, 2016, Email to |
+Gow and
+June 14, 2016 Email to
+Gow. Neither of these communications received any response.
+After such efforts came to nothing, [
+attempted to serve Mr. Gow through the
+Hague Convention, to which both the U.S. and the U.K. are parties. On June 17, 2016,
+counsel commenced service via The Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence
+Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters. Pursuant to the Convention,
+followed the
+specific instructions detailed by the United States Department of State and other resources to
+effectuate service. See Declaration of Meredith
+Decl.") at Exhibit 2, Request
+for Service Abroad of Judicial or Extrajudicial Documents sent to The Senior
+, For the
+Attention of the Foreign Process Section, Room E16, |
+Courts of Justice Strand, London,
+WCZA 2LL, United Kingdom.
+Upon information and belief, that June 17, 2016, subpoena was served to Mr. Gow's business
+address via the Hague Convention by the Foreign Process Section (or related United Kingdom
+agency) in receipt of the subpoena from
+Decl. at Exhibit 3, July 1,
+2016, London, Senior Courts of England and Wales Foreign Process Section, Transmitting
+Agency Reference: Acknowledgment of Receipt, Article 6(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No
+1348/2000. Indeed, on July 12, 2016, Defendant's attorney, Mr. Barden alerted counsel for
+that the June 17, 2016, subpoena was served to Mr. Gow's office address, and Mr.
+Barden communicated that he represented Mr. Gow. See |
+Decl. at Composite Exhibit 4,
+July 12, 2016 emails to/from Philip Barden.
+The June 17, 2016, subpoena had a deposition date of June 29, 2016. This was set so that
+the deposition could be taken before the discovery cutoff date of July 1, 2016. This Court has
+3
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 330 Filed 08/03/16 Page 4 of 10
+since granted
+one-month extension of time to take depositions. See June 20, 2016,
+Redacted Omnibus Order, the redacted Order filed at D.E. 264-1.
+again utilized The Hague Convention Processes to serve an updated subpoena
+for a date at the end of July, 2016. Specifically, on July 1, 2016,
+counsel
+commenced separate service of process through The Hague Convention on the Taking of
+Evidence Abroad in Civil and Commercial Matters, noticing this deposition for July 20, 2016.
+does not know whether or not that subpoena has yet been served through The Hague
+Convention.
+In order to speed service of process for the deposition to be completed within this Court's
+new deadline,
+retained a private process serving firm in London to attempt to
+effectuate personal service on Mr. Gow. The firm has since attempted service of process at Mr.
+Gow's business and residential addresses, with fees in excess of £1,349.50 GBP ($1,768.99
+USD). See
+Decl. at Exhibit 5, Affidavit of Cesar Agusto.
+Thereafter, when Defendant's attorney, Mr. Barden, informed the undersigned that he also
+represented Mr. Gow,
+counsel asked Mr. Barden whether he was authorized to
+accept service on Mr. Gow's behalf, and sent Mr. Barden the updated subpoena for the July 20,
+2016, deposition date. See
+Decl. at Composite Exhibit 4, July 13, 2016 email
+communication to Mr. Barden stating, "Please advise at your earliest convenience whether you
+accept service of process of the subpoena on behalf of Mr. Gow." Instead of answering that
+question, Mr. Barden twice replied that service was (in his view) improper because the subpoena
+lacked an order from an English Court. See
+Decl. at Composite Exhibit 4, July 13, 2016,
+emails from Mr. Barden.
+4
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 330 Filed 08/03/16 Page 5 of 10
+On July 14, 2016, the undersigned sent a letter to Mr. Barden that stated: "To the extent that
+you consider service has been defective, please confirm whether you waive service of process
+and accept service of the subpoena on Mr. Gow's behalf," and, again, informing Mr. Barden that
+counsel would be happy to arrange a date and time convenient for Mr. Gow. See
+Decl. at
+Exhibit 6, July 14, 2016, letter to Mr. Barden. As of the date of this filing, Mr. Barden has not
+accepted service of process.
+has secured English counsel to seek an English court order pursuant to the
+English Evidence (Proceedings in Other Jurisdictions) Act 1975, a process Mr. Barden claims is
+necessary to effectuate proper service upon Mr. Gow. The undersigned has been informed that
+such an application to an English High Court will likely be successful; however; it is an
+expensive and potentially lengthy process, and requires the issuance of a letter rogatory from this
+Court.
+Ill. ARGUMENT
+This Court has the authority to issue letters rogatory pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 28(b) and 28
+U.S.C. § 1781(b). See Elliot Assoc., L.P. v. Republic of Peru, 1997 WL 436493, at *2 (S.D.N.Y.
+Aug. 1, 1997) (Sweet, J.); Leasco Data Processing Equip. Corp. v. Maxwell, M.C.M.P., 63
+F.R.D. 94, 96 (S.D.N.Y. 1973). Fed. R. Civ. P. 28(b) provides that letters rogatory "shall be
+issued on application and notice and on terms that are just and appropriate." Courts routinely
+grant motions for letters rogatory where, as here, the movant has made a reasonable showing that
+the evidence sought may be material or may lead to the discovery of material evidence. Netherby
+Lid. v. l
+Apparel Group, Inc., 2005 WL 1214345, *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 18, 2005); see also
+Elliot Assoc., 1997 WL 436493 at *2 (granting motion for letters rogatory despite opposing
+party's claims that the testimony sought would be duplicative); Philan Ins. LTD v.
+B. |
+5
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 330 Filed 08/03/16 Page 6 of 10
+& Co., 1992 WL 183553, *2 (S.D.N.Y. July 21, 1992) (granting motion for letters rogatory
+because the records sought might lead to relevant evidence and might assist in proving damages).
+Accordingly, 28 U.S.C. §1781(b) expressly contemplates and permits a United States Court
+to issue a Letter Rogatory to a foreign judicial authority. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4' and
+28 U.S.C. §1781(b) therefore provide statutory authority for this Court to act as is being
+requested in this motion. "Letters rogatory are the medium, in effect, whereby one country,
+speaking through one of its courts, requests another country, acting through its own courts and
+by methods of court procedure peculiar thereto and entirely within the latter's control, to assist
+the administration of justice in the former country." United States v. Al Fawwaz, No. S7 98
+CRIM. 1023 LAK, 2014 WL 627083, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 18, 2014) (internal quotation marks
+omitted). District courts have both statutory and inherent authority to issue letters rogatory and
+whether to do so rests within a district court's discretion. Id.; 2 8 U.S.C. § 1781. "The standard
+for issuance of a letter rogatory is the same as if the evidence were located in the United States,
+United States v. Korogodsky, 4 F.Supp.2d 262, 265 (S.D.N. Y.1998)" U.S. v. Hoskins, 2015 WL
+4874921, at *5 (D. Conn. 2015).
+' Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f) provides as follows:
+(f) Service Upon Individuals in a Foreign Country. Unless otherwise provided by federal law,
+service upon an individual from whom a waiver has not been obtained and filed, other than
+an infant or incompetent person, may be effected in a place not within any judicial district of
+the United States:
+(2) If there is no internationally agreed means of service or the applicable international
+agreement allows other means of service, provided that service is reasonably calculated to
+give notice:
+(B) as directed by the foreign authority in response to a letter rogatory or letter of request;
+Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f).
+6
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 330 Filed 08/03/16 Page 7 of 10
+It is the undersigned's understanding that letters rogatory are the proper method to utilize
+where the foreign country involved is not a signature to any international treaty governing
+service of process. See
+and
+_. Federal Practice and Procedure, 3rd Edition $1134.
+Both the United States and the United Kingdom are signatories to the Hague Convention, which
+has a mechanism for service of process to which
+believes she has complied.
+However, it appears that this Court may lack jurisdiction to enforce the subpoenas properly
+served upon Mr. Gow through the Hague convention. Therefore, based on Mr. Gow's utter
+unwillingness to accept service of process that was made through the Hague Convention and to
+his attorney,
+seeks issuance of a letter rogatory, which would enable an English
+Court to require Mr. Gow sit for his deposition. Documents and testimony from Mr. Gow are
+material to
+action, because he was Defendant's press agent who released one of the
+defamatory statements that is at the heart of this action. Therefore, the Court should issue the
+requested letter rogatory.
+Further, authorization of the service of a letter rogatory is appropriate in this case because
+the discovery sought has already been approved by this Court. Specifically,
+has
+petitioned this Court to be able to depose Gow (DE 170), and this Court granted that
+request in its June 20, 2016, Order. (Redacted version at DE 264-1). The type of evidence sought
+by the subpoena - Mr. Gow's testimony and documents relating to this case - is appropriate in the
+context of this litigation and already sanctioned by this court. Accordingly, this court should
+grant
+request. See Bisnews AFE (Thailand) Lid. v. Aspen Research Group Ltd.,
+2012 WL 4784632, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. 2012).
+7
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 330 Filed 08/03/16 Page 8 of 10
+The undersigned has prepared a Letter Rogatory for Your Honor's consideration and will
+submit the same to the Court as a Word document under separate cover. A copy of
+proposed Letter Rogatory is also attached to this motion. See
+Decl. at Exhibit 7.
+Should the Court grant this motion and sign the proposed Letter Rogatory, the
+undersigned will forward it to English counsel for presentment to the appropriate judicial
+authority in England. The undersigned will also present a copy to Mr. Barden, Defendant and
+Mr. Gow's attorney.
+IV. CONCLUSION
+Discovery from Mr. Gow in the requested letter rogatory is material to
+claim.
+Accordingly, the Court should grant
+motion and issue the requested letter rogatory.
+Dated: August 3, 2016
+Respectfully Submitted,
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
+By: Is/ Sigrid McCawley
+Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice)
+Meredith
+Pro Hac Vice
+oies Schiller & Flexner LLI
+401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+(954) 356-0011
+David Boies
+Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
+333 Main Street
+Armonk, NY 10504
+(Pro Hac Vice)
+-JAFFE, WEISSING,
+_, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
+425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
+Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
+8
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 330 Filed 08/03/16 Page 9 of 10
+(954) 524-2820
+Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice)
+S.J. Quinney College of Law
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 330 Filed 08/03/16 Page 10 of 10
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+THEREBY CERTIFY that on the 3"d day of August 2016, I electronically filed the
+foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the
+foregoing document is being served this day on the individuals identified below via transmission
+of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF.
+Laura A. Menninger, Esq.
+Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq.
+HADDON,
+&
+150 East 10" Avenue
+Denver, Colorado 80203
+Tel: (303) 831-7364
+Fax: (303) 832-2628
+Email: Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+jpagliuca@hmflaw.com
+P.C.
+10

vision-fixhub/court-04/df64e99a32745b4e245d1a2b88a86602c08db786bf59df2be0a606a18cb69535.receipt.json

@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -120,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "df64e99a32745b4e245d1a2b88a86602c08db786bf59df2be0a606a18cb69535",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 10,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "377f6ddebde8c9d0d52669ffcd378f67dbba06402b320cde2f8ddb85bdea4a37",
+  "output_sha256": "b843c1005bc9855e93087547e1084331b87cbc5eed009c0d2f79b070442bb08e",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}