18-2868 - Documents 1

Selected docket entries for case 18−2868
Generated: 08/20/2019 12:23:00
Filed Document Description Page Docket Text

09/28/2018 1 NOTICE OF CIVIL APPEAL, with district court docket,
1 Dkt_Ntc_BK_CV_PR_Tax 6 on behalf of Appellant Julie Brown and Miami Herald
Media Company, FILED. [2399789] [18−2868]
1 Case FILED 8
09/28/2018 2 District Court Order Judgment 135 DISTRICT COURT OPINION, dated 08/27/2018,
RECEIVED RECEIVED.[2399797] [18−2868]
09/28/2018 PAYMENT OF DOCKETING FEE, on behalf of
Appellant Julie Brown and Miami Herald Media Company,
district court receipt # 0208−15620549, FILED.[2399799]
[18−2868]
09/28/2018 4 ELECTRONIC INDEX, in lieu of record,
4 Notice_of_Index_or_ROA_Filed 176 FILED.[2399803] [18−2868]
4 Index/FRAP 10(d) in lieu of ROA 177
FILED
10/10/2018 FORM C, on behalf of Appellant Julie Brown and Miami
Herald Media Company, FILED. Service date 10/10/2018
by CM/ECF.[2407175] [18−2868]
10/10/2018 FORM D, on behalf of Appellant Julie Brown and Miami
by CM/ECF.[2407176] [18−2868]
10/11/2018 10 Defective_Document_Notice 263 DEFECTIVE DOCUMENT, Form C and D, [9], [8], on
behalf of Appellant Julie Brown and Miami Herald Media
Company, FILED.[2408276] [18−2868]
10/11/2018 11 Form C FILED 265 FORM C, on behalf of Appellant Julie Brown and Miami
by CM/ECF.[2408319] [18−2868]
10/11/2018 12 Form D FILED 398 FORM D, on behalf of Appellant Julie Brown and Miami
by CM/ECF.[2408320] [18−2868]
10/12/2018 CURED DEFECTIVE, Form C and D, [11], [12], on behalf
of Appellant Julie Brown and Miami Herald Media
Company, FILED.[2408400] [18−2868]
10/15/2018 16 430 ORDER, dated 10/18/2018, dismissing appeal by
DefaultDismissal_Appearance_due 10/29/2018, unless Appellant Julie Brown and Miami
Herald Media Company submits and Acknowledgment
Notice of Appearance, FILED.[2410325] [18−2868]
10/15/2018 17 Notice_appear_ape_resp 431 NOTICE, to Appellee Virginia L. Giuffre, for failure to file
an appearance, SENT.[2410346] [18−2868]
10/15/2018 18 Acknowledgment and Notice of 432 ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND NOTICE OF
Appearance FILED APPEARANCE, on behalf of Appellant Julie Brown and
Miami Herald Media Company, FILED. Service date
10/15/2018 by CM/ECF.[2410674] [18−2868]
10/15/2018 19 Notice of Appearance for 433 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AS ADDITIONAL
Additional or Substitute Counsel COUNSEL, on behalf of Appellant Julie Brown and Miami
FILED Herald Media Company, FILED. Service date 10/15/2018
by CM/ECF. [2410676] [18−2868]
10/16/2018 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AS ADDITIONAL
COUNSEL, on behalf of Appellee Virginia L. Giuffre,
FILED. Service date 10/16/2018 by email. [2411692]
[18−2868]
10/16/2018 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AS SUBSTITUTE
COUNSEL, on behalf of Appellee Virginia L. Giuffre,
FILED. Service date 10/16/2018 by email. [2411713]
[18−2868]
10/17/2018 ATTORNEY, Madelaine J. Harrington for Miami Herald
Media Company Julie Brown, in case 18−2868, [19],
ADDED.[2411816] [18−2868]
10/17/2018 23 Defective_Document_Notice 434 DEFECTIVE DOCUMENT, Notice of Appearance as
Additional Counsel, Notice of Appearance as Substitute
Counsel, [20], [21], on behalf of Appellee Virginia L.
Giuffre, FILED.[2411821] [18−2868]
Additional or Substitute Counsel COUNSEL, on behalf of Appellee Virginia L. Giuffre,
FILED FILED. Service date 10/17/2018 by CM/ECF. [2411955]
[18−2868]
10/17/2018 25 Notice of Appearance for 437 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AS SUBSTITUTE
Additional or Substitute Counsel COUNSEL, on behalf of Appellee Virginia L. Giuffre,
[18−2868]
10/17/2018 ATTORNEY, Paul Cassell for Virginia L. Giuffre, in case
18−2868, [24], ADDED.[2411977] [18−2868]
10/17/2018 ATTORNEY, Sigrid McCawley, [25], in place of attorney
Bradley James Edwards, SUBSTITUTED.[2411985]
[18−2868]
10/17/2018 CURED DEFECTIVE, Notice of Appearance as Additional
Counsel, Notice of Appearance as Substitute Counsel, [24],
[25], on behalf of Appellee Virginia L. Giuffre,
FILED.[2411988] [18−2868]
10/17/2018 29 Acknowledgment and Notice of 438 ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND NOTICE OF
Appearance FILED APPEARANCE, on behalf of Appellee Virginia L. Giuffre,
FILED. Service date 10/17/2018 by CM/ECF.[2412419]
[18−2868]
10/18/2018 32 Notice_of_Case_Manager_Change 439 NEW CASE MANAGER, Khadijah Young,
ASSIGNED.[2413597] [18−2868]
10/19/2018 33 LR 31.2 Scheduling Notification 440 LR 31.2 SCHEDULING NOTIFICATION, on behalf of
RECEIVED Appellant Julie Brown and Miami Herald Media Company,
informing Court of proposed due date 01/09/2019,
RECEIVED. Service date 10/19/2018 by
CM/ECF.[2414596] [18−2868]
10/22/2018 36 So_ordered_sched_notification 441 SO−ORDERED SCHEDULING NOTIFICATION, setting
Appellant Julie Brown and Miami Herald Media Company
Brief due date as 01/09/2019. Joint Appendix due date as
01/09/2019, FILED.[2414842] [18−2868]
Additional or Substitute Counsel COUNSEL, on behalf of Appellant Julie Brown and Miami
FILED Herald Media Company, FILED. Service date 10/26/2018
by CM/ECF. [2419951] [18−2868]
10/29/2018 ATTORNEY, Sanford Bohrer for Miami Herald Media
Company Julie Brown, in case 18−2868 , [37],
ADDED.[2420172] [18−2868]
Additional or Substitute Counsel COUNSEL, on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell, FILED.
FILED Service date 11/06/2018 by CM/ECF. [2427704]
[18−2868]
11/07/2018 ATTORNEY, Ty Gee for Ghislaine Maxwell, in case
18−2868 , [39], ADDED.[2428385] [18−2868]
11/08/2018 41 Defendant Maxwells Motion to be 444 MOTION, to add party, on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell,
Added as Appellee FILED. Service date 11/08/2018 by CM/ECF, US mail.
[2429321] [18−2868]
11/14/2018 45 Motion Order FILED 450 MOTION ORDER, granting the motion for Ghislaine
Maxwell to be added as an appellee [41] filed by Ghislaine
Maxwell, by RSP, FILED. [2433100][45] [18−2868]
11/14/2018 46 Amended_Caption_Notice 451 CAPTION, per Motion Order dated 11/14/2018,
AMENDED.[2433111] [18−2868]
11/14/2018 47 Order re: Tandem Appeals FILED 452 ORDER, directing appeals 16−3945 and 18−2868 to be
heard in tandem, setting oral argument date at 02/06/2019,
setting briefing schedule; Appellant's brief due 12/10/2018,
Appellees brief due 01/10/2019, Appellants reply brief due
01/28/2019, FILED.[2433868] [18−2868]
11/14/2018 CASE CALENDARING, for argument on 02/06/2019,
SET.[2433927] [18−2868]
11/15/2018 50 Notice_of_Case_Manager_Change 454 NEW CASE MANAGER, Jason Wang,
ASSIGNED.[2434293] [18−2868]
12/10/2018 51 Appellant/Petitioner Brief & 455 BRIEF & SPECIAL APPENDIX, on behalf of Appellant
Special Appendix FILED Julie Brown and Miami Herald Media Company, FILED.
Service date 12/10/2018 by CM/ECF. [2452291]
[18−2868]
12/10/2018 52 JOINT APPENDIX, volume 1 of 2, (pp. 1−215), on behalf
52 Joint Appendix Volume I of 535 of Appellant Julie Brown and Miami Herald Media
II_part1 FILED Company, FILED. Service date 12/10/2018 by
CM/ECF.[2452292] [18−2868]
52 Joint Appendix Volume I of 654
II_part2
12/10/2018 53 JOINT APPENDIX, volume 2 of 2, (pp. 216−432), on
53 Joint Appendix Volume II of 761 behalf of Appellant Julie Brown and Miami Herald Media
II_part1 FILED Company, FILED. Service date 12/10/2018 by
CM/ECF.[2452293] [18−2868]
53 Joint Appendix Volume II of 881
II_part2
Additional or Substitute Counsel COUNSEL, on behalf of Appellee Ghislaine Maxwell,
[18−2868]
12/12/2018 ATTORNEY, Adam Mueller for Ghislaine Maxwell, in
case 18−2868 , [54], ADDED.[2453230] [18−2868]
12/13/2018 63 Motion FILED 990 MOTION, to dismiss, on behalf of Appellee Ghislaine
Maxwell, FILED. Service date 12/13/2018 by CM/ECF,
US mail. [2455278] [18−2868]
12/13/2018 64 Exhibits FILED 1004 EXHIBITS, volume(s) 1 of 1, on behalf of Appellee
Ghislaine Maxwell, FILED. Service date 12/13/2018 by
CM/ECF, US mail.[2455279] [18−2868]
12/17/2018 67 Notice of Appearance for Amicus 1008 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AS AMICUS COUNSEL,
Counsel FILED on behalf of Amicus Curiae Reporters Committee for
Freedom of the Press and 32 Media Organizations, FILED.
[18−2868]−−[Edited 12/19/2018 by JW]
12/17/2018 68 Amicus Brief on Consent FILED 1009 AMICUS BRIEF, on behalf of Amicus Curiae Reporters
Committee for Freedom of the Press and 32 Media
Organizations, FILED. Service date 12/17/2018 by
CM/ECF. [2457074] [18−2868]−−[Edited 12/18/2018 by
JW]
12/18/2018 NEW PARTY, Amicus Curiae Reporters Committee for
Freedom of the Press and 32 Media Organizations,
ADDED.[2457218] [18−2868]
12/19/2018 BRIEF, on behalf of Appellee Virginia L. Giuffre, FILED.
[18−2868]
12/19/2018 73 Opposition to Defendant− 1058 OPPOSITION TO MOTION, [63], on behalf of Appellee
Appellee Maxwell Mot to Dismiss Virginia L. Giuffre, FILED. Service date 12/19/2018 by
FILED CM/ECF. [2459221] [18−2868]
12/20/2018 76 Notice of Appearance for Amicus 1063 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AS AMICUS COUNSEL,
Counsel FILED on behalf of Amicus Curiae Reporters Committee for
Freedom of the Press and 32 Media Organizations, FILED.
[18−2868]−−[Edited 12/21/2018 by JW]
12/21/2018 ATTORNEY, KatieLynn B. Townsend for 32 Media
Organizations Reporters Committee for Freedom of the
Press, in case 18−2868 , [76], ADDED.[2460875]
[18−2868]
12/26/2018 80 Defective_Document_Notice 1064 DEFECTIVE DOCUMENT, brief[72], on behalf of
Appellee Virginia L. Giuffre, FILED.[2462508] [18−2868]
12/26/2018 81 Reply to Opposition FILED 1066 REPLY TO OPPOSITION [73], on behalf of Appellee
CM/ECF, US mail.[2463104][81] [18−2868]
12/27/2018 83 Appellee/Respondent Brief FILED 1073 BRIEF, on behalf of Appellee Virginia L. Giuffre, FILED.
[18−2868]
12/27/2018 CURED DEFECTIVE BRIEF[83], on behalf of Appellee
Virginia L. Giuffre, FILED.[2463431] [18−2868]
12/27/2018 87 Motion FILED 1085 MOTION, to strike [83] [83], on behalf of Appellee
CM/ECF, US mail. [2463625] [18−2868]
01/03/2019 91 Opposition FILED 1090 OPPOSITION TO MOTION, [87], on behalf of Appellee
Virginia L. Giuffre, FILED. Service date 01/03/2019 by
CM/ECF. [2467181] [18−2868]
01/10/2019 95 Appellee/Respondent Brief FILED 1094 BRIEF, on behalf of Appellee Ghislaine Maxwell, FILED.
Service date 01/10/2019 by CM/ECF, US mail. [2472758]
[18−2868]
Case 18-2868, Document 1-1, 09/28/2018, 2399789, Page1 of 2
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse
40 Foley Square
New York, NY 10007
ROBERT A. KATZMANN CATHERINE O'HAGAN WOLFE

CHIEF JUDGE CLERK OF COURT
Date: September 28, 2018 DC Docket #: 15-cv-7433

Docket #: 18-2868 DC Court: SDNY (NEW YORK
Short Title: Giuffre v. Maxwell CITY)
DC Judge: Sweet
DOCKETING NOTICE
A notice of appeal filed by Julie Brown and Miami Herald Media Company in the above
referenced case was docketed today as 18-2868. This number must appear on all documents
related to this case that are filed in this Court. For pro se parties the docket sheet with the caption
page, and an Acknowledgment and Notice of Appearance Form are enclosed. In counseled cases
the docket sheet is available on PACER. Counsel must access the Acknowledgment and Notice
of Appearance Form from this Court's website http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov.
The form must be completed and returned within 14 days of the date of this notice. The form
requires the following information:
YOUR CORRECT CONTACT INFORMATION: Review the party information on the docket
sheet and note any incorrect information in writing on the Acknowledgment and Notice of
Appearance Form.
The Court will contact one counsel per party or group of collectively represented parties when
serving notice or issuing our order. Counsel must designate on the Acknowledgment and Notice
of Appearance a lead attorney to accept all notices from this Court who, in turn will, be
responsible for notifying any associated counsel.
CHANGE IN CONTACT INFORMATION: An attorney or pro se party who does not

immediately notify the Court when contact information changes will not receive notices,
documents and orders filed in the case.
An attorney and any pro se party who is permitted to file documents electronically in CM/ECF
must notify the Court of a change to the user's mailing address, business address, telephone
number, or e-mail. To update contact information, a Filing User must access PACER's Manage
My Appellate Filer Account, https://www.pacer.gov/psco/cgi-bin/cmecf/ea-login.pl. The Court's

records will be updated within 1 business day of a user entering the change in PACER.
A pro se party who is not permitted to file documents electronically must notify the Court of a
change in mailing address or telephone number by filing a letter with the Clerk of Court.
CAPTION: In an appeal, the Court uses the district court caption pursuant to FRAP 12(a), 32(a).
For a petition for review or original proceeding the Court uses a caption pursuant to FRAP 15(a)
or 21(a), respectively. Please review the caption carefully and promptly advise this Court of any
improper or inaccurate designations in writing on the Acknowledgment and Notice of
Appearance form. If a party has been terminated from the case the caption may reflect that
change only if the district court judge ordered that the caption be amended.
APPELLATE DESIGNATIONS: Please review whether appellant is listed correctly on the party
listing page of the docket sheet and in the caption. If there is an error, please note on the
Acknowledgment and Notice of Appearance Form. Timely submission of the Acknowledgment
and Notice of Appearance Form will constitute compliance with the requirement to file a
Representation Statement required by FRAP 12(b).
For additional information consult the Court's instructions posted on the website.
Inquiries regarding this case may be directed to 212-857-8638.

Case
Case
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
18-2868, DocumentDocument
1-2, 09/28/2018,
955 Filed
2399789,
09/26/18
Page1
Page
of 127
1 of 43
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
X
VIRGINIA GIUFFRE,
:
Plaintiff, : Case No. 15-cv-7433(RWS)
:
against :
:
GHISLAINE MAXWELL, :
:
Defendant.
X
NOTICE OF APPEAL
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Julie Brown and Miami Herald Media Company ("Miami
Herald"), Intervenors in the above-captioned case, hereby appeal to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit from the Memorandum and Order dated August 24, 2018, and
entered in this action on August 27, 2018.
Dated: September 26, 2018

New York, New York
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Christine N. Walz

Sanford L. Bohrer
Sandy.Bohrer@hklaw.com
Christine N. Walz
Christine.Walz@hklaw.com
Madelaine J. Harrington
Madelaine.Harrington@hklaw.com
HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
31 West 52nd Street
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: 212.513.3200
Fax: 212.385.9010
Attorneys for Intervenors Julie Brown

and Miami Herald Media Company
Case
Case
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
1-2, 09/28/2018,
955 Filed
2399789,
09/26/18
Page2
Page
of 127
2 of 43
Exhibit 1
Case
Case
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
1-2, 09/28/2018,
953 Filed
955 2399789,
08/27/18
09/26/18
Page3
Page
of 127
1 of 43
3 41
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

----------------------------------------x
VIRGINIA GIUFFRE,
Plaintiff, 15 Civ. 7433

OPINION
-against-
GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
Defendant.
------------------------------~---------x
A P P E A R A N C E S:
Counsel for Intervenors Julie Brown

& Miami Herald Media Company

31 West 52~ Street
New York, NY 10019
By: Christine N. Walz, Esq.
Sanford L. Bohrer, Esq.
Counsel for Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP

401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1200
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
By: Sigrid S. Mccawley, Esq.
Meredith L. Schultz, Esq.

333 Main Street
Armonk, NY 10504
By: David Boies, Esq.
EDWARDS POTTINGLER LLC

425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
By: Bradley J. Edwards, Esq.
Case
Case
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
1-2, 09/28/2018,
953 Filed
955 2399789,
08/27/18
09/26/18
Page4
Page
of 127
2 of 43
4 41
S.J. QUINNEY COLLEGE OF LAW

UNIVERSITY OF UTAH 1
383 University Street
Salt Lake City, UT 84112
By: Paul G. Cassell, Esq.
Counsel for Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell
HADDON, MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C.

150 East 10th Avenue
Denver, CO 80203
By: Laura A. Menninger, Esq.
Jeffrey S. Pagliuca, Esq.
Ty Gee, Esq.
Counsel for Intervenor Michael Cernovich
RANDAZZA LEGAL GROUP, PLLC

100 Pearl Street, 14th Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
By: Jay M. Wolman, Esq.
Counsel for Intervenor Alan Dershowitz
EMERY CELLI BRINCKERHOFF & ABADY, LLP

600 Fifth Avenue, 1Qth Floor
New York, NY 10020
By: Andrew G. Celli, Jr., Esq.
1 This daytime business address is provided for

identification and correspondence purposes only and is not
intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of
Utah for this private representation.
Case
Case
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
1-2, 09/28/2018,
953 Filed
955 2399789,
08/27/18
09/26/18
Page5
Page
of 127
3 of 43
5 41
Table of Contents
I . Prior Proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
II.The Motion to Intervene is Granted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
III. The Issues and the Applicable Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
IV. The Motion to Unseal the Discovery Documents is Denied .... 24
V. The Summary Judgment Judicial Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
VI. The Motion to Unseal the Summary Judgment Judicial Documents
is Denied . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
VII. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Case
Case
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
1-2, 09/28/2018,
953 Filed
955 2399789,
08/27/18
09/26/18
Page6
Page
of 127
4 of 43
6 41
Sweet, D.J.
Third-party proposed intervenors The Miami Herald
Media Company (the "Miami Herald") and investigative journalist
for the Miami Herald Julie Brown ("Brown") (collectively , the
"Intervenors "), have moved pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 24 to intervene in this defamation action brought by
plaintiff Virginia Giuffre ("Giuffre" or the "Plaintiff")
against defendant Ghislaine Maxwell ("Maxwell" or the
"Defendant") and to unseal all of the documents previously
sealed in this action.
Resolution, clarity and certainty, sometimes delayed,
are hallmarks of the judicial process. The present motions
challenge certain resolutions of this settled and closed action
and raise significant issues, the conduct of the discovery
process, the enforceabili ty of confidential ity agreements and
protective orders, the privacy rights of parties and witnesses,
the public interest and the role of the media, and the
transparency of the judicial process.
This defamation action from its inception in September
2015 to its settlement in May 2017 has been bitterly contested
and difficult to administer because of the truth or falsity of
1
Case
Case
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
1-2, 09/28/2018,
953 Filed
955 2399789,
08/27/18
09/26/18
Page7
Page
of 127
5 of 43
7 41
the allegations concerning the intimate, sexual, and private
conduct of the parties and of third persons, some prominent,
some private. The instant motions renew that pattern and require
a reexamination of the effort to provide an appropriate
resolution of the issues presented by the litigation.
Upon this reexamination and the conclusions set forth
below, the motion to intervene is granted, and the motion to
unseal is denied as to the documents produced in the discovery
process and as to the summary judgment judicial documents based
on the difficult balancing of the conflicting principles
described below.
I. Prior Proceedings
In early 2011 Giuffre, in an interview with journalist
Sharon Churcher ("Churcher") which was published in two British
tabloids, described Maxwell's alleged role as someone who
recruited or facilitated the recruitment of young females for
sexual activity with Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), that she,
Giuffre, had been interviewed by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation ("FBI") in 2011, and that she had discussed
Maxwell's involvement in the described sexual abuse. Maxwell
issued a statement denying this account on March 9, 2011.
2
Case
Case
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
1-2, 09/28/2018,
953 Filed
955 2399789,
08/27/18
09/26/18
Page8
Page
of 127
6 of 43
8 41
On January 1, 2015, Giuffre moved to join two alleged
victims of Epstein who had initiated an action under the Crime
Victims' Rights Act against the United States, purporting to
challenge Epstein's plea agreement. Giuffre's joinder motion
(the "Joinder Motion") included numerous details about Giuffre's
sexual abuse and listed the perpetrators of her abuse. Giuffre
repeatedly named Maxwell in the Joinder Motion as being
personally involved in the sexual abuse and sex trafficking
scheme created by Epstein.
On January 3, 2015, Maxwell again issued a statement,
responding to the allegations made in connection with Giuffre's
Joinder Motion. Maxwell stated that Giuffre's allegations
"against Ghislaine Maxwell are untrue" and that Giuffre's
"claims are obvious lies" (the "January 3 Statement").
Giuffre filed her complaint in this action on
September 21, 2015 (the "Complaint"), setting forth her claim of
defamation by Maxwell arising out of the Maxwell January 3
Statement. Giuffre alleged she was the "victim of sexual
trafficking and abuse while she was a minor child" and that
Maxwell "facilitated" Giuffre's sexual abuse and "wrongfully"
subjected Giuffre to "public ridicule, contempt and disgrace" by
denying Giuffre's allegations. Giuffre further alleged that over
3
Case
Case
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
1-2, 09/28/2018,
953 Filed
955 2399789,
08/27/18
09/26/18
Page9
Page
of 127
7 of 43
9 41
the course of a decade she had been sexually abused at "numerous
locations" around the world with prominent and politically
powerful men.
Vigorous litigation was undertaken by the parties, as
demonstrated by the 950 docket entries as of August 27, 2018,
including a motion to dismiss the Complaint which was denied by
opinion of February 29, 2016 (the "February 29 Opinion"). The
primary issue presented was the truth or falsity of the January
3 statement issued by Maxwell, which in turn challenged all the
previous statements made to the press by Giuffre and in
Giuffre's Joinder Motion. This resulted, understandably, in a
lengthy and tumultuous discovery process resulting in 18
hearings and 15 decisions.
After hearing counsel, it was determined that fact
discovery would be completed on July 29, 2016, 2 see Proposed
Discovery and Case Management Plan, Aug. 1, 2016, ECF No. 317.
Both parties early on recognized the extreme sensitivities and
privacy interests arising out of an effective discovery process
involving the truth or falsity of the allegations at issue. The
2 The parties reserved the right to extend this deadline

where the parties so agreed, or for good cause shown. See
Proposed Discovery and Case Management Plan, Aug. 1, 2016, ECF
No. 317.
4
Case
Case
Case
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
Document
1-2, 09/28/2018,
955
953 Filed
Filed
2399789,
09/26/18
08/27/18
Page10
Page
Page
of10
8127
of
of41
43
consequent protective order was entered into by the parties on
agreement, and endorsed by the Court on March 17, 2016 (the
"Protective Order"), and the sealing order was ordered by the
Court on August 9, 2016 (the "Sealing Order"), for the purpose
of protecting the discovery and dissemination of confidential
information to be exchanged in this action. See Protective
Order, ECF No. 62. This Protective Order allowed the parties to
provide discovery on highly private and sensitive subjects
without it being disclosed to the public, absent an additional
order of this Court. The Protective Order served "to protect the
discovery and dissemination of confidential information or
information which will properly annoy, embarrass, or oppress any
party, witness, or person providing discovery in this case." ECF
Dkt. 62. The Protective Order applied broadly "to all documents,
materials, and information, including without limitation,
documents produced, answers to interrogator ies, responses to
requests for admission, deposition testimony, and other
information disclosed pursuant to the disclosure or discovery
duties created by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." Id. 'IT
1.
The Protective Order also provided the procedures to
designate any such material as confidential , and to challenge
such designations . Id. '!['![ 8-10. Upon review by an attorney
5
Case
Case
Case
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
Document
1-2, 09/28/2018,
955
953 Filed
Filed
2399789,
09/26/18
08/27/18
Page11
Page
Page
of11
9127
of
of41
43
acting in good faith, the designating party was to designate
certain confidential information as "CONFIDENTIA L," triggering a
set of protections as to that document for the duration of the
action. Id. I 8. When a party filed material designated as
confidential with the Court, it was to additionally file a
Motion to Seal pursuant to Section 6.2 of the Electronic Case
Filing Rules & Instructions for the Southern District of New
York. Id. I 10. Absent consent of the producing party,
designated documents "shall not . be disclosed." 3 Id. I 5.
At the conclusion of the case, the parties could elect
either to return the confidential material to the designating
party or destroy the documents. Id. I 12. The Protective Order
3 The necessary exceptions to this rule are as follows:
[S]uch information may be disclosed to: a) attorneys

actively working on this case; b) persons regularly
employed or associated with the attorneys actively
working on this case whose assistance is required by
said attorneys in the preparation for trial, at trial,
or at other proceedings in this case; c) the parties;
d) expert witnesses and consultants retained in
connection with this proceeding, to the extent such
disclosure is necessary for preparation, trial or
other proceedings in this case; e) the Court and its
employees . . in this case; f) stenographic
reporters who are engaged in proceedings necessarily
incident to the conduct of this action; g) deponents,
witnesses, or potential witnesses; and h) other
persons by written agreement of the parties.
Id. I 5.
6
Case
Case
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
1-2, 09/28/2018,
953 Filed
955 2399789,
08/27/18
09/26/18
Page12
Pageof12
10
127
of 43
41
specified that it "shall have no force and effect on the use of
any CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION at trial." Id.
From March 17, 2016 to August 9, 2016, 26 motions to
seal were filed with the Court pursuant to the Protective Order,
each of which were granted. On August 9, 2016, an order amended
the Protective Order as follows:
To reduce unnecessary filings and delay, it is hereby

ordered that letter motions to file submissions under
seal pursuant to the Court's Protective Order, ECF No.
62, are granted. The Protective Order is amended
accordingly such that filing a letter motion seeking
sealing for each submission is no longer necessary. A
party wishing to challenge the sealing of any
particular submission may do so by motion.
Sealing Order, ECF No. 348. One hundred sixty-seven documents
were sealed pursuant to the Sealing Order.
On August 11, 2016, Intervenor Alan Dershowitz
("Dershowitz" or "Intervenor Dershowitz") moved to unseal three
documents: (1) portions of a Reply Brief submitted by Churcher
in support of her motion to quash the subpoena served on her;
(2) emails between Churcher and Giuffre submitted in connection
with the same motion; and (3) a draft of a manuscript prepared
by Giuffre submitted in connection with a motion to extend a
time deadline. See Dershowitz Motion to Intervene, Aug. 11,
2016, ECF Nos. 362-64. Other than the requested documents which
7
Case
Case
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
1-2, 09/28/2018,
953 Filed
955 2399789,
08/27/18
09/26/18
Page13
Pageof13
11
127
of 43
41
he sought in order to make a public statement, Dershowitz agreed
to be bound by the Protective Order. See Dershowitz Deel., ECF
No. 363 ~ 30. On November 2, 2016, the motion was denied on the
basis that these documents "were submitted with respect to the
discovery process rather than in connection with the disposition
of any substantive issue, and therefore are not judicial
documents" such that no presumption of access exists. Giuffre v.
Maxwell, No. 15 Civ. 7433 (RWS) (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 2, 2016), ECF No.
496. Appeal has been filed on that decision.
Pursuant to several amendments, a trial date of May
25, 2017 was determined. See Order, Oct. 30, 2015, ECF No. 13;
Amended Proposed Discovery and Case Management Plan, Sept. 30,
2016, ECF No. 451; Amended Second Discovery and Case Management
Plan, Feb. 27, 2017, ECF No. 648; Joint Letter, May 8, 2017, ECF
No. 912.
Expert discovery was completed on November 30, 2016.
See id.
Twenty-nine motions in limine were filed by the
parties between January 5, 2017 and May 1, 2017, on which
decision was reserved. See ECF Nos. 520, 522, 524, 526, 528,
8
Case
Case
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
1-2, 09/28/2018,
953 Filed
955 2399789,
08/27/18
09/26/18
Page14
Pageof14
12
127
of 43
41
530, 533, 535, 561, 563, 567' 608, 663-667' 669, 671, 673, 675,
677' 679, 681, 683, 685-86, 689, 691.
Maxwell filed a motion for summary judgment on January
6, 2017, which was heard on February 16, 2017 and denied by an
opinion filed on March 22, 2017. See Sealed Document, March 24,
2017, ECF No. 779 (the "Summary Judgment Opinion"). The parties,
in accordance with the agreed upon procedures, were directed to
jointly file a proposed redacted version of the Summary Judgment
Opinion consistent with the Protective Order. The agreed upon
redacted opinion was filed with the Court and made public on the
docket on April 27, 2017 (the "Redacted Opinion"). See Redacted
Opinion, April 27, 2017, ECF No. 872.
On January 19, 2017, Intervenor Michael Cernovich
("Cernovich" or "Intervenor Cernovich") made a motion to unseal
the materials submitted in connection with Maxwell's motion for
summary judgment, which the Court denied on May 3, 2017 (the
"May 3 Opinion") on the basis that Cernovich "ha[d] not
established a compelling need for the documents obtained in
discovery which undergird the summary judgment decision."
Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 15 Civ. 7433 (RWS) (S.D.N.Y. May 3,
2017), ECF No. 892. "This action is currently scheduled for
9
Case
Case
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
1-2, 09/28/2018,
953 Filed
955 2399789,
08/27/18
09/26/18
Page15
Pageof15
13
127
of 43
41
trial in mid-May and a release of contested confidential
discovery materials could conceivably taint the jury pool." Id.
The parties arrived at a settlement and jointly
stipulated to dismiss this action on May 24, 2017. See
Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal, ECF No. 916; Joint
Stipulation for Dismissal, ECF No. 919. The settlement
presumably is pursuant to the Protective Order and remains
confidential with terms known only to the parties. This case was
closed on May 25, 2017.
On April 9, 2018, the Miami Herald filed the instant
motion, contending that all sealed documents in this action are
presumptively public under both common law principles and the
First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and were sealed
pursuant to an improvidently granted protective order, which
allowed the parties to designate information as confidential
without the particularized judicial scrutiny required by the law
prior to sealing. See ECF No. 62. The motion was joined by
Intervenor Dershowitz, who requested that he be advised of any
documents unsealed in order to request unsealing of additional
documents to protect his interests, and by Intervenor Cernovich.
Argument was heard on May 9, 2018, at which time this motion was
considered fully submitted.
10
Case
Case
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
1-2, 09/28/2018,
953 Filed
955 2399789,
08/27/18
09/26/18
Page16
Pageof16
14
127
of 43
41
II. The Motion to Intervene is Granted
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 provides
intervention of right under Rule 24(a) to anyone who "claims an
interest relating to the property or transaction that is the
subject of the action, and is so s.ituated that disposing of the
action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant's
ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties
adequately represent that interest." Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a).
Permissive intervention may be granted to anyone "who has a
claim or defense that shares with the main action a common
question of law or fact." Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b).
Because courts, including this one, "have repeatedly
recognized that members of the press (and other non-parties) may
seek to pursue modification of confidential ity orders that have
led to sealing of documents filed with the court," and since
"the appropriate procedural mechanism to do so is a motion to
intervene," the motion of Brown and the Miami Herald to
intervene is granted. See In re Pineapple Antitrust Litig., No.
04 Md. 1628 (RMB) (MHD), 2015 WL 5439090, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug.
10, 2015); Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 15 Civ. 7433 (RWS) (S.D.N.Y.
Nov. 2, 2016), ECF No. 496 (Opinion Granting Dershowitz Motion
to Intervene); Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 15 Civ. 7433 (RWS)
11
Case
Case
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
1-2, 09/28/2018,
953 Filed
955 2399789,
08/27/18
09/26/18
Page17
Pageof17
15
127
of 43
41
(S.D.N.Y. May 3, 2017), ECF No. 892 (Opinion Granting Cernovich
Motion to Intervene) .
Although the case was closed by the Clerk of Court on
May 25, 2017 pursuant to the settlement agreement, "intervention
for the purpose of challenging confidentiality orders is
permissible even years after a case is closed." United States v.
Erie Cnty., N.Y., No. 09 Civ. 8493, 2013 WL 4679070, at *6
(W.D.N.Y. Aug. 30, 2013), rev'd on other gds., 763 F.3d 235 (2d
Cir. 2014); see also In re Pineapple Antitrust Litig., 2015 WL
5439090, at *2 ("[T]here is no implication in the caselaw or in
common sense why the passage of more than three years should
disable a journalist from seeking unsealing."). Moreover,
"[w]hether deemed an intervention as of right under Rule 24(a)
or a permissive intervention under Rule 24(b), intervention by
the press-a step preliminary to determining whether any sealed
documents should be disclosed-should be granted absent some
compelling justification for a contrary result." In re Pineapple
Antitrust Litig., 2015 WL 5439090, at *2 (footnote omitted).
Accordingly, the motion to intervene is granted, and
it is appropriate to reopen the case for the disposition of the
instant motion.
12
Case
Case
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
1-2, 09/28/2018,
953 Filed
955 2399789,
08/27/18
09/26/18
Page18
Pageof18
16
127
of 43
41
III. The Issues and the Applicable Standards
The issues presented by the parties engage vital
societal concepts, the privacy rights of individuals, the
judicial process to establish truth or falsity, the transparency
of that process, and freedom of information and of the press. On
these concepts our Circuit has rendered helpful guidance. 4
4 See United States v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 863 F.3d 125
(2d Cir. 2017) (noting discovery documents lie beyond the
presumption of public access); Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz
Berger & Grossmann LLP, 814 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2016) (weighing
value of public disclosure of complaint against privacy
interests in favor of access); Newsday LLC v. Cnty. of Nassau,
730 F.3d 156 (2d Cir. 2013) (finding First Amendment right of
access to contempt proceeding); N.Y. Civil Liberties Union v.
N.Y.C. Transit Auth., 684 F.3d 286 (2d Cir. 2012) (qualified
First Amendment right of public access attached to TAB hearings
conducted by New York City Transit Authority); United States v.
Aref, 533 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2008) (finding that where classified
information presented at trial, if disclosed, would jeopardize
national security weighed against public access); Lugosch v.
Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) (existence
of confidentiality order alone did not defeat presumption of
public access); Hartford Courant Co. v. Pellegrino, 380 F.3d 83
( 2d Cir. 2004) (establishing qualified First Amendment right of
access to sealed docket sheets); Sec. Exch. Comm'n v.
TheStreet. com, 273 F. 3d 222 (2d Cir. 2001) (holding pretrial
deposition testimony were not "judicial documents"); DiRussa v.
Dean Witter Reynolds Inc., 121 F.3d 818 (2d Cir. 1997) (sealing
file pursuant to confidentiality agreement between parties was
not abuse of discretion); United States v. Amodeo, 44 F.3d 141
(2d Cir. 1995) ("Amodeo I") (finding it proper for district
court to edit and redact judicial document to allow access to
appropriate portions after weighing competing interests); United
States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044 (2d Cir. 1995) ("Amodeo II")
(presumption of access afforded to particular document filed
with court varies with document's relevance to exercise of
Article I I I functions); Gardner v. Newsday, 895 F.2d 74, 79 (2d
Cir. 1990) (balancing newspaper's common law right of access
13
Case
Case
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
1-2, 09/28/2018,
953 Filed
955 2399789,
08/27/18
09/26/18
Page19
Pageof19
17
127
of 43
41
Because of the nature of this defamation action, the particular
allegations at issue involving sexual conduct, and the need to
be able to rely on court determinations, this motion presents a
unique pattern for decision.
Legal scholars and jurists have long sought to refine
the boundaries of privacy, or "the right to be let alone,n but
the result remains a mosaic, the development of which can be
traced more to the unraveling of case law than the priority of
certain rights over others. See Louis Menand, Why Do We Care So
Much About Privacy?, THE NEW YORKER, June 18, 2018.
The legal implications of privacy have been considered
in relation to "telegraphy, telephony, instantaneous photography
(snapshots), dactyloscopy (fingerprinting), Social Security
numbers, suburbanization, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
Inventory, Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, abortion rights, gay
liberation, human-subject research, the Family Educational
Rights and Privacy Act, '60 Minutes,' Betty Ford, the 1973 PBS
documentary 'An American Family,' the Starr Report, the memoir
craze, blogging, and social media.n Id. at 6; see e.g., Smith v.
with defendant's privacy rights); Joy v. North, 692 F.2d 880 (2d
Cir. 1982) (distinguishing between documents obtained in
discovery from those filed pursuant to an adjudication for
purposes of the "judicial documentn determination).
14
Case
Case
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
1-2, 09/28/2018,
953 Filed
955 2399789,
08/27/18
09/26/18
Page20
Pageof20
18
127
of 43
41
Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979) (holding no reasonable expectation
of privacy in phone numbers dialed); Assoc. Press v. U.S. Dep't
of Defense, 554 F.3d 274 (2009) (finding Guantanamo detainees
enjoy a privacy interest in the nondisclosure of their names and
identifying information in records containing allegations of
abuse by military personnel and by other detainees); Nat'l
Archives & Records Adinin. v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157 (2004)
(holding Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") recognizes
surviving family members' right to personal privacy with respect
to their close relative's death-scene images).
Privacy has also been "associated with privilege
(private roads and private sales)," see United States v. Knotts,
460 U.S. 276, 282 (1983) (holding that defendant enjoyed a
reasonable expectation of privacy when driving on his premises,
but that no such expectation extended to his travel on public
thoroughfares), "with confidentiality (private conversations),"
see Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351 (1967) (holding
that defendant did not shed his reasonable expectation of
privacy in holding a private conversation in a public phone
booth), "with noncomformity and dissent," see Warden v. Hayden,
387 U.S. 295, 323 (1967) (Douglas, J., dissenting) ("Those who
wrote the Bill of Rights believed that every individual needs
both to communicate with others and to keep his affairs to
15
Case
Case
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
1-2, 09/28/2018,
953 Filed
955 2399789,
08/27/18
09/26/18
Page21
Pageof21
19
127
of 43
41
himself. That dual aspect of privacy means that the individual
should have the freedom to select for himself the time and
circumstance s when he will share his secrets with others and
decide the extent of that sharing."), "with shame and
embarrassmen t," see Perlman v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 312 F.3d
100, 106 (2d Cir. 2002), vacated and remanded, 541 U.S. 970
(2004), aff'd, 380 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2004) (per curiam)
(witnesses and third parties "possess strong privacy interests,
because being identified as part of a law enforcement
investigation could subject them to 'embarrassme nts and
harassment'" ), "with the deviant and the taboo . .,"see
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 573 (2003) (holding that
persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy in their
consensual sexual conduct in the home just as heterosexual
persons do), "and with subterfuge and concealment, " see U.S.
Dep't of Justice v. Reporters Comm. For Freedom of Press, 489
U.S. 749, 763 (1989) (holding that an individual's interest in
nondisclosure of an FBI rap sheet was the sort of personal
privacy interest that Congress intended FOIA law enforcement
exemption to protect); see Menand, supra at 6.
In the law, "privacy functions as a kind of default
right when an injury has been inflicted and no other right seems
to suit the case." Menand, supra at 6. The right to privacy
16
Case
Case
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
1-2, 09/28/2018,
953 Filed
955 2399789,
08/27/18
09/26/18
Page22
Pageof22
20
127
of 43
41
might emanate from one or many Amendments to the Constitution .
For example, the right prohibiting the government from obtaining
heat wave information from within one's home by way of sense-
enhancing technology not in general public use arises from
notions of privacy rooted in Fourth Amendment jurisprudenc e, see
Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 34 (2001), while the right
of a woman, with certain exceptions, to pursue an abortion
beyond the state's police powers exists in the zones of privacy
arising from the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth
Amendments, see Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, (1973) (holding that
constitution al right of privacy is broad enough to encompass
woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy, but
that this right is not absolute in that the state may properly
assert important interests in safeguarding health, in
maintaining medical standards and in protecting potential life).
The montage of privacy law that has developed around
these disparate concepts does not lend itself to easy
determination s of privacy rights. Nevertheless , certain things
enjoy an undisputed right to privacy: trade secrets, see Kewanee
Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp., 416 U.S. 470, 475-76 (1974) (the holder
of a trade secret is protected against the disclosure or
unauthorized use of the trade secret); sexual activity (although
of what kind it remains to be determined), compare Lawrence, 539
17
Case
Case
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
1-2, 09/28/2018,
953 Filed
955 2399789,
08/27/18
09/26/18
Page23
Pageof23
21
127
of 43
41
U.S. 558 (making it unconstitutio nal to criminalize homosexual
relations) with Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972)
(holding unconstitutio nal Massachusett s statute permitting
married persons to obtain contraceptiv es but prohibiting
distribution of contraceptiv es to single persons); and personal
characteristi cs-such as the radiation of heat from one's home,
Kyllo, 533 U.S. 27, and the unamplified sound of one's voice,
Katz, 389 U.S. 347-which make up Fourth Amendment jurisprudenc e.
These privacy rights, in the context of this action, are
balanced against the public's right to access rooted in First
Amendment and common law jurisprudenc e.
There are two "related but distinct presumptions in
favor of public access to court . . records: a strong form
rooted in the First Amendment and a slightly weaker form based
in federal common law." Newsday LLC v. Cnty. of Nassau, 730 F.3d
156, 163 (2d Cir. 2013). Generally, the public holds an
affirmative, enforceable right of access to judicial records
under both the common law and the First Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution . "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 accountabili ty
and for the public to have confidence in the administratio n of
justice." United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 (2d Cir.
18
Case
Case
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
1-2, 09/28/2018,
953 Filed
955 2399789,
08/27/18
09/26/18
Page24
Pageof24
22
127
of 43
41
1995) ("Amodeo II"). However, "the right to inspect .
judicial records is not absolute. Every court has supervisory
power over its own records and files, and access has been denied
where court files might have become a vehicle for improper
purposes" such as using records "to gratify spite or promote
scandals" or where files might serve "as reservoirs of libelous
statements for press consumption." Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns,
Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978); see also Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at
1051 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted} ("Courts
have long declined to allow public access simply to cater to a
morbid craving for that which is sensational and impure."}.
Pretrial discovery is intended to aid the parties in
their search for truth. See Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 501
(1947) (celebrating that "[t]he deposition-discove ry regime set
out by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is an extremely
permissive one to which courts have long 'accorded a broad and
liberal treatment to effectuate their purpose that civil trials
in the federal courts [need not] be carried on in the dark,'"
and that discovery is a powerful tool for "the parties to obtain
the fullest possible knowledge of the issues and facts before
trial."}. It is presumed that the trial itself will make the
final determination of truth or falsity. The boundary between
19
Case
Case
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
1-2, 09/28/2018,
953 Filed
955 2399789,
08/27/18
09/26/18
Page25
Pageof25
23
127
of 43
41
discovery and trial is sometimes, as here, blurred. The effort
is assisted by the definition of "judicial documents."
Whether discovery or trial, "a court must first
conclude that the documents at issue are indeed 'judicial
documents.'" Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110,
119 (2d Cir. 2006); see also id. (noting that "only judicial
documents are subject to a presumptive right of public access,
whether on common law or Fist Amendment grounds."). If the
document is a judicial document, courts next ask whether the
presumption of access is a product of the common law right of
access, or of the more robust First Amendment right to access
certain judicial documents. Id. at 119-20. It is a given
accepted by the Protective Order that the trial and all trial
documents are accessible and public absent special
circumstances.
Under the common law approach, once a document is
classified as a judicial document, the presumption of access
attaches. Id. at 119. The court must then determine the weight
of the presumption of access, which is a function of "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." See id.; Stern v. Cosby, 529 F.
20
Case
Case
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
1-2, 09/28/2018,
953 Filed
955 2399789,
08/27/18
09/26/18
Page26
Pageof26
24
127
of 43
41
Supp. 2d 417, 420 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (internal citations omitted)
("the court must determine the weight of the presumption, that
is, whether the presumption is an especially strong one that can
be overcome only by extraordinary circumstances or whether the
presumption is a low one that amounts to little more than a
prediction of public access absent a countervailing reason or
whether the presumption is somewhere in between."). Documents
traditionally fall somewhere on a continuum "from matters that
directly affect an adjudication to matters that come within a
court's purview solely to ensure their irrelevance." Amodeo II,
71 F.3d at 1049. Such a presumption under the common law may be
overcome by demonstrating that sealing serves to further other
"substantial interests," such as "a third party's personal
privacy interests, the public's safety, or preservation of
attorney-client privilege." Under Seal v. Under Seal, 273 F.
Supp. 3d 460, 467 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (collecting cases).
However, the First Amendment "provides the public and
the press a constitutional right of access to all trials,
criminal or civil." Id. at 468 (citing Richmond Newspapers, Inc.
v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 580 (1980)) (internal citation
omitted) . This right applies specifically to "related
proceedings and records" and "protects the public against the
government's arbitrary interference with access to important
21
Case
Case
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
1-2, 09/28/2018,
953 Filed
955 2399789,
08/27/18
09/26/18
Page27
Pageof27
25
127
of 43
41
information. " N.Y. Civil Liberties Union v. N.Y.C. Transit
Auth., 684 F.3d 286, 298 (2d Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). As
noted above, the Protective Order specified that confidential
material would not be protected with respect to any document
proffered at trial.
The Second Circuit has recognized two approaches for
determining whether the First Amendment right of access extends
to particular judicial records. Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 120. In the
first approach, the "logic and experience" test, a court
evaluates whether the documents are those that "have
historically been open to the press and general public" and for
which "public access plays a significant positive role in the
functioning of the particular process in question." Id. Courts
applying the "logic and experience" test have generally found a
presumption of openness, based on the common law approach.
Hartford Courant Co. v. Pellegrino, 380 F.3d 83, 92 (2d Cir.
2004).
In the second approach, First Amendment protection
attaches to judicial documents "derived from or a necessary
corollary of the capacity to attend the relevant proceedings. "
Id. at 93. Accordingly, the Second Circuit has found "the right
to inspect [judicial] documents derives from the public nature
22
Case
Case
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
1-2, 09/28/2018,
953 Filed
955 2399789,
08/27/18
09/26/18
Page28
Pageof28
26
127
of 43
41
of particular tribunals." Id.; see also id. (observing that
"[o]ther circuits that have addressed [the] question have
construed the constitutional right of access to apply to written
documents submitted in connection with judicial proceedings that
themselves implicate the right of access.").
To be clear, the First Amendment creates only a
presumptive right of access. Newsday, 730 F.3d at 164-65. "What
offends the First Amendment is the attempt to do so without
sufficient justification." N.Y. Civil Liberties Union, 684 F.3d
at 296. Under either approach, a presumptive right of access may
be overcome by "specific, on-the-record findings that sealing is
necessary to preserve higher values and only if the sealing
order is narrowly tailored to achieve that aim." Lugosch, 435
F.3d at 124. The party seeking to keep the judicial documents
under seal carries the burden of demonstrating that higher
values overcome the presumption of public access, DiRussa v.
Dean Witter Reynolds Inc., 121 F.3d 818, 826 (2d Cir. 1997), and
such a showing must be supported by "findings specific enough
that a reviewing court can determine whether the closure order
was properly entered." Press-Enter. Co. v. Superior Court of
Cal., Riverside Cnty., 464 U.S. 501, 510 (1984).
23
Case
Case
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
1-2, 09/28/2018,
953 Filed
955 2399789,
08/27/18
09/26/18
Page29
Pageof29
27
127
of 43
41
IV. The Motion to Unseal the Discovery Documents is Denied
The parties early on agreed that the release of
confidential information inherent to the discovery process could
expose the parties to annoyance, embarrassment, and oppression
given the highly sensitive nature of the underlying allegations.
The parties mutually assented to entering into the Protective
Order. The parties relied upon its provisions, as did dozens of
witnesses and other non-parties. Documents designated
confidential included a range of allegations of sexual acts
involving Plaintiff and non-parties to this litigation, some
famous, some not; the identities of non-parties who either
allegedly engaged in sexual acts with Plaintiff or who allegedly
facilitated such acts; Plaintiff's sexual history and prior
allegations of sexual assault; and Plaintiff's medical history.
The Protective Order has maintained the confidentiality of these
sensitive materials. One hundred sixty-seven discovery documents
were added to the docket and sealed pursuant to the Protective
Order.
Further, upon the issuance of an opinion by this
Court, the parties were directed to jointly file a proposed
redacted version consistent with the Protective Order as set
forth above. The parties submitted the Redacted Opinion to
24
Case
Case
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
1-2, 09/28/2018,
953 Filed
955 2399789,
08/27/18
09/26/18
Page30
Pageof30
28
127
of 43
41
maintain the confidentiality established by the Protective
Order.
Except as discussed below, the documents sealed in the
course of discovery were neither relied upon by this Court in
the rendering of an adjudication, nor "necessary to or helpful
in resolving [a] motion." See Alexander Interactive, Inc. v.
Adorama, Inc., No. 12 Civ. 6608 (PKC) (JCF), 2014 WL 4346174, at
*2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 2, 2014). Moreover, our Circuit has "long
recognized that documents 'passed between the parties in
discovery[] lie entirely beyond the . reach' of the
presumption of public access." United States v. HSBC Bank USA,
N.A., 863 F.3d 125, 139 (2d Cir. 2017); see also Sec. Exch.
Comm'n v. Am. Int'l Grp., 712 F.3d 1, 24 (D.C. Cir. 2013)
("[T]hough filing a document with the court is not sufficient to
render the document a judicial record, it is very much a
prerequisite."). To provide "unthinkable access to every item
turned up in the course of litigation would be unthinkable."
Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1048. Accordingly, the motion to unseal
the discovery documents is denied.
25
Case
Case
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
1-2, 09/28/2018,
953 Filed
955 2399789,
08/27/18
09/26/18
Page31
Pageof31
29
127
of 43
41
V. The Summary Judgment Judicial Documents
Under the corrunon law and First Amendment, the primary
inquiry is whether the documents at issue are "judicial
documents." To be a judicial document, "the item filed must be
relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful
in the judicial process." Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 119; see HSBC
Bank USA, N.A., 863 F.3d at 134 ("The threshold merits question
in this case is whether the [sealed document] is a judicial
document, as only judicial documents are subject to a
presumptive right of public access, whether on corrunon law or
First Amendment grounds."). In making such a determination,
courts consider the "relevance of the document's specific
contents to the nature of the proceeding" and the degree to
which "access to the document would materially assist the public
in understanding the issues before the . court, and in
evaluating the fairness and integrity of the court's
proceedings." Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann
LLP, 814 F.3d 132, 139 (2d Cir. 2016) (citing Newsday LLC, 730
F.3d at 166-67) (alteration omitted).
Documents filed with the court vary in their status as
'judicial documents.' At one end of the continuum, "[t]he mere
filing of a paper or document with the court is insufficient to
26
Case
Case
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
1-2, 09/28/2018,
953 Filed
955 2399789,
08/27/18
09/26/18
Page32
Pageof32
30
127
of 43
41
render that paper a judicial document subject to the right of
public access." United States v. Amodeo, 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d
Cir. 1995) ("Amodeo I"). Likewise, the filing of "deposition
transcripts, interrogatories, and documents exchanged in
discovery" with a court is not sufficient to reach the status of
judicial document, and to consider them as such "would
constitute a radical expansion of the 'public access' doctrine."
HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 863 F.3d at 139 (citing Amodeo II, 71 F.3d
at 1048); accord 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. Private matters which are discoverable may, upon a
showing of cause, be put under seal under Rule 26(c), in the
first instance."). At the other end, the "case law is clear that
pleadings and summary judgment papers . . are judicial
documents upon filing." Id. at 141-42. The Second Circuit has
repeatedly held that all documents submitted in support of a
motion for summary judgment, whether or not relied upon, "are
unquestionably judicial documents under the common law."
Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 123. The same applies for complaints. See
Bernstein, 814 F.3d at 140 (internal citation omitted) ("A
complaint, which initiates judicial proceedings, is the
cornerstone of every case, the very architecture of the lawsuit,
27
Case
Case
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
1-2, 09/28/2018,
953 Filed
955 2399789,
08/27/18
09/26/18
Page33
Pageof33
31
127
of 43
41
and access to the complaint is almost always necessary if the
public is to understand a court's decision.").
Somewhere in the middle lie documents "submitted
in support of a motion to compel discovery [which]
presumably will be necessary to or helpful in resolving that
motion. They are, therefore, judicial documents." Alexander
Interactive, Inc., 2014 WL 4346174, at *2; see also In re
Omnicom Grp., Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 02 Civ. 4483 (RCC) (MHD),
2006 WL 3016311, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 23, 2006) (internal
citation omitted) (finding that a "series of letter briefs with
accompanying exhibits . certainly qualify as judicial
documents" because they are "relevant to the performance of the
judicial function and useful in the judicial process.").
The Summary Judgment Opinion refers to facts drawn
from Maxwell's Memorandum of Law in Support of Maxwell's Motion
for Summary Judgment; Maxwell's Rule 56.l Statement of Material
Facts; Giuffre's Statement of Contested Facts and Giuffre's
Undisputed Facts; and Maxwell's Reply to Giuffre's Statement of
Contested Facts and Giuffre's Undisputed Facts pursuant to Local
Civil Rule 56.1 (the "Factual Statements").
28
Case
Case
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
1-2, 09/28/2018,
953 Filed
955 2399789,
08/27/18
09/26/18
Page34
Pageof34
32
127
of 43
41
The Factual Statements, citing the evidence upon which
they rely, formed the basis of or the recital of both
uncontested and disputed material facts contained in the Summary
Judgment Opinion. The recital and the Factual Statements
constitute the evidentiary mirror of the issues presented by the
Complaint. That recital described the issues to be resolved at
trial, if, as was the case, the summary judgment was denied.
This portion of the Summary Judgment Opinion and the Factual
Statements (the "Summary Judgment Judicial Documents") reveals
the substance of the evidence jointly deemed confidential by the
parties. It was therefore redacted by the parties.
As a matter of law, papers submitted in support of the
summary judgment motion are "judicial documents" triggering a
presumption of access subject to balancing under the First
Amendment and common law if they "directly affect an
adjudication." Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 123 ("As a matter of law, we
hold that the contested documents-by virtue of having been
submitted to the court as supporting material in connection with
a motion for summary judgment-are unquestionably judicial
documents under the common law."). The Summary Judgment Judicial
Documents are therefore judicial documents subject to a
presumption of access.
29
Case
Case
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
1-2, 09/28/2018,
953 Filed
955 2399789,
08/27/18
09/26/18
Page35
Pageof35
33
127
of 43
41
VI. The Motion to Unseal the Summary Judgment Judicial
Documents is Denied
Intervenors contend that the Summary Judgment Judicial
Documents should be unsealed because they carry a strong
presumption of access under both the First Amendment and common
law, and there are no compelling reasons to keep them sealed.
Because it has been determined that the Summary
Judgment Opinion and the materials submitted in connection with
it are judicial documents, the weight of the presumption under
the common law must be determined, in addition to any
countervailing factors. See Bernstein, 814 F.3d at 143 (citing
Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 119-20) (internal quotation marks omitted)
(noting that the final step of the inquiry as to the summary
judgment papers is the "weight-of-the-pres umption analysis:
balancing the value of public disclosure and countervailing
factors.").
Intervenors assert that because Defendant's motion for
summary judgment fits squarely into the definition of a judicial
document, those materials are entitled to the strongest
presumption of access. Maxwell contends that the Intervenors are
not in a position to determine the weight of the presumption
30
Case
Case
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
1-2, 09/28/2018,
953 Filed
955 2399789,
08/27/18
09/26/18
Page36
Pageof36
34
127
of 43
41
afforded each summary judgment document because they have not
seen each document.
While the Summary Judgment Judicial Documents are
entitled to a presumption of access, this presumption is less
"where a district court denied the summary judgment motion,
essentially postponing a final determination of substantive
legal rights, [because] the public interest in access is not as
pressing." See Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1049 (quoting In re
Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 773 F.2d 1325, 1342
n.3 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (internal quotation marks omitted)
(emphasis in original) (alteration added)). Because the motion
for summary judgment was denied by the Court on March 22, 2017,
the Summary Judgment Judicial Documents are entitled to a lesser
"Notwithstanding the presumption of access under both
the common law and the First Amendment, the documents may be
kept under seal if 'countervailing factors' in the common law
framework or 'higher values' in the First Amendment framework so
demand." Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 125. At common law, the
presumption of access may be overcome by demonstrating that
"sealing will further other substantial interests such as a
third party's personal privacy interests, the public's safety,
31
Case
Case
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
1-2, 09/28/2018,
953 Filed
955 2399789,
08/27/18
09/26/18
Page37
Pageof37
35
127
of 43
41
or preservation of attorney-client privilege." Under Seal, 273
F. Supp. 3d at 467; see Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1050 (describing
law enforcement interests and privacy of third persons as
factors that weigh against the presumption of access); United
States v. Aref, 533 F.3d 72, 83 (2d Cir. 2008) (affirming a
sealing order "(g]iven the legitimate national-security concerns
at play"); Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 125 (stating that attorney-
client privilege "might well be . a compelling reason" to
overcome the presumption of access); see also Sec. Exch. Comm'n
v. TheStreet.com, 273 F.3d 222, 234 (2d Cir. 2001) (noting that
where the presumption in favor of public access does not apply,
and a document was filed under seal pursuant to a protective
order, "a strong presumption against public access" applies if a
party to the protective order objects on privacy grounds and
establishes "reasonabl[e] reli[ance] on the protective order.")
Here, the primary countervailing factor is "the
privacy interests of those resisting disclosure." Amodeo II, 71
F.3d at 1050; see also Gardner v. Newsday, 895 F.2d 74, 79 (2d
Cir. 1990) (" [T] he common law right of access is qualified by
recognition of the privacy rights of the persons whose intimate
relations may thereby be disclosed."). The Second Circuit has
repeatedly held that "[t]he privacy interests of innocent third
parties . . should weigh heavily in a court's balancing
32
Case
Case
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
1-2, 09/28/2018,
953 Filed
955 2399789,
08/27/18
09/26/18
Page38
Pageof38
36
127
of 43
41
equation." Id. at 79-80; see also Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1051
("Such interests, while not always fitting comfortably under the
rubric 'privacy,' are a venerable common law exception to the
presumption of access.").
In assessing the wei~ht to be accorded an assertion of
a right of privacy, "courts should first consider the degree to
which the subject matter is traditionally considered private
rather than public." Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1051. For example,
"[f)inancial records of a wholly owned business, family affairs,
illnesses, embarrassing conduct with no public ramifications,
and similar matters will weigh more heavily against access than
conduct affecting a substantial portion of the public." Id.; but
see United States v. Silver, No. 15 Cr. 93 (VEC), 2016 WL
1572993, at *6 n.5 (S.D.N.Y. April 14, 2016) (emphasizing that
"the expectation of privacy in an amorous relationship where
official government business and personal benefit are
intertwined is necessarily less than an amorous relationship
between wholly private citizens or between a private citizen and
a government official where there is no intersection with state
business. In the case of the former, there is the ever-present
risk of public scrutiny and a legitimate public interest in
ensuring that government officials are acting in the public's
interest rather than in the private interest of a paramour.").
33
Case
Case
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
1-2, 09/28/2018,
953 Filed
955 2399789,
08/27/18
09/26/18
Page39
Pageof39
37
127
of 43
41
This is a defamation case involving the truth or
falsity of the underlying allegations of the sexual assault and
sexual trafficking of minors involving public and private
persons. The Summary Judgment Judicial Documents openly refer to
and discuss these allegations in comprehensive detail. This
establishes a strong privacy interest here.
The "nature and degree of injury must also be
weighed," which means that consideration must also be given to
"the sensitivity of the information and the subject but also of
how the person seeking access intends to use the information."
Amodeo II, 71 F.3d 1051.
The privacy interests of Maxwell, Giuffre, Dershowitz,
as well as dozens of third persons, all of whom relied upon the
promise of secrecy outlined in the Protective Order and enforced
by the Court, have been implicated. It makes no difference that
Giuffre and Dershowitz have chosen to waive their privacy
interests to the underlying confidential information by
supporting this motion, as Maxwell has not agreed to such a
waiver.
More importantly, the dozens of non-parties who
provided highly confidential information relating to their own
34
Case
Case
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
1-2, 09/28/2018,
953 Filed
955 2399789,
08/27/18
09/26/18
Page40
Pageof40
38
127
of 43
41
stories provided that information in reliance on the Protective
Order and the understanding that it would continue to protect
everything it claimed it would. This interest is amplified
where, as here, the Summary Judgment Judicial Documents "contain
sensitive and personal information about the sexual abuse of []
minor[s] ." Kavanagh v. Zwilling, 997 F. Supp. 2d 241, 256
(S.D.N.Y. 2014). To disregard this protection now would be to
implicate the rights of dozens of individuals who shared private
information under the trusted understanding that it would remain
sealed. See Gardner, 895 F.2d at 79 ("[T]he privacy interests of
innocent third parties as well as those of defendants that may
be harmed by disclosure of the Title III material should weigh
heavily in a court's balancing equation . The job of
protecting such interests rests heavily with the trial judge,
since all the parties who may be harmed by disclosure are
typically not before the court.").
The same considerations apply under the First
Amendment, where the "presumption is rebuttable upon
demonstration that suppression 'is essential to preserve higher
values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.'"
Hartford Courant Co., 380 F.3d at 96 (quoting Press-Enterprise
Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., Riverside Cnty., 464 U.S. 501,
510 (1984)) (internal citation omitted) What must be determined
35
Case
Case
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
1-2, 09/28/2018,
953 Filed
955 2399789,
08/27/18
09/26/18
Page41
Pageof41
39
127
of 43
41
is the "harm to a compelling interest," Under Seal, 273 F. Supp.
3d at 469, balanced against, in this case, a generalized public
interest. So long as "specific, on the record findings are made
demonstrating that 'closure is essential to preserve higher
values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest,'" the
documents may be sealed. In re N.Y. Times Co., 828 F.2d 110, 116
(2d Cir. 1987) (citing Press-Enterprise Co., 464 U.S. 510).
The compelling interest is the privacy interest
discussed above. It is also the integrity of the judicial
process.
The parties by their conduct have demonstrated
reliance on the Protective Order and its provisions. It is not
necessary to have forty years of judicial experience to know
that reliance on the confidentiality agreement with respect to
the evidence relating to the truth or falsity of the Giuffre
allegations was a significant, if not determinative, factor in
the confidential settlement arrived at. That one of the parties
to that settlement, Giuffre, no longer opposes unsealing does
not vitiate the strength of the agreement. Indeed given the
entire context of the litigation it may demonstrate the need to
compel the parties to stick to their bargain. See id. (noting
that this Circuit is instructed to "give added weight to fair
36
Case
Case
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
1-2, 09/28/2018,
953 Filed
955 2399789,
08/27/18
09/26/18
Page42
Pageof42
40
127
of 43
41
trial and privacy interests where requiring disclosure will have
a potential chilling effect on future movants.").
While the Intervenors cite to the public interest,
there are no particulars identified that point to the need for
evidence gathered from the period from 2015 to 2016 concerning
events that took place over 15 years ago. See Lugosch, 435 F.3d
at 125 ("Notwithstanding the presumption of public access . .'

the documents may be kept under seal if . 'higher values' in
the First Amendment framework so demand.").
Further, as the Supreme Court noted in Nixon v. Warner
Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. at 589, "courts have the power to
insure that their records are not used to gratify private spite
or promote public scandal, and have refused to permit their
files to serve as reservoirs of libelous statements for press
consumption." (internal quotation marks omitted).
The unsealing of the Summary Judgment Judicial
Documents would both promote scandal arising out of unproven
potentially libelous statements-particularly in light of the
allegations relating to the sexual abuse of minors by public
figures, and defeat the compelling privacy interests of the
parties and non-parties who relied on the Protective Order.
37
Case
Case
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
1-2, 09/28/2018,
953 Filed
955 2399789,
08/27/18
09/26/18
Page43
Pageof43
41
127
of 43
41
In light of the above, the "extraordinary
circumstances," Stern, 529 F. Supp. 2d at 420, have been
established. The common law and First Amendment presumptions of
access have been outweighed in favor of maintaining the sealing
agreed upon by the parties and relied upon by third parties.
VII. Conclusion
Based on the facts and conclusions set forth above,
the Intervenors' motion to intervene is granted, and this motion
to unseal is denied and the action is closed.
It is so ordered.
New York, NY
Augus7JJ..~ 2018
U.S.D.J.
38
Case:
Case1:15-cv-07433-RWS
18-2868, Document 1-2,
As of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/2018
2399789,
09:56 AM
Page44
EDT of
1 127
of 84
CLOSED,APPEAL,ECF
U.S. District Court
Southern District of New York (Foley Square)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:15−cv−07433−RWS
Giuffre v. Maxwell Date Filed: 09/21/2015

Assigned to: Judge Robert W. Sweet Date Terminated: 05/25/2017
Related Case: 1:17−mc−00025−RWS Jury Demand: Both
Case in other court: U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, Nature of Suit: 320 Assault Libel &
17−01625 Slander
Cause: 28:1332ct Diversity−(Citizenship) Jurisdiction: Diversity
Plaintiff
Virginia L. Giuffre represented by Bradley James Edwards
Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing. Edwards, Fistos,
Lehrman, P.L.
425 N. Andrews Ave., Suite 2
(954)−524−2820
Fax: (954)−524−2822
Email: brad@epllc.com
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Pottinger
J. Stanley Pottinger PLLC
49 Twin Lakes Road
South Salem, NY 10590
(917)−446−4641
Email: stanpottinger@aol.com
Meredith L Schultz
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP (FL)
401 East Las Olas Boulevard
Suite 1200
(954)−356−0011
Fax: (954)−356−0022
Email: mschultz@bsfllp.com
Paul G Cassell
S.J. Quinney College of Law At The
University of Utah
383 S. University Street
Salt Lake City, UT 84112−0730
(801)−585−5202
Fax: (801)−585−2750
Email: cassellp@law.utah.edu
Sigrid S. McCawley
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP
401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1200
954−356−0011
Fax: 954−356−0022
Email: smccawley@bsfllp.com
V.
Case:
18-2868, Document 1-2,
As of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/2018
2399789,
09:56 AM
Page45
EDT of
2 127
of 84
Defendant
Ghislaine Maxwell represented by Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
TERMINATED: 05/25/2017 Haddon Morgan and Foreman
Denver, CO 80203
(303)−831−7364
Fax: (303)−832−2628
Email: jpagliuca@hmflaw.com
PRO HAC VICE
Laura A. Menninger
Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C.
150 East Tenth Avenue
Denver, CO 80203
(303)−831−7364
Fax: (303)−832−2628
Email: lmenninger@hmflaw.com
V.
Respondent
Sharon Churcher represented by Eric Joel Feder
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP (NYC)
1251 Avenue of the Americas, 21st Floor
New York, NY 10020
(212) 489−8230
Fax: (212) 489−8340
Email: ericfeder@dwt.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
Laura R. Handman
Davis, Wright, Tremaine, LLP(DC)
1919 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Suite 200
Washington, DC 20006−3402
202 508−6600 x6624
Fax: 202 508−6699
Email: laurahandman@dwt.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
Respondent
Jeffrey Epstein represented by Gregory L. Poe
Poe & Burton PLLC
1030 15th Steet., NW Suite 580 West
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 583−2500
Fax: (202) 583−0565
Email: gpoe@poeburton.com
TERMINATED: 08/17/2016
LEAD ATTORNEY
Jack Alan Goldberger

Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A.
250 Australian Avenue South, #1400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
(561)−659−8305
Fax: (561)−835−8691
Email: jgoldberger@agwpa.com
Case:
18-2868, Document 1-2,
As of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/2018
2399789,
09:56 AM
Page46
EDT of
3 127
of 84
LEAD ATTORNEY
PRO HAC VICE
Martin Gary Weinberg

Martin G. Weinberg, PC
20 Park Plaza, Suite 1000
Boston, MA 02116
617−227−3700
Fax: 617−338−9538
Email: owlmgw@att.net
LEAD ATTORNEY
Michael Campion Miller

Steptoe & Johnson, LLP (NYC)
1114 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
(212) 506−3900
Fax: (212) 506−3950
Email: mmiller@steptoe.com
Rachel S Li Wai Suen

Poe & Burton PLLC
1030 15th St. N.W., Suite 580 West
(202)−583−2500
Fax: (202)−583−0565
Email: rliwaisuen@robbinsrussell.com
Applicant
John Stanley Pottinger
Miscellaneous
Nadia Marcinko represented by Erica Tamar Dubno
Fahringer & Dubno
767 Third Avenue, Suite 3600
New York, NY 10017
212−319−5351
Fax: 212−319−6657
Email: erica.dubno@fahringerlaw.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
Interested Party
Sarah Vickers represented by Alexander Seton Lorenzo
Alston & Bird, LLP(NYC)
90 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10016
(212) 210−9400
Fax: (212) 210−9444
Email: alexander.lorenzo@alston.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
John E. Stephenson , Jr.

Alston & Bird LLP (GA)
One Atlantic Center, 1201 West Peachtree
Street
Atlanta, GA 30309
(404)−881−7697
Case:
18-2868, Document 1-2,
As of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/2018
2399789,
09:56 AM
Page47
EDT of
4 127
of 84
Email: john.stephenson@alston.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
Interested Party
NYP Holdings, Inc.,
Interested Party
Daily News, L.P.
V.
Material Witness
Sarah Ransome represented by Paul G Cassell
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
John Pottinger
V.
Intervenor
Alan M. Dershowitz represented by Andrew G. Celli
Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady, LLP
600 Fifth Avenue 10th Floor
New York, NY 10020
212−763−5000
Fax: 212−763−5001
Email: acelli@ecbalaw.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
David A Lebowitz
New York, NY 10020
(212) 763−5000
Fax: (212) 763−5001
Email: dlebowitz@ecbalaw.com
Intervenor
Michael Cernovich d/b/a Cernovich represented by Jay Marshall Wolman
Media Randazza Legal Group PLLC
Hartford, CT 06103
702−420−2001
Fax: 305−437−7662
Email: jmw@randazza.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
Intervenor
Julie Brown represented by Christine Walz
Holland & Knight
31 West 52nd Street
New York, NY 10019
Case:
18-2868, Document 1-2,
As of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/2018
2399789,
09:56 AM
Page48
EDT of
5 127
of 84
(212)−513−3368
Fax: (212)−385−9010
Email: christine.walz@hklaw.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
Sanford Lewis Bohrer

Holland & Knight LLP (Miami)
701 Brickell Avenue
Suite 3000
Miami, FL 33131
(305)−789−7678
Fax: (305)−679−6335
Email: sandy.bohrer@hklaw.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
Madelaine Jane Woolfrey Harrington

Holland & Knight LLP (NY)
31 West 52nd Street
New York, NY 10019
(212)−513−3374
Fax: (212)−385−9010
Email: madelaine.harrington@hklaw.com
Intervenor
Miami Herald Media Company represented by Christine Walz
LEAD ATTORNEY

LEAD ATTORNEY

Date Filed # Docket Text

09/21/2015 1 COMPLAINT against MAXWELL GHISLAINE. (Filing Fee $ 400.00, Receipt
Number 0208−11409928)Document filed by VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE.(McCawley,
Sigrid) (Entered: 09/21/2015)
09/21/2015 2 FILING ERROR − DEFICIENT PLEADING − SIGNATURE ERROR − CIVIL
COVER SHEET filed. (McCawley, Sigrid) Modified on 9/22/2015 (dgo). (Entered:
09/21/2015)
09/21/2015 3 REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS as to Ghislaine Maxwell, re: 1
Complaint. Document filed by VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE. (McCawley, Sigrid)
(Entered: 09/21/2015)
09/21/2015 4 FILING ERROR − DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY − MOTION for Sigrid S.
McCawley to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number
0208−11410210. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office
staff. Document filed by VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of
Proposed Order)(McCawley, Sigrid) Modified on 9/21/2015 (sdi). (Entered:
09/21/2015)
09/21/2015 >>>NOTICE REGARDING DEFICIENT MOTION TO APPEAR PRO HAC
VICE. Notice to RE−FILE Document No. 4 MOTION for Sigrid S. McCawley to
Case:
18-2868, Document 1-2,
As of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/2018
2399789,
09:56 AM
Page49
EDT of
6 127
of 84
Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number 0208−11410210.
Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff... The filing
is deficient for the following reason(s): missing Certificate of Good Standing from
Supreme Court of Florida; Missing case number on the Motion and Proposed
Order;. Re−file the motion as a Corrected Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice −
attach the correct signed PDF − select the correct named filer/filers − attach valid
Certificates of Good Standing issued within the past 30 days − attach Proposed
Order.. (sdi) (Entered: 09/21/2015)
09/22/2015 ***NOTICE TO ATTORNEY REGARDING PARTY MODIFICATION. Notice
to attorney Sigrid S. McCawley. The party information for the following
party/parties has been modified: VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE, MAXWELL
GHISLAINE. The information for the party/parties has been modified for the
following reason/reasons: party name contained a typographical error; party
name was entered in all caps;. (dgo) (Entered: 09/22/2015)
09/22/2015 CASE OPENING INITIAL ASSIGNMENT NOTICE: The above−entitled action is
assigned to Judge Robert W. Sweet. Please download and review the Individual
Practices of the assigned District Judge, located at
http://nysd.uscourts.gov/judges/District. Attorneys are responsible for providing
courtesy copies to judges where their Individual Practices require such. Please
download and review the ECF Rules and Instructions, located at
http://nysd.uscourts.gov/ecf_filing.php. (dgo) (Entered: 09/22/2015)
09/22/2015 Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Ellis is so designated. (dgo) (Entered: 09/22/2015)
09/22/2015 Case Designated ECF. (dgo) (Entered: 09/22/2015)
09/22/2015 5 ELECTRONIC SUMMONS ISSUED as to Ghislaine Maxwell. (dgo) (Entered:
09/22/2015)
09/25/2015 6 MOTION to Amend/Correct Notice Regarding Deficient Motion to Appear Pro Hac
vice,,, Corrected Pro Hac Vice Motion (S. McCawley). Document filed by Virginia L.
Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order for Corrected Pro
Hac Vice Motion (S. McCawley))(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 09/25/2015)
09/25/2015 7 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed. (McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 09/25/2015)
09/25/2015 8 SUMMONS RETURNED EXECUTED Summons and Complaint served. Ghislaine
Maxwell served on 9/22/2015, answer due 10/13/2015. Service was accepted by
Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (McCawley,
09/29/2015 9 ORDER FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE granting 6 Motion to Amend/Correct.
The motion of Sigrid S. McCawley for admission to practice Pro Hac Vice in the
above captioned action is granted. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 9/28/2015)
(ajs) (Entered: 09/29/2015)
10/08/2015 10 PRETRIAL ORDER: Pretrial Conference set for 10/28/2015 at 04:00 PM in
Courtroom 18C, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Robert W.
Sweet. (See Order.) (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 10/8/2015) (ajs) (Entered:
10/08/2015)
10/13/2015 11 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Laura A. Menninger
dated 10/9/2015 re: I write pursuant to Section 1.E. of Your Honor's Individual
Practice Rules to request an extension of Defendant's time to answer, move or
otherwise respond to Plaintiff's Complaint from October 13, 2015 up to and including
November 30. 2015. ENDORSEMENT: So ordered. Ghislaine Maxwell answer due
11/30/2015. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 10/12/2015) (rjm) (Entered:
10/13/2015)
10/13/2015 12 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Laura A. Menninger on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell.
(Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 10/13/2015)
10/28/2015 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Robert W. Sweet: Initial Pretrial
Conference held on 10/28/2015. (Chan, Tsz) (Entered: 10/30/2015)
Case:
18-2868, Document 1-2,
As of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/2018
2399789,
09:56 AM
Page50
EDT of
7 127
of 84
10/30/2015 13 ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. All motions are to be made returnable at
12:00 noon on Wednesday and in compliance with the rules of this Court. Fact
Discovery due by 7/1/2016. Expert Discovery due by 8/3/2016. Motions due by
9/7/2016. Final Pretrial Conference set for 9/7/2016 at 04:30 PM before Judge Robert
W. Sweet. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 10/28/2015) (spo) (Entered:
10/30/2015)
12/01/2015 14 MOTION to Dismiss . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. Responses due by
12/17/2015 Return Date set for 1/7/2016 at 12:00 PM.(Menninger, Laura) (Entered:
12/01/2015)
12/01/2015 15 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 14 MOTION to Dismiss . . Document filed
by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 12/01/2015)
12/01/2015 16 DECLARATION of Laura A. Menninger in Support re: 14 MOTION to Dismiss ..
Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 12/01/2015)
12/01/2015 17 MOTION to Stay Discovery Pending Decision on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.
Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. Return Date set for 1/7/2016 at 12:00 PM.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 12/01/2015)
12/01/2015 18 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 17 MOTION to Stay Discovery Pending
Decision on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
12/02/2015 19 ORDER: Defendant's motions to dismiss and for a stay of discovery shall be heard at
noon on January 14, 2016 in Courtroom 18C, United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl
Street. All papers shall be served in accordance with Local Civil Rule 6.1. Set
Deadlines/Hearing as to 17 MOTION to Stay Discovery Pending Decision on
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. 14 MOTION to Dismiss. : Motion Hearing set for
1/14/2016 at 12:00 PM in Courtroom 18C, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007
before Judge Robert W. Sweet. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 12/2/2015)
(spo) (Entered: 12/02/2015)
12/10/2015 20 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 17 MOTION to Stay Discovery Pending
Decision on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 12/10/2015)
12/10/2015 21 DECLARATION of Sigrid S. McCawley in Opposition re: 17 MOTION to Stay
Discovery Pending Decision on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.. Document filed by
Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit Composite
Exhibit 2 Part 1, # 3 Exhibit Composite Exhibit 2 Part 2, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit 3, # 5
Exhibit Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit Composite Exhibit 5 Part 1, # 7 Exhibit Composite
Exhibit 5 Part 2, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit 6, # 9 Exhibit Exhibit 7, # 10 Exhibit Exhibit 8, #
11 Exhibit Exhibit 9)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 12/10/2015)
12/15/2015 22 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 17 MOTION to Stay Discovery
Pending Decision on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. . Document filed by Ghislaine
Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 12/15/2015)
12/17/2015 23 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 14 MOTION to Dismiss . . Document
filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 12/17/2015)
12/17/2015 24 DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in Opposition re: 14 MOTION to Dismiss ..
Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3
Exhibit)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 12/17/2015)
12/28/2015 25 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 14 MOTION to Dismiss . .
Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 12/28/2015)
01/08/2016 26 NOTICE of Supplemental Authority. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 01/08/2016)
01/11/2016 27 MOTION for Leave to Bring Personal Electronic Device and General Purpose
Computing Device . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1
Case:
18-2868, Document 1-2,
As of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/2018
2399789,
09:56 AM
Page51
EDT of
8 127
of 84
01/14/2016 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Robert W. Sweet: Oral Argument held
on 1/14/2016 re: 19 Order, Set Motion and R&R Deadlines/Hearings. Motion to
dismiss and for stay held.Decision is reserved. (Court Reporter Michael McDaniel)
(Chan, Tsz) (Entered: 01/21/2016)
01/20/2016 28 OPINION #106149 re: 17 MOTION to Stay Discovery Pending Decision on
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. Defendant is directed to
respond or object to Plaintiff's First Request for Production within fourteen days of the
date of this opinion. For the foregoing reasons and as set forth above, Defendant's
motion to stay is denied, the motion to extend is granted, and discovery shall proceed
as set forth above. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge Robert W.
Sweet on 1/19/2016) (spo) Modified on 1/21/2016 (ca). (Entered: 01/20/2016)
01/22/2016 29 NOTICE of Supplemental Authority re: 15 Memorandum of Law in Support of
Motion. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit
A)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 01/22/2016)
01/25/2016 30 NOTICE of Response to Defendant's Notice of Supplemental Authority re: 29 Notice
(Other). Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered:
01/25/2016)
01/28/2016 31 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: ARGUMENT held on 1/14/2016 before Judge
Robert W. Sweet. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Michael McDaniel, (212) 805−0300.
Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court
Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After
that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 2/22/2016.
Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/3/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set
for 5/2/2016.(McGuirk, Kelly) (Entered: 01/28/2016)
01/28/2016 32 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT Notice is hereby given that an
official transcript of a ARGUMENT proceeding held on 1/14/16 has been filed by the
court reporter/transcriber in the above−captioned matter. The parties have seven (7)
calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this
transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely
electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar
days...(McGuirk, Kelly) (Entered: 01/28/2016)
02/26/2016 33 MOTION to Compel Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell to Produce Documents Subject to
Improper Claim of Privilege . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.(McCawley,
02/26/2016 34 DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in Support re: 33 MOTION to Compel
Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell to Produce Documents Subject to Improper Claim of
Privilege .. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2
02/26/2016 35 MOTION to Compel Ghislaine Maxwell to Produce Documents Subject To Improper
Objections . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1
Appendix)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 02/26/2016)
Ghislaine Maxwell to Produce Documents Subject To Improper Objections ..
Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1, # 2
Exhibit Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit 4 Part 1, # 5 Exhibit
Exhibit 4 Part 2, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit 7, # 9
Exhibit 10 Part 2, # 13 Exhibit Exhibit 11)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 02/26/2016)
02/29/2016 37 OPINION #106248 re: 14 MOTION to Dismiss, filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. For the
foregoing reasons and as set forth above, Defendant's motion to dismiss is denied. (As
further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 2/26/2016) (spo)
Modified on 3/2/2016 (ca). (Entered: 02/29/2016)
03/02/2016 38 MOTION for Protective Order . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.(Menninger,
Laura) (Entered: 03/02/2016)
03/02/2016 39 DECLARATION of Laura A. Menninger in Support re: 38 MOTION for Protective
Order .. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit
Case:
18-2868, Document 1-2,
As of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/2018
2399789,
09:56 AM
Page52
EDT of
9 127
of 84

03/04/2016 40 RESPONSE to Motion re: 38 MOTION for Protective Order . . Document filed by
Virginia L. Giuffre. (McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 03/04/2016)
03/04/2016 41 DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in Opposition re: 38 MOTION for Protective
Order .. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit,
# 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 03/04/2016)
03/04/2016 42 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 35 MOTION to Compel Ghislaine
Maxwell to Produce Documents Subject To Improper Objections ., 33 MOTION to
Compel Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell to Produce Documents Subject to Improper
Claim of Privilege . . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 03/04/2016)
03/07/2016 43 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 35 MOTION to Compel Ghislaine
Claim of Privilege . . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (McCawley, Sigrid)
(Entered: 03/07/2016)
Ghislaine Maxwell to Produce Documents Subject To Improper Objections ., 33
MOTION to Compel Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell to Produce Documents Subject to
Improper Claim of Privilege .. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: #
1 Exhibit Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 3)(McCawley, Sigrid)
(Entered: 03/07/2016)
03/07/2016 45 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 35 MOTION to
Compel Ghislaine Maxwell to Produce Documents Subject To Improper Objections . .
(Entered: 03/07/2016)
03/07/2016 47 DECLARATION of Laura A. Menninger in Opposition re: 33 MOTION to Compel
Privilege .. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2
Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered:
03/07/2016)
03/08/2016 48 ORDER: Plaintiff's motions to compel, filed February 26, and Defendant's motion for
a protective order, filed March 2, 2016, shall be heard at noon on March 17, 2016 in
Courtroom 18C, United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street. (Motion Hearing set for
3/17/2016 at 12:00 PM before Judge Robert W. Sweet in Courtroom 18C, United
States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street.) (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 3/6/2016)
(spo) Modified on 3/10/2016 (spo). (Entered: 03/09/2016)
03/09/2016 49 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 38 MOTION for Protective Order . . Document
filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 03/09/2016)
03/10/2016 50 INTERNET CITATION NOTE: Material from decision with Internet citation re: 37
Memorandum & Opinion. (Attachments: # 1 Internet Citation, # 2 Internet Citation)
(vf) (Entered: 03/10/2016)
03/14/2016 51 ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO BRING PERSONAL
ELECTRONIC DEVICES AND GENERAL PURPOSE COMPUTING DEVICES
INTO THE COURTHOUSE FOR JANUARY 14, 2016 HEARING granting 27
Motion for Leave to Bring Personal Electronic Devices. It is ORDERED AND
ADJUDGED that the motion is hereby GRANTED. Plaintiffs counsel Sigrid S.
Mccawley shall be permitted, to bring and to use Personal Electronic Device(s) and/or
the General Purpose Computing Device(s) (collectively, "Devices") listed below into
the Courthouse for use in this action. Attorney: Sigrid McCawley. Device(s): Personal
Electronic Device; and General Purpose Computing Device. (Signed by Judge Robert
W. Sweet on 1/13/2016) Copies Sent By Chambers. (spo) Modified on 3/14/2016
(spo). (Entered: 03/14/2016)
Case:
18-2868, Document 1-2,
As of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399789,
09:56 AMPage53
EDT of10127
of 84
03/14/2016 52 MOTION for Jeffrey S. Pagliuca to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt
number 0208−12065065. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's
Office staff. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed
Order, # 2 Certificate of Good Standing)(Pagliuca, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/14/2016)
03/14/2016 >>>NOTICE REGARDING PRO HAC VICE MOTION. Regarding Document
No. 52 MOTION for Jeffrey S. Pagliuca to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $
200.00, receipt number 0208−12065065. Motion and supporting papers to be
reviewed by Clerk's Office staff.. The document has been reviewed and there are
no deficiencies. (bcu) (Entered: 03/14/2016)
03/14/2016 53 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 35 MOTION to Compel Ghislaine Maxwell to
Produce Documents Subject To Improper Objections . . Document filed by Virginia L.
Giuffre. (McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 03/14/2016)
03/14/2016 54 ANSWER to 1 Complaint with JURY DEMAND. Document filed by Ghislaine
Maxwell.(Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 03/14/2016)
Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1 Part 1, # 2
Exhibit Exhibit 1 Part 2, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 2 Part 1, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit 2 Part 2, # 5
Exhibit Exhibit 3 Part 4, # 9 Exhibit Exhibit 4, # 10 Exhibit Exhibit 5, # 11 Exhibit
Exhibit 6, # 12 Exhibit Exhibit 7 Part 1, # 13 Exhibit Exhibit 7 Part 2, # 14 Exhibit
Exhibit 7 Part 3, # 15 Exhibit Exhibit 8, # 16 Exhibit Exhibit 9, # 17 Exhibit Exhibit
10, # 18 Exhibit Exhibit 11 Part 1, # 19 Exhibit Exhibit 11 Part 2, # 20 Exhibit Exhibit
13 Part 3)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 03/14/2016)
03/14/2016 56 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 33 MOTION to Compel Defendant Ghislaine
Maxwell to Produce Documents Subject to Improper Claim of Privilege . . Document
Privilege .. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit
1, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 3)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered:
03/14/2016)
03/15/2016 58 FILING ERROR − WRONG EVENT TYPE SELECTED FROM MENU −
NOTICE of Motion for Leave to Serve Rolling Production and Privilege Log.
Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (McCawley, Sigrid) Modified on 3/17/2016
(ldi). (Entered: 03/15/2016)
MOTION for Leave to Serve Rolling Production and Privilege Log re: 58 Notice
(Other) And Incorporated Memorandum of Law. Document filed by Virginia L.
Giuffre.(McCawley, Sigrid) Modified on 3/17/2016 (ldi). (Entered: 03/15/2016)
03/16/2016 60 ORDER FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE granting 52 Motion for Jeffrey S.
Pagliuca to Appear Pro Hac Vice. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 3/15/2016)
(rjm) (Entered: 03/16/2016)
03/16/2016 61 ORDER: Plaintiff's motions for leave to serve rolling production and privilege log,
filed March 16, 2016, shall be heard at noon on March 17, 2016 in Courtroom 18C,
United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street. Motion Hearing set for 3/17/2016 at 12:00
PM in Courtroom 18C, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Robert
W. Sweet. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 3/16/2016) (cf) (Entered:
03/16/2016)
03/17/2016 ***NOTICE TO ATTORNEY TO RE−FILE DOCUMENT − EVENT TYPE
ERROR. Notice to Attorney Sigrid S. McCawley to RE−FILE Document 58
Notice (Other). Use the event type Miscellaneous Relief found under the event list
Motions. (ldi) (Entered: 03/17/2016)
Case:
18-2868, Document 1-2,
As of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399789,
09:56 AMPage54
EDT of11127
of 84
(Other) And Incorporated Memorandum of Law. Use the event type Memorandum
of Law in Support of Motion found under the event list Replies, Opposition and
Supporting Documents. (ldi) (Entered: 03/17/2016)
on 3/17/2016 re: 58 Notice (Other) filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. Motion Pending.
(Court Reporter Vincent Bologna) (Chan, Tsz) (Entered: 03/21/2016)
03/18/2016 62 PROTECTIVE ORDER...regarding procedures to be followed that shall govern the
handling of confidential material... (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 3/17/2016)
(mro) (Entered: 03/18/2016)
03/22/2016 63 MOTION for Protective Order Regarding Deposition of Defendant. Document filed by
Ghislaine Maxwell.(Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 03/22/2016)
03/22/2016 64 MOTION to Compel Plaintiff to Disclose Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 26.
Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.(Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 03/22/2016)
Order Regarding Deposition of Defendant.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit
E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I)(Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 03/22/2016)
03/23/2016 66 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: MOTION held on 3/17/2016 before Judge Robert
W. Sweet. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Vincent Bologna, (212) 805−0300. Transcript
may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court
official transcript of a MOTION proceeding held on 3/17/16 has been filed by the
03/23/2016 68 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 64 MOTION to Compel Plaintiff to Disclose
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 26. . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
03/23/2016 69 DECLARATION of Sigrid S. McCawley in Opposition re: 64 MOTION to Compel
Plaintiff to Disclose Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 26.. Document filed by Virginia
L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit
Exhibit 3)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 03/23/2016)
03/23/2016 70 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 63 MOTION for Protective Order Regarding
Deposition of Defendant. . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (McCawley, Sigrid)
(Entered: 03/23/2016)
03/23/2016 71 DECLARATION of Sigrid S. McCawley in Opposition re: 63 MOTION for Protective
Order Regarding Deposition of Defendant.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 3, # 4
Exhibit Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit 6)(McCawley, Sigrid)
(Entered: 03/23/2016)
03/24/2016 72 MOTION for Meredith L. Schultz to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00,
receipt number 0208−12103899. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by
Clerk's Office staff. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit
Certificate of Good Standing, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Schultz,
Meredith) (Entered: 03/24/2016)
No. 72 MOTION for Meredith L. Schultz to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $
Case:
18-2868, Document 1-2,
As of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399789,
09:56 AMPage55
EDT of12127
of 84

no deficiencies. (sdi) (Entered: 03/24/2016)
03/24/2016 Minute Entry The motion to compel on March 24, 2016 is agreed upon by counsel and
the Court that it will be heard telephonically in Chambers at 4:00 p.m. (Chan, Tsz)
(Entered: 03/24/2016)
03/24/2016 73 ORDER: Plaintiff's motion to compel Defendant to produce documents subject to
improper objections, docket no. 35, is resolved as set forth in the official transcript of
proceedings held March 17, 2016, docket no. 66. With respect to Plaintiff's motion to
compel Defendant to produce documents subject to improper objections, docket no.
33, the parties are directed to submit further briefing as set forth in the transcript.
Defendant's motion for a protective order, docket no. 63, and motion to compel, docket
no. 64, shall be heard at noon on Thursday, March 24, 2016 as stipulated, in
before Judge Robert W. Sweet.) (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 3/23/2016)
(spo) (Entered: 03/24/2016)
03/28/2016 74 ORDER FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE granting 72 Motion for Meredith L.
Schultz to Appear Pro Hac Vice. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 3/24/2016)
(spo) (Entered: 03/28/2016)
03/31/2016 75 MOTION to Compel Responses to Defendant's First Set of Discovery Requests to
Plaintiff. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.(Menninger, Laura) (Entered:
03/31/2016)
03/31/2016 76 DECLARATION of Laura A. Menninger in Support re: 75 MOTION to Compel
Responses to Defendant's First Set of Discovery Requests to Plaintiff.. Document filed
by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit
C)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 03/31/2016)
03/31/2016 77 NOTICE of Submission of Declaration in Support of Defendant's In Camera
Submission in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel the Production of
Documents Subject to Improper Claim of Privilege. Document filed by Ghislaine
04/04/2016 78 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 75 MOTION to Compel Responses to
Defendant's First Set of Discovery Requests to Plaintiff. . Document filed by Virginia
L. Giuffre. (McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 04/04/2016)
by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2, # 3
Exhibit Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit
6)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 04/04/2016)
04/05/2016 80 MOTION for Paul G. Cassell to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt
Office staff. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit
Certificate of Good Standing, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Cassell, Paul) (Entered:
04/05/2016)
No. 80 MOTION for Paul G. Cassell to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00,
Clerk's Office staff.. The document has been reviewed and there are no
deficiencies. (wb) (Entered: 04/05/2016)
04/06/2016 81 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Sigrid S. McCawley
dated 4/5/2016 re: Request for temporary seal of docket no. 79. ENDORSEMENT: So
ordered. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 4/6/2016) (spo) (Entered: 04/06/2016)
04/07/2016 82 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: Argument held on 3/24/2016 before Judge Robert
W. Sweet. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Pamela Utter, (212) 805−0300. Transcript may
be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court
Case:
18-2868, Document 1-2,
As of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399789,
09:56 AMPage56
EDT of13127
of 84
for 7/11/2016.(Grant, Patricia) (Entered: 04/07/2016)
official transcript of a Conference proceeding held on 03/24/2016 has been filed by the
electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days...(Grant,
Patricia) (Entered: 04/07/2016)
04/07/2016 84 ORDER: Defendant's letter objection to pro hac vice admission of Paul G. Cassell,
submitted April 6, 2015, will be treated as a motion and heard at 10:00am on
Wednesday April 13, 2016. Plaintiff's reply to Defendant's letter, if any, shall be
submitted on or before Monday, April 11, 2016. (Motion Hearing set for 4/13/2016 at
10:00 AM before Judge Robert W. Sweet.) (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on
4/6/2016) (spo) (Entered: 04/07/2016)
04/07/2016 85 ORDER: Defendant' s motion to compel, filed March 31, 2016, shall be heard at noon
on April 21, 2016 in Courtroom 18C, United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street.
Motion Hearing set for 4/21/2016 at 12:00 PM in Courtroom 18C, 500 Pearl Street,
New York, NY 10007 before Judge Robert W. Sweet. (Signed by Judge Robert W.
Sweet on 4/7/2016) (cf) (Entered: 04/07/2016)
04/07/2016 86 MOTION for Bradley James Edwards to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00,
Clerk's Office staff. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1
Certificate Good Standing_Edwards, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Edwards, Bradley)
(Entered: 04/07/2016)
No. 86 MOTION for Bradley James Edwards to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee
$ 200.00, receipt number 0208−12160815. Motion and supporting papers to be
no deficiencies. (wb) (Entered: 04/07/2016)
04/07/2016 87 MOTION for Adjournment of Hearing on April 13, 2016 . Document filed by
04/08/2016 88 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 86 MOTION for Bradley James Edwards to
Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number 0208−12160815. Motion
and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff. . Document filed by
Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 04/08/2016)
04/08/2016 90 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 87 Motion for Adjournment of
Conference. Defendant's motion to adjourn, filed April 7, 2016, is granted in part and
denied in part. Any objection to the pro hac vice admission of Paul G. Cassell and
Bradley James Edwards will be treated as motions and heard at 11:00am on Thursday
April 21, 2016 in Courtroom 18C, United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street.
Defendant's motion to compel is similarly adjourned to 11:00am on Thursday April
21, 2016. Plaintiff's reply to Defendant's letter with respect to Mr. Cassell, if any,
remains returnable on or before Monday, April 11, 2016. Defendant's objection to the
admission of Mr. Edwards, if any, shall be submitted on or before April 13, 2016.
Plaintiff's reply to Defendant's objection with respect to Mr. Edwards shall be
submitted on or before April 19, 2016. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on
4/8/2016) (mro) (Entered: 04/11/2016)
04/08/2016 Set/Reset Deadlines Responses due by 4/13/2016 Replies due by 4/19/2016. Motion
Hearing set for 4/21/2016 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 18C, 500 Pearl Street, New
York, NY 10007 before Judge Robert W. Sweet. (mro) (Entered: 04/11/2016)
04/10/2016 89 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 80 MOTION for Paul G. Cassell to Appear Pro Hac
Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number 0208−12149795. Motion and supporting
papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff., 86 MOTION for Bradley James
Edwards to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number
Case:
18-2868, Document 1-2,
As of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399789,
09:56 AMPage57
EDT of14127
of 84
staff. . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Schultz, Meredith) (Entered:

04/10/2016)
04/11/2016 91 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages For Reply In Support Of Defendants Motion
To Compel. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.(Menninger, Laura) (Entered:
04/11/2016)
04/11/2016 92 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 75 MOTION to Compel Responses to Defendant's
First Set of Discovery Requests to Plaintiff. . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
04/11/2016 93 FILING ERROR − DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY (SEE 94 Declaration) −
AFFIDAVIT of Laura A. Menninger in Support re: 75 MOTION to Compel Responses
to Defendant's First Set of Discovery Requests to Plaintiff.. Document filed by
Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit D)(Menninger, Laura) Modified on
4/12/2016 (db). (Entered: 04/11/2016)
by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit D)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered:
04/11/2016)
04/12/2016 95 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on 91 granting Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages.
ENDORSEMENT: So ordered. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 4/12/2016)
(spo) (Entered: 04/12/2016)
04/13/2016 96 MOTION for Clarification of Court's Order and For Forensic Examination . Document
filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.(McCawley, Sigrid) Modified on 4/21/2016 (spo).
(Entered: 04/13/2016)
04/13/2016 97 DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in Support re: 96 MOTION for Clarification of
Court's Order and For Forensic Examination .. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6
Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 04/13/2016)
04/15/2016 98 ORDER denying in part 96 Motion for Clarification of the Court's order and Forensic
examination. Plaintiff's motion for clarification of the Court's March 17, 2016 ruling is
denied on the grounds that the following matters were resolved by the Court at the
March 17, 2016 hearing as further set forth in this Order. Plaintiff's motion for a
forensic examination shall be heard on Thursday, April 28, 2016 in Courtroom 18C,
United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street. Opposition, if any, shall be served on or
before April 21, 2016. Plaintiff's reply, if any, shall be served on or before April 25,
2016. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 4/15/2016) (spo) (Entered: 04/15/2016)
First Set of Discovery Requests to Plaintiff. Resubmitted. Document filed by Ghislaine
dated 4/15/2016 re: Defendants' requesting that the Reply be placed under seal and that
we substitute for public filing a Reply which omits words from page 9 about which
Plaintiff complains. ENDORSEMENT: So ordered. (Signed by Judge Robert W.
04/15/2016 Transmission to Sealed Records Clerk. Transmitted re: 100 Endorsed Letter to the
Sealed Records Clerk for the sealing or unsealing of document or case. (cf) (Entered:
04/15/2016)
04/18/2016 101 MOTION to Compel Plaintiff to Disclose Alleged "On−going Criminal Investigations
by Law Enforcement [sic]" or, In the Alternative, to Stay Proceedings. Document filed
by Ghislaine Maxwell.(Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 04/18/2016)
04/19/2016 102 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 101 MOTION to Compel Plaintiff to
Disclose Alleged "On−going Criminal Investigations by Law Enforcement [sic]" or, In
the Alternative, to Stay Proceedings. . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
Case:
18-2868, Document 1-2,
As of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399789,
09:56 AMPage58
EDT of15127
of 84
04/19/2016 103 DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in Opposition re: 101 MOTION to Compel
Plaintiff to Disclose Alleged "On−going Criminal Investigations by Law Enforcement
[sic]" or, In the Alternative, to Stay Proceedings.. Document filed by Virginia L.
Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit)(McCawley, Sigrid)
(Entered: 04/19/2016)
SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION to Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell's Objection to Motions
for Admission Pro Hac Vice by Paul G. Cassell, and Bradley J Edwards. Document
filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.(Menninger, Laura) Modified on 4/20/2016 (db). (Entered:
04/19/2016)
DECLARATION of Jeffrey S. Pagliuca in Support re: 104 SUPPLEMENTAL
MOTION to Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell's Objection to Motions for Admission Pro
Hac Vice by Paul G. Cassell, and Bradley J Edwards.. Document filed by Ghislaine
Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Menninger, Laura) Modified on
4/20/2016 (db). (Entered: 04/19/2016)
04/19/2016 106 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 35 Motion to Compel; granting in part
and denying in part 63 Motion for Protective Order; denying 64 Motion to Compel.
Plaintiff's motion to compel Defendant to Produce Documents Subject to Improper
Objections, filed February 26, 2016, ECF No. 35, was granted in part and denied in
part as set forth in open court on March 17, 2016. See ECF Nos. 66, 98. Defendant's
motion for a protective order regarding deposition of Defendant, filed March 22, 2016,
ECF No. 63, was granted in part and denied in part as set forth in open court on March
24, 2016. Tr. 4:7−7:16, ECF No. 82. Defendant's motion to compel Plaintiff to
disclose pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, filed March 22, 2016, ECF
No. 64, was denied with leave granted to refile as set forth in open court on March 24,
2016. Tr. 3:19 4:6. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 4/19/2016) (mro) (Entered:
04/20/2016)
ERROR. Notice to Attorney Laura A. Menninger to RE−FILE Document 105
Declaration in Support of Motion. Use the event type Declaration in Support
(non−motion) found under the event list Other Answers. (db) (Entered:
04/20/2016)
SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION to Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell's Objection to
Motions for Admission Pro Hac Vice by Paul G. Cassell, and Bradley J Edwards..
Use the event type Response to Motion found under the event list Replies,
Opposition and Supporting Documents, then link to 80 and 86 Motions. (db)
(Entered: 04/20/2016)
04/20/2016 107 Objection re: 80 MOTION for Paul G. Cassell to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $
reviewed by Clerk's Office staff., 86 MOTION for Bradley James Edwards to
04/20/2016 108 DECLARATION of Jeffrey S. Pagliuca in Support re: 107 Objection (non−motion),,.
Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit
B)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 04/20/2016)
04/20/2016 109 SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault.(mps) (Entered: 04/20/2016)
04/21/2016 110 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 96 MOTION for Clarification of Court's
Order and For Forensic Examination . . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
04/21/2016 111 DECLARATION of Laura A. Menninger in Opposition re: 96 MOTION for
Clarification of Court's Order and For Forensic Examination .. Document filed by
Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 04/21/2016)
Case:
18-2868, Document 1-2,
As of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399789,
09:56 AMPage59
EDT of16127
of 84
on 4/21/2016 re: [10 MOTION to Compel Plaintiff to Disclose Alleged "On−going
Criminal Investigations by Law Enforcement [sic]" or, In the Alternative, to Stay
Proceedings. filed by Ghislaine Maxwell, 80 MOTION for Paul G. Cassell to Appear
Pro Hac Vic Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number 0208−12149795.Motion and
supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff filed by Virginia L. Giuffre,
86 MOTION for Bradley James Edwards to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 200.00,
Clerk's Office staff filed by Virginia L. Giuffre, 75 MOTION to Compel Responses to
Defendant's First Set of Discovery Requests to Plaintiff filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
(Court Reporter Steven Greenblum)As set forth in open court, Defendant's motin to
compel ECF No. 75 is granted in part and denied in part, the pro hace vice motions of
Paul G. Cassell ECF No. 80 and Bradley James Edward ECF No. 86 are denied with
leave to renew, and Defndant's motion to compel ECF No. 101 is granted in part and
denied in part.(Chan, Tsz) (Entered: 04/21/2016)
04/21/2016 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Robert W. Sweet: Motion(s)
terminated: 80 MOTION for Paul G. Cassell to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $
200.00, receipt number 0208−12149795 Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed
by Clerk's Office staff filed by Virginia L. Giuffre, 75 MOTION to Compel Responses
to Defendant's First Set of Discovery Requests to Plaintiff filed by Ghislaine Maxwell,
receipt number 0208−12160815 and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's
Office staff filed by Virginia L. Giuffre, 101 MOTION to Compel Plaintiff to Disclose
Alleged "On−going Criminal Investigations by Law Enforcement [sic]" or, In the
Alternative, to Stay Proceedings filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Court Reporter Steven
Greenblum) (Chan, Tsz) (Entered: 04/21/2016)
04/21/2016 112 MOTION for Paul G. Cassell to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Motion and supporting
papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff. Document filed by Virginia L.
Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing, # 2 Text of Proposed
Order)(McCawley, Sigrid) Modified on 4/22/2016 (sdi). Modified on 4/22/2016 (bcu).
(Entered: 04/21/2016)
04/21/2016 113 LETTER RESPONSE to Motion addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Sigrid
McCawley dated April 21, 2016 re: 86 MOTION for Bradley James Edwards to
04/21/2016 114 DECLARATION of Bradley Edwards in Support re: 86 MOTION for Bradley James
staff.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, #
3 Exhibit)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 04/21/2016)
04/21/2016 115 MOTION for Bradley J. Edwards to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Motion and supporting
Order)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 04/21/2016)
04/21/2016 116 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 112 MOTION for Paul G. Cassell to
Appear Pro Hac Vice . Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's
Office staff., 115 MOTION for Bradley J. Edwards to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Motion
04/21/2016 117 DECLARATION of Menninger in Opposition re: 112 MOTION for Paul G. Cassell to
and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff.. Document filed by
(Entered: 04/21/2016)
No. 115 MOTION for Bradley J. Edwards to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Motion and
supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff.. The document has been
Case:
18-2868, Document 1-2,
As of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399789,
09:56 AMPage60
EDT of17127
of 84
reviewed and there are no deficiencies. (sdi) (Entered: 04/22/2016)

No. 112 MOTION for Paul G. Cassell to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Motion and
reviewed and there are no deficiencies. (bcu) (Entered: 04/22/2016)
04/22/2016 118 ORDER FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE granting 115 Motion for Bradley J.
Edwards to Appear Pro Hac Vice. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 4/22/2016)
(mro) (Entered: 04/22/2016)
04/22/2016 119 ORDER FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE: The motion of Paul G. Cassell, for
admission to practice Pro Hac Vice in the above captioned action is granted. (Signed
by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 4/22/2016)(mro) (Entered: 04/22/2016)
04/25/2016 120 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from
Sigrid McCawley dated April 25, 2016. Document filed by Virginia L.
Giuffre.(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 04/25/2016)
04/25/2016 121 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 96 MOTION for Clarification of
Court's Order and For Forensic Examination . REDACTED. Document filed by
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit REDACTED, # 5
Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit REDACTED, # 8 Exhibit REDACTED)(McCawley,
AFFIDAVIT of Erika Perez in Support re: 96 MOTION for Clarification of Court's
Order and For Forensic Examination .. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
(McCawley, Sigrid) Modified on 4/27/2016 (ldi). (Entered: 04/26/2016)
04/27/2016 124 MOTION Unopposed for Adjournment of Hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Forensic
Examination. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.(Menninger, Laura) (Entered:
04/27/2016)
04/27/2016 125 ORDER granting 120 Motion to Seal Document. So ordered. (Signed by Judge Robert
W. Sweet on 4/26/2016) (spo) (Entered: 04/27/2016)
04/27/2016 Transmission to Sealed Records Clerk. Transmitted re: 125 Order on Motion to Seal
Document to the Sealed Records Clerk for the sealing or unsealing of document or
case. (spo) (Entered: 04/27/2016)
Affidavit in Support of Motion. Use the event type Affidavit of Service Other
found under the event list Service of Process. (ldi) (Entered: 04/27/2016)
04/28/2016 126 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE of Plaintiff's Non−Redacted Reply in Support of Motion
for Forensic Examination Filed Under Seal served on Laura Menninger and Jeffrey
Pagliuca on April 26, 2016. Service was made by E−MAIL. Document filed by
04/28/2016 127 ORDER granting 124 Motion to adjourn conference. With respect to Defendant's
motion for an adjournment of the April 28, 2016 hearing, filed April 27, 2016,
Plaintiff's motion for a forensic examination is adjourned and shall instead be heard at
noon on May 12, 2016 in Courtroom 18C, United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street.
In the event the matter is resolved prior to the hearing, Plaintiff may accordingly
withdraw her motion with leave granted to refile, and the parties are directed to jointly
notify the Court by letter. This Order resolves ECF No. 124. (Signed by Judge Robert
04/28/2016 Set/Reset Deadlines as to Motion Hearing set for 5/12/2016 at 12:00 PM in Courtroom
18C, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Robert W. Sweet. (spo)
(Entered: 04/28/2016)
Case:
18-2868, Document 1-2,
As of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399789,
09:56 AMPage61
EDT of18127
of 84
04/28/2016 128 NOTICE of Submission of Law Enforcement Materials for In Camera Review.
Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 04/28/2016)
04/29/2016 129 NOTICE of Filing Under Seal Joint Proposed Redacted Order Regarding Privilege.
04/29/2016 130 Objection re: 128 Notice (Other) to Submission of Law Enforcement Materials for In
Camera Review. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura) (Entered:
04/29/2016)
05/01/2016 131 RESPONSE re: 130 Objection (non−motion) . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
05/01/2016 132 DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in Opposition re: 130 Objection (non−motion).
Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(McCawley, Sigrid)
(Entered: 05/01/2016)
05/02/2016 134 ORDER: With respect to Plaintiff's April 28, 2016 in camera submissions, the Plaintiff
is directed to submit a log in camera on or before April 4, 2016, identifying the
documents at issue, the applicable page range and category of grouped documents (that
is, documents spanning more than one page in their original form), the dates of any
submission, the law enforcement agency to which provided, any individuals, agencies,
or organizations to whom it has been released or made available, and a statement
identifying the privilege claimed and any authorities relied upon. The statement
concerning privilege and authorities will be provided to the Defendant. (Signed by
Judge Robert W. Sweet on 5/2/2016) (spo) (Entered: 05/02/2016)
05/02/2016 135 OPINION #106433 re: 33 MOTION to Compel Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell to
Produce Documents Subject to Improper Claim of Privilege, filed by Virginia L.
Giuffre. For the foregoing reasons and as set forth above, Plaintiff's motion to compel
is granted in part and denied in part. Defendant is directed to produce documents as set
forth above on or before April 18, 2016. This matter being subject to a Protective
Order dated March 17, 2016, the parties are directed to meet and confer regarding
redactions to this Opini6n consistent with that Order. The parties are further directed to
jointly file a proposed redacted version of this Opinion or notify the Court that none
are necessary within two weeks of the date of receipt of this Opinion. (As further set
forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 4/15/2016) (spo) Modified
on 5/4/2016 (ca). (Entered: 05/02/2016)
05/03/2016 136 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: conference held on 4/21/2016 before Judge Robert
W. Sweet. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Steven Greenblum, (212) 805−0300. Transcript
official transcript of a conference proceeding held on 4/21/16 has been filed by the
05/04/2016 138 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Brief in Support of the Privilege Claimed for In
Camera Submission addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Sigrid McCawley dated
May 4, 2016. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered:
05/04/2016)
05/04/2016 139 RESPONSE re: 134 Order,, Redacted. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
05/04/2016 140 DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley re: 139 Response ., DECLARATION of Sigrid
McCawley in Support. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit Redacted, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 05/04/2016)
Case:
18-2868, Document 1-2,
As of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399789,
09:56 AMPage62
EDT of19127
of 84
05/04/2016 141 NOTICE of In Camera Submission re: 134 Order,,. Document filed by Virginia L.
05/05/2016 142 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant to
Answer Deposition Questions addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Sigrid
McCawley dated May 5, 2016. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.(McCawley,
05/05/2016 143 MOTION to Compel Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell to Answer Deposition Questions
Redacted. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered:
05/05/2016)
Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell to Answer Deposition Questions Redacted.. Document
filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Redacted, # 2 Exhibit
Redacted, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit Redacted, # 5 Exhibit Redacted, # 6 Exhibit
Redacted, # 7 Exhibit Redacted)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 05/05/2016)
Document 145 Order on Motion to Seal Document to the Sealed Records Clerk for the
sealing or unsealing of document or case. (spo) (Entered: 05/06/2016)
05/06/2016 147 ORDER: Plaintiff's motion to compel, filed May 5, 2016, shall be heard at noon on
Thursday May 12, 2016 in Courtroom 18C, United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl
Street. (Motion Hearing set for 5/12/2016 at 12:00 PM in Courtroom 18C, 500 Pearl
Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Robert W. Sweet.) (Signed by Judge
Robert W. Sweet on 5/6/2016) (spo) (Entered: 05/06/2016)
05/09/2016 148 REPLY In Opposition to In Camera Submission. Document filed by Ghislaine
05/10/2016 149 RESPONSE to Motion re: 143 MOTION to Compel Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell to
Answer Deposition Questions Redacted. . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
05/10/2016 150 DECLARATION of Jeffrey S. Pagliuca in Opposition re: 143 MOTION to Compel
filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 05/10/2016)
05/11/2016 151 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Plaintiff's Reply In Support of her Motion to
Compel addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Sigrid McCawley dated May 11,
2016. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered:
05/11/2016)
05/11/2016 152 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 143 MOTION to Compel
Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell to Answer Deposition Questions Redacted. . Document
filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1 Redacted, # 2 Exhibit
Exhibit 2 Part 1, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 2 Part 2, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit 2 Part 3, # 5 Exhibit
Exhibit 3 Part 1, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit 3 Part 2, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit 4, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit
05/11/2016)
05/12/2016 154 SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault.(rz) (Entered: 05/12/2016)
Case:
18-2868, Document 1-2,
As of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399789,
09:56 AMPage63
EDT of20127
of 84
on 5/12/2016 re: 143 MOTION to Compel Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell to Answer
Deposition Questions filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. Decision Reserved.The proceeding
was filed under seal.The transcript are seal by the Court. (Court Reporter Tom Murray)
05/20/2016 155 MOTION to Compel Non−Privileged Documents. Document filed by Ghislaine
Non−Privileged Documents.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: #
1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, #
7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered:
05/20/2016)
05/23/2016 157 ORDER: Defendant's motion to compel, filed May 20, 2016, shall be heard at noon on
Thursday June 2, 2016 in Courtroom 18C, United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street.
All papers shall be served in accordance with Local Civil Rule 6.1. Motion Hearing set
for 6/2/2016 at 12:00 PM in Courtroom 18C, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007
before Judge Robert W. Sweet. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 5/23/2016) (cf)
(Entered: 05/23/2016)
05/23/2016 158 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from LAura A.
Menninger dated 5/20/2016 re: Request to file Confidential information Under Seal.
(spo) Modified on 6/13/2016 (tro). (Entered: 05/23/2016)
05/25/2016 159 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Serve Three
Deposition Subpoenas by Means Other than Personal Service addressed to Judge
Robert W. Sweet from Sigrid McCawley dated May 25, 2016. Document filed by
Virginia L. Giuffre.(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 05/25/2016)
05/25/2016 160 MOTION for Leave to Serve Three Deposition Subpoenas by Means Other Than
Personal Service Redacted. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.(McCawley, Sigrid)
(Entered: 05/25/2016)
05/25/2016 161 DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in Support re: 160 MOTION for Leave to
Serve Three Deposition Subpoenas by Means Other Than Personal Service Redacted..
Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Composite Exhibit
1, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2 Redacted, # 3 Exhibit Composite Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit
Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit 7, # 8
Exhibit Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit Composite Exhibit 9)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered:
05/25/2016)
05/25/2016 162 MOTION for John Stanley Pottinger to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00,
Appendix Certificate of Good Standing, # 2 Appendix Proposed Order)(Pottinger,
John) (Entered: 05/25/2016)
No. 162 MOTION for John Stanley Pottinger to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee
05/26/2016 164 MOTION to Compel all Attorney−Client Communications and Work Product Put At
Issue by Plaintiff and Her Attorneys. Document filed by Ghislaine
05/26/2016 165 DECLARATION of Laura A. Menninger in Support re: 164 MOTION to Compel all
Attorney−Client Communications and Work Product Put At Issue by Plaintiff and Her
Attorneys.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2
Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8
Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit
Case:
18-2868, Document 1-2,
As of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399789,
09:56 AMPage64
EDT of21127
of 84
M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P, # 17 Exhibit Q)(Menninger, Laura)

(Entered: 05/26/2016)
05/27/2016 166 ORDER: Plaintiff's motion for leave to serve, filed May 25, 2016, shall be heard at
noon on Thursday June 2, 2016 in Courtroom 18C, United States Courthouse, 500
Pearl Street. (Motion Hearing set for 6/2/2016 at 12:00 PM in Courtroom 18C, 500
Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Robert W. Sweet.) (Signed by Judge
Robert W. Sweet on 5/26/2016) (spo) Modified on 6/13/2016 (tro). (Entered:
05/27/2016)
dated 5/26/2016 re: Request to file under seal. ENDORSEMENT: So ordered. (Signed
by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 5/27/2016) (spo) (Entered: 05/27/2016)
05/27/2016 169 ORDER. Defendant's motion to compel, filed May 26, 2016, shall be heard at noon on
It is so ordered. (Oral Argument set for 6/2/2016 at 12:00 PM in Courtroom 18C, 500
Robert W. Sweet on 5/27/2016) (rjm) (Entered: 05/27/2016)
05/27/2016 170 ORDER FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE granting 162 Motion for J. Stanley
Pottinger to Appear Pro Hac Vice. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 5/26/2016)
(kgo) (Entered: 05/27/2016)
05/27/2016 171 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Plaintiff's Motion to Exceed Presumptive Ten
Deposition Limit addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Sigrid McCawley dated
05/27/2016)
05/27/2016 172 MOTION To Exceed Presumptive Ten Deposition Limit Redacted. Document filed by
05/27/2016 173 DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in Support re: 172 MOTION To Exceed
Presumptive Ten Deposition Limit Redacted.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
Exhibit Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit 5 Redacted, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit 6 Redacted, # 7
Exhibit Exhibit 7 Part 1, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit 7 Part 2, # 9 Exhibit Exhibit 8, # 10
Exhibit Exhibit 9)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 05/27/2016)
05/27/2016 174 ORDER: All pending motions scheduled to be heard at noon on Thursday June 2, 2016
in Courtroom 18C, United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street are advanced to 10:00
am. Motion Hearing set for 6/2/2016 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 18C, 500 Pearl Street,
Sweet on 5/27/2016) (kgo) (Entered: 05/27/2016)
05/27/2016 175 NOTICE of of Acceptance of Service re: 160 MOTION for Leave to Serve Three
Deposition Subpoenas by Means Other Than Personal Service Redacted.. Document
filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Schultz, Meredith) (Entered: 05/27/2016)
05/27/2016 176 MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to 24−Page Motion on Attorney−Client
Waiver Issues. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.(Schultz, Meredith) (Entered:
05/27/2016)
05/31/2016 177 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion
to Compel Non−Privileged Documents addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from
Meredith Schultz dated May 31, 2016. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.(Schultz,
05/31/2016 178 ORDER granting 171 Motion to Seal Document Plaintiff's Motion to Exceed
Presumptive Ten Deposition Limit. So ordered. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on
5/31/2016) (kko) (Entered: 05/31/2016)
case. (kko) (Entered: 05/31/2016)
Case:
18-2868, Document 1-2,
As of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399789,
09:56 AMPage65
EDT of22127
of 84
05/31/2016 179 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 155 MOTION to Compel Non−Privileged
Documents. . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Schultz, Meredith) (Entered:
05/31/2016)
05/31/2016 180 DECLARATION of Meredith L. Schultz in Opposition re: 155 MOTION to Compel
Non−Privileged Documents.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: #
1 Exhibit Redacted, # 2 Exhibit Redacted, # 3 Exhibit Redacted, # 4 Exhibit, # 5
Redacted, # 6 Redacted, # 7 Exhibit)(Schultz, Meredith) (Entered: 05/31/2016)
06/01/2016 181 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document 164 MOTION to Compel all Attorney−Client
Communications and Work Product Put At Issue by Plaintiff and Her Attorneys.
addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Meredith Schultz dated 06/01/16. Document
filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 06/01/2016)
06/01/2016 182 FIRST MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages . Document filed by Virginia L.
W. Sweet on 5/31/2016) (cf) (Entered: 06/01/2016)
06/01/2016 Transmission to Sealed Records Clerk. Transmitted re: 183 Order to the Sealed
Records Clerk for the sealing or unsealing of document or case. (cf) (Entered:
06/01/2016)
06/01/2016 184 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 164 MOTION to Compel all Attorney−Client
Communications and Work Product Put At Issue by Plaintiff and Her Attorneys. .
06/01/2016 185 DECLARATION of Sigrid S. McCawley in Opposition re: 181 LETTER MOTION to
Seal Document 164 MOTION to Compel all Attorney−Client Communications and
Work Product Put At Issue by Plaintiff and Her Attorneys. addressed to Judge Robert
W. Sweet from Meredith Schultz dated 06/01/16.. Document filed by Virginia L.
Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2 Sealed, # 3 Exhibit 3 Sealed, # 4
Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10
Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11 Sealed, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13 Sealed, # 14
Exhibit 14 Sealed, # 15 Exhibit 15 Sealed, # 16 Exhibit 16 Sealed)(McCawley, Sigrid)
(Entered: 06/01/2016)
06/02/2016 Minute Entry The motions on June 2, 2016 was taken on submission. (Chan, Tsz)
(Entered: 06/07/2016)
W. Sweet on 6/3/2016) (kl) (Entered: 06/03/2016)
Document, to the Sealed Records Clerk for the sealing or unsealing of document or
case. (kl) (Entered: 06/03/2016)
06/06/2016 187 ORDER: Plaintiff's motion to exceed the ten deposition limit shall be returnable on
submission on June 16, 2016. All papers shall be served in accordance with Local
Civil Rule 6.1. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 6/6/2016) (cf) (Entered:
06/06/2016)
06/06/2016 188 MEMO ENDORSEMENT granting 176 Motion for Extension of Time to respond to
motion. ENDORSEMENT: So ordered. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on
5/31/2016) (spo) (Entered: 06/06/2016)
06/06/2016 189 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 172 MOTION To Exceed Presumptive Ten
Deposition Limit Redacted. . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger,
06/06/2016 190 DECLARATION of Laura A. Menninger in Opposition re: 172 MOTION To Exceed
Presumptive Ten Deposition Limit Redacted.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 06/06/2016)
06/06/2016 191 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 155 MOTION to Compel Non−Privileged
Documents. . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura) (Entered:
06/06/2016)
Case:
18-2868, Document 1-2,
As of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399789,
09:56 AMPage66
EDT of23127
of 84
1 Exhibit K, # 2 Exhibit L, # 3 Exhibit M)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 06/06/2016)
06/06/2016 193 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 164 MOTION to Compel all Attorney−Client
Attorneys.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Q, # 2
Exhibit R, # 3 Exhibit S)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 06/06/2016)
dated 6/6/2016 re: Letter motion for file exhibits. ENDORSEMENT: So ordered.
(Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 6/7/2016) (spo) (Entered: 06/07/2016)
dated 6/6/2016 re: Request to file exhibit S. ENDORSEMENT: So ordered. (Signed by
dated 6/6/2016 re: Request to file exhibit A. ENDORSEMENT: So ordered. (Signed
06/10/2016 199 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Depositions. Document filed by Virginia
L. Giuffre.(Schultz, Meredith) (Entered: 06/10/2016)
06/10/2016 200 DECLARATION of Sigrid S. McCawley in Support re: 199 MOTION for Extension
of Time to Complete Depositions.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Schultz, Meredith) (Entered: 06/10/2016)
06/13/2016 201 MOTION to Maintain Confidentiality Designation . Document filed by Virginia L.
Giuffre.(Schultz, Meredith) (Entered: 06/13/2016)
06/13/2016 202 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document re Reply addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet
from Meredith Schultz dated 06/13/2016. Document filed by Virginia L.
06/13/2016 203 RESPONSE in Support of Motion re: 202 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document re
Reply addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Meredith Schultz dated 06/13/2016.,
172 MOTION To Exceed Presumptive Ten Deposition Limit Redacted. . Document
06/13/2016 204 DECLARATION of Sigrid S. McCawley in Support re: 202 LETTER MOTION to
Seal Document re Reply addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Meredith Schultz
dated 06/13/2016., 172 MOTION To Exceed Presumptive Ten Deposition Limit
Redacted.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1
(Sealed), # 2 Exhibit 2 (Sealed), # 3 Exhibit 3 (Sealed))(Schultz, Meredith) (Entered:
06/13/2016)
06/13/2016 205 MOTION for Protective Order re Subpoena to Apple, Inc. Seeking Production of All of
Ms. Giuffre's Sent and Received Emails and Relevant Data. Document filed by
Virginia L. Giuffre.(Schultz, Meredith) (Entered: 06/13/2016)
06/13/2016 206 DECLARATION of Meredith L. Schultz in Support re: 205 MOTION for Protective
Order re Subpoena to Apple, Inc. Seeking Production of All of Ms. Giuffre's Sent and
Received Emails and Relevant Data.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
06/13/2016 207 MOTION for Protective Order re the Subpoena to Microsoft Corporation Seeking
Production of All of Ms. Giuffre's Sent and Received Emails and Related Data.
Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.(Schultz, Meredith) (Entered: 06/13/2016)
06/13/2016 208 DECLARATION of Meredith L Schultz in Support re: 207 MOTION for Protective
Order re the Subpoena to Microsoft Corporation Seeking Production of All of Ms.
Giuffre's Sent and Received Emails and Related Data.. Document filed by Virginia L.
Case:
18-2868, Document 1-2,
As of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399789,
09:56 AMPage67
EDT of24127
of 84
Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Schultz, Meredith) (Entered:

06/13/2016)
06/14/2016 209 ORDER granting 202 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document re Reply addressed to
Judge Robert W. Sweet from Meredith Schultz dated 06/13/2016. Document filed by
Virginia L. Giuffre. So ordered. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 6/14/2016)
(rjm) (Entered: 06/14/2016)
case. (rjm) (Entered: 06/14/2016)
06/14/2016 210 ORDER. Plaintiff's motions for a protective order, to maintain the confidentiality
designations, and for an extension of time shall be heard at noon on Thursday June 23,
2016 in Courtroom 18C, United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street. It is so ordered.
(Oral Argument set for 6/23/2016 at 12:00 PM in Courtroom 18C, 500 Pearl Street,
New York, NY 10007 before Judge Robert W. Sweet.) (Signed by Judge Robert W.
Sweet on 6/14/2016) (rjm) (Entered: 06/14/2016)
06/14/2016 211 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 172 MOTION To Exceed Presumptive Ten
Deposition Limit Redacted. CORRECTED. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
(Schultz, Meredith) (Entered: 06/14/2016)
06/14/2016 212 DECLARATION of Meredith L Schultz in Support re: 172 MOTION To Exceed
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit SEALED, # 2 Exhibit SEALED, # 3 Exhibit
SEALED)(Schultz, Meredith) (Entered: 06/14/2016)
06/15/2016 213 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Eric Joel Feder on behalf of Sharon Churcher.
(Feder, Eric) (Entered: 06/15/2016)
06/15/2016 214 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Laura R. Handman on behalf of Sharon Churcher.
(Handman, Laura) (Entered: 06/15/2016)
06/15/2016 215 MOTION to Quash subpoena of Sharon Churcher . Document filed by Sharon
Churcher.(Handman, Laura) (Entered: 06/15/2016)
06/15/2016 216 DECLARATION of Sharon Churcher in Support re: 215 MOTION to Quash subpoena
of Sharon Churcher .. Document filed by Sharon Churcher. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit
1 to Churcher Decl., # 2 Exhibit 2 to Churcher Decl., # 3 Exhibit 3 to Churcher Decl.,
# 4 Exhibit 4 to Churcher Decl., # 5 Exhibit 5 to Churcher Decl., # 6 Exhibit 6 to
Churcher Decl., # 7 Exhibit 7 to Churcher Decl., # 8 Exhibit 8 to Churcher
Decl.)(Feder, Eric) (Entered: 06/15/2016)
06/15/2016 217 DECLARATION of Laura R. Handman in Support re: 215 MOTION to Quash
subpoena of Sharon Churcher .. Document filed by Sharon Churcher. (Attachments: #
1 Exhibit A to Handman Decl.)(Feder, Eric) (Entered: 06/15/2016)
06/15/2016 218 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 215 MOTION to Quash subpoena of
Sharon Churcher . . Document filed by Sharon Churcher. (Feder, Eric) (Entered:
06/15/2016)
06/16/2016 219 MOTION for Gregory Lawrence Poe to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00,
Clerk's Office staff. Document filed by Jeffrey Epstein. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix
Certificate of Good Standing, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Poe,
Gregory) (Entered: 06/16/2016)
06/16/2016 220 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Rachel S Li Wai Suen on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein.
(Li Wai Suen, Rachel) (Entered: 06/16/2016)
06/16/2016 221 MOTION to Quash Subpoena of Jeffrey Epstein or in the Alternative Modify
Subpoena and for a Protective Order. Document filed by Jeffrey Epstein.(Li Wai
Suen, Rachel) (Entered: 06/16/2016)
06/16/2016 222 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 221 MOTION to Quash Subpoena of
Jeffrey Epstein or in the Alternative Modify Subpoena and for a Protective Order. .
Document filed by Jeffrey Epstein. (Li Wai Suen, Rachel) (Entered: 06/16/2016)
Case:
18-2868, Document 1-2,
As of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399789,
09:56 AMPage68
EDT of25127
of 84
06/16/2016 223 DECLARATION of Gregory L. Poe in Support re: 221 MOTION to Quash Subpoena
of Jeffrey Epstein or in the Alternative Modify Subpoena and for a Protective Order..
Document filed by Jeffrey Epstein. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 to Poe Decl., # 2
Exhibit 2 to Poe Decl., # 3 Exhibit 3 to Poe Decl., # 4 Exhibit 4 to Poe Decl., # 5
Exhibit 5 to Poe Decl., # 6 Exhibit 6 to Poe Decl., # 7 Exhibit 7 to Poe Decl.)(Li Wai
No. 219 MOTION for Gregory Lawrence Poe to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee
06/17/2016 ***DELETED DOCUMENT. Deleted document number 224 Reply. The
document was incorrectly filed in this case. (rj) (Entered: 06/17/2016)
Deposition Limit Redacted. AMENDED. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
06/20/2016 225 ORDER FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE: granting 219 Motion for Gregory
Lawrence Poe to Appear Pro Hac Vice. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on
6/20/2016) (ama) (Entered: 06/20/2016)
06/20/2016 226 ORDER: Jeffrey Epstein's motion to quash shall be heard at noon on Thursday June
23, 2016 in Courtroom 18C, United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street. IT IS SO
ORDERED., Set Deadlines/Hearing as to ( Motion Hearing set for 6/23/2016 at 12:00
W. Sweet.) (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 6/20/2016) (ama) (Entered:
06/20/2016)
06/20/2016 227 ORDER: Sharon Churcher' s motion to quash shall be heard at noon on Thursday June
06/20/2016)
06/20/2016 228 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 199 MOTION for Extension of Time to
Complete Depositions. . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 06/20/2016)
Extension of Time to Complete Depositions.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11
Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N)(Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 06/20/2016)
06/20/2016 230 MOTION to Reopen Deposition of Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre . Document filed by
06/20/2016 231 MOTION for Sanctions 37(b) & (c) for Failure to Comply with Court Order and
Failure to Comply with Rule 26(a). Document filed by Ghislaine
06/20/2016 232 DECLARATION of Laura A. Menninger in Support re: 231 MOTION for Sanctions
37(b) & (c) for Failure to Comply with Court Order and Failure to Comply with Rule
26(a).. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2
M, # 14 Exhibit N)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 06/20/2016)
06/20/2016 233 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 221 MOTION to Quash Subpoena of Jeffrey
Epstein or in the Alternative Modify Subpoena and for a Protective Order. . Document
Case:
18-2868, Document 1-2,
As of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399789,
09:56 AMPage69
EDT of26127
of 84
06/20/2016 234 DECLARATION of Sigird S. McCawley in Opposition re: 221 MOTION to Quash
Subpoena of Jeffrey Epstein or in the Alternative Modify Subpoena and for a
Protective Order.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit
Exhibit Exhibit 5 Part 1 of 3, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit 5 Part 2 of 3, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit 5
Part 3 of 3)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 06/20/2016)
06/21/2016 235 DECLARATION of Laura A. Menninger in Support re: 230 MOTION to Reopen
Deposition of Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre .. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit K, # 11
Exhibit L, # 12 Exhibit M, # 13 Exhibit N)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 06/21/2016)
dated 6/20/2016 re: This is a letter motion to file under seal the following Motions, as
well as Declarations and certain exhibits thereto, under seal pursuant to this Court's
Protective Order (Doc. #62), the documents as further specified and listed in this letter.
(rjm) (Entered: 06/21/2016)
Sealed Records Clerk for the sealing or unsealing of document or case. (rjm) (Entered:
06/21/2016)
06/21/2016 237 ORDER with respect to 230 Motion to Reopen Plaintiff's deposition; with respect to
231 Motion for Sanctions: Defendant's motion to reopen Plaintiff's deposition and
motion for sanctions shall be taken on submission returnable Thursday, June 30, 2016
in Courtroom 18C, United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street. All papers shall be
served in accordance with Local Civil Rule 6.1. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on
6/21/2016) (tn) (Entered: 06/21/2016)
06/21/2016 238 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 221 MOTION to Quash Subpoena
of Jeffrey Epstein or in the Alternative Modify Subpoena and for a Protective Order. .
06/21/2016 239 DECLARATION of Gregory L. Poe (Supplemental Declaration) in Support re: 221
MOTION to Quash Subpoena of Jeffrey Epstein or in the Alternative Modify
Subpoena and for a Protective Order.. Document filed by Jeffrey Epstein.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Li Wai Suen, Rachel) (Entered: 06/21/2016)
Sigrid S. McCawley dated June 22, 2016. Document filed by Virginia L.
06/22/2016 246 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 215 MOTION to Quash subpoena of Sharon
Churcher . . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura) (Entered:
06/22/2016)
06/22/2016 247 DECLARATION of Laura A. Menninger in Opposition re: 215 MOTION to Quash
subpoena of Sharon Churcher .. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments:
# 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 06/22/2016)
06/22/2016 248 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 199 MOTION for Extension of
Time to Complete Depositions. REDACTED. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
06/22/2016 249 DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in Support re: 199 MOTION for Extension of
Time to Complete Depositions.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments:
Case:
18-2868, Document 1-2,
As of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399789,
09:56 AMPage70
EDT of27127
of 84
# 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit REDACTED, # 5 Exhibit, # 6

Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit,
# 13 Exhibit REDACTED, # 14 Exhibit REDACTED, # 15 Exhibit
REDACTED)(Schultz, Meredith) (Entered: 06/22/2016)
06/23/2016 251 ORDER: The Clerk of Court is directed to place the above entitled docket under seal.
(Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 6/23/2016) (tro) (Entered: 06/24/2016)
dated 6/22/2016 re: This is a letter motion to file under seal the Defendant's Response
to Nonparty Sharon Churcher's Motion tn Quash Subpoena, as well as Declaration and
certain exhibits thereto, under seal pursuant to this Court's Protective Order (Doc.
#62). ENDORSEMENT: So ordered. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on
6/23/2016) (rjm) (Entered: 06/24/2016)
06/24/2016)
on 6/23/2016 re: 221 MOTION to Quash Subpoena of Jeffrey Epstein or in the
Alternative Modify Subpoena and for a Protective Order filed by Jeffrey Epstein, 205
MOTION for Protective Order re Subpoena to Apple, Inc. Seeking Production of All
of Ms. Giuffre's Sent and Received Emails and Relevant Data filed by Virginia L.
Giuffre, 215 MOTION to Quash subpoena of Sharon Churcher filed by Sharon
Churcher, 207 MOTION for Protective Order re the Subpoena to Microsoft
Corporation Seeking Production of All of Ms. Giuffre's Sent and Received Emails and
Related Data filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. Motion to extend: Granted. Counsel is
directed to meet and confer on a further schedule.Confidentiality designation : Motion
granted, confidentiality will be maintained.Apple Subpoena: Motion to quash
granted.Microsoft Subpoena: Motion to quash granted, with leave to renew.Churcher
Subpoena: Decision reserved.Epstein Subpoena: Reserved on the bench (order
subsequently filed denied the motion to quash). (Court Reporter Vincent Bologna)
06/24/2016 250 ORDER, The Court directs the Clerk of Court and Records Department to unseal the
docket and seal ECF No. 246. It is so ordered. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on
06/24/2016) (mps) (Entered: 06/24/2016)
06/24/2016 252 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on NOTICE OF MOTION TO QUASH (OR IN THE
ALTERNATIVE MODIFY) SUBPOENA AND FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER.
ENDORSEMENT: The motion to quash is denied. So ordered. Denying 221 Motion to
Quash. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 6/23/2016) (rjm) (Entered: 06/24/2016)
06/24/2016 253 ORDER granting 245 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document addressed to Judge
Robert W. Sweet from Sigrid S. McCawley dated June 22, 2016. Document filed by
(rjm) (Entered: 06/24/2016)
06/28/2016 255 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to
Defendant's Motion for Rule 37 Sanctions addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from
Meredith Schultz dated June 28, 2016. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.(Schultz,
Defendant's Motion to Reopen Plaintiff's Deposition addressed to Judge Robert W.
Sweet from Meredith Schultz dated June 28, 2016. Document filed by Virginia L.
06/28/2016 257 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 231 MOTION for Sanctions 37(b) & (c) for
Failure to Comply with Court Order and Failure to Comply with Rule 26(a).
REDACTED. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Schultz, Meredith) (Entered:
06/28/2016)
Case:
18-2868, Document 1-2,
As of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399789,
09:56 AMPage71
EDT of28127
of 84
06/28/2016 258 DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in Opposition re: 231 MOTION for Sanctions
26(a).. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit
REDACTED, # 2 Exhibit REDACTED, # 3 Exhibit REDACTED, # 4 Exhibit
REDACTED, # 8 Exhibit REDACTED, # 9 Exhibit REDACTED, # 10 Errata
06/28/2016 259 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 230 MOTION to Reopen Deposition of
Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre . REDACTED. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
06/28/2016 260 DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in Opposition re: 230 MOTION to Reopen
Deposition of Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre .. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit REDACTED, # 2 Exhibit REDACTED)(Schultz, Meredith)
(Entered: 06/28/2016)
REDACTED−CORRECTED. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Schultz,
07/05/2016 262 LETTER MOTION for Leave to File Reply Brief in Further Support of Motion to
Quash addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Eric J. Feder dated July 5, 2016.,
LETTER MOTION to Seal Document addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Eric
J. Feder dated July 5, 2016. Document filed by Sharon Churcher.(Feder, Eric)
(Entered: 07/05/2016)
07/05/2016 263 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 215 MOTION to Quash subpoena
of Sharon Churcher . . Document filed by Sharon Churcher. (Feder, Eric) (Entered:
07/05/2016)
07/05/2016 264 NOTICE of of FILING REDACTED OPINION. Document filed by Virginia L.
Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Redacted
Opinion)(Schultz, Meredith) (Entered: 07/05/2016)
dated 6/30/2016 re: I write to request a brief 3−day extension of time to file Ms.
Maxwell's Reply in Support of her Motions to Re−open Plaintiff's Deposition and for
Rule 37(b) and (c) Sanctions until July 8, 2016. ENDORSEMENT: So ordered.
(Replies due by 7/8/2016.) (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 7/5/2016) (rjm)
(Entered: 07/07/2016)
07/07/2016 266 ORDER granting 255 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Plaintiff's Response in
Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Rule 37 Sanctions addressed to Judge Robert W.
Giuffre. So ordered. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 7/5/2016) (rjm) (Entered:
07/07/2016)
07/08/2016 267 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 230 MOTION to Reopen Deposition of Plaintiff
Virginia Giuffre . . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 07/08/2016)
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit O, # 2 Exhibit P)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 07/08/2016)
07/08/2016 269 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 231 MOTION for Sanctions 37(b) & (c) for Failure
to Comply with Court Order and Failure to Comply with Rule 26(a). . Document filed
26(a).. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit O, # 2
Case:
18-2868, Document 1-2,
As of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399789,
09:56 AMPage72
EDT of29127
of 84
Exhibit P, # 3 Exhibit Q, # 4 Exhibit R, # 5 Exhibit S, # 6 Exhibit T)(Menninger,

Meredith Schultz dated July 12, 2016. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.(Schultz,
07/12/2016 272 LETTER MOTION for Leave to File Sur−Reply addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet
from Sigrid McCawley dated July 12, 2016. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit REDACTED Sur−Reply, # 2 Exhibit REDACTED
Declaration, # 3 Exhibit REDACTED Exhibit 1, # 4 Exhibit REDACTED Exhibit 2, #
5 Exhibit REDACTED Exhibit 3, # 6 Exhibit REDACTED Exhibit 4, # 7 Exhibit
REDACTED Exhibit 5, # 8 Exhibit REDACTED Exhibit 6, # 9 Exhibit REDACTED
Exhibit 7, # 10 Exhibit REDACTED Exhibit 8)(Schultz, Meredith) (Entered:
07/12/2016)
Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Reopen Plaintiff's Deposition addressed to Judge
Robert W. Sweet from Meredith Schultz dated June 28, 2016. Document filed by
(rjm) (Entered: 07/13/2016)
07/13/2016 274 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on THE PARTIES' AGREED NOTICE OF FILING
REDACTED OPINION. ENDORSEMENT: So ordered. re: 264 NOTICE of of
FILING REDACTED OPINION. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Signed by
Judge Robert W. Sweet on 7/11/2016) (rjm) (Entered: 07/13/2016)
07/13/2016 Transmission to Sealed Records Clerk. Transmitted re: 274 Memo Endorsement to the
07/13/2016)
07/13/2016 275 ORDER granting 262 LETTER MOTION for Leave to File Reply Brief in Further
Support of Motion to Quash addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Eric J. Feder
dated July 5, 2016. LETTER MOTION to Seal Document addressed to Judge Robert
W. Sweet from Eric J. Feder dated July 5, 2016. Document filed by Sharon Churcher.
So ordered. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 7/11/2016) (rjm) (Entered:
07/13/2016)
07/13/2016 Transmission to Sealed Records Clerk. Transmitted re: 275 Order on Motion for Leave
to File Document, Order on Motion to Seal Document to the Sealed Records Clerk for
the sealing or unsealing of document or case. (rjm) (Entered: 07/13/2016)
07/13/2016 276 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: motion held on 6/23/2016 before Judge Robert W.
Sweet. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Vincent Bologna, (212) 805−0300. Transcript may
07/13/2016 278 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Plaintiff's Motion for an Adverse Inference
Instruction addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Meredith Schultz dated July 13,
2016. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.(Schultz, Meredith) (Entered:
07/13/2016)
Case:
18-2868, Document 1-2,
As of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399789,
09:56 AMPage73
EDT of30127
of 84
07/13/2016 279 MOTION for Sanctions Motion for Adverse Inference Instruction REDACTED.
07/13/2016 280 DECLARATION of Meredith Schultz in Support re: 279 MOTION for Sanctions
Motion for Adverse Inference Instruction REDACTED.. Document filed by Virginia L.
Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit REDACTED, # 2 Exhibit REDACTED, # 3
Exhibit)(Schultz, Meredith) (Entered: 07/13/2016)
07/15/2016 281 ORDER granting 271 Motion to Seal Document: So ordered. (Signed by Judge Robert
W. Sweet on 7/15/2016) (tn) (Entered: 07/15/2016)
07/15/2016 282 ORDER granting 278 Motion to Seal Document. SO ORDERED.(Signed by Judge
Robert W. Sweet on 7/15/2016) (ama) (Entered: 07/15/2016)
07/15/2016 283 ORDER: Cassell's motion to quash shall be taken on submission returnable Thursday,
August 4, 2016. All papers shall be served in accordance with Local Civil Rule 6.1.
(Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 7/11/2016) (tn) (Entered: 07/15/2016)
dated 7/8/2016 re: that the Court permit the filing of Ms. Maxwell's Reply In Support
Of Motion for Rule 37(b) & (c) Sanctions For Failure To Comply With Court Order
And Failure To Comply With Rule 26(a) in excess of the 10 pages permitted pursuant
to this Court's Practice Standard 2D. ENDORSEMENT: So ordered. (Signed by Judge
Robert W. Sweet on 7/15/2016) (tn) (Entered: 07/15/2016)
dated 7/8/2016 re: Ms. Maxwell therefore requests permission to file the Confidential
information under seal. ENDORSEMENT: So ordered. (Signed by Judge Robert W.
Sweet on 7/15/2016) (tn) (Entered: 07/15/2016)
dated 7/13/2016 re: letter motion to file Ms. Maxwell's Letter Motion requesting the
Court to strike and disregard Plaintiff's Sur−Reply in Response to Defendant's Reply
in Support of Motion for Sanctions. ENDORSEMENT: So ordered. (Signed by Judge
Robert W. Sweet on 7/15/2016) (tn) Modified on 7/15/2016 (tn). (Entered:
07/15/2016)
07/15/2016 287 ORDER with respect to 279 Motion for Sanctions: Plaintiff's motion for an adverse
inference instruction shall be taken in submission returnable August 11, 2016. All
papers shall be served in accordance with Local Civil Rule 6.1 and pursuant to this
Court's previous orders. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 7/15/2016) (tn)
(Entered: 07/15/2016)
LETTER MOTION for Discovery to Strike Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Motion for an
Adverse Inference Instruction Pursuant to Rule 37(b), (e), and (f), Fed.R.Civ.P
addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Laura A. Menninger dated June 15, 2016.
Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit
2)(Menninger, Laura) Modified on 7/22/2016 (db). (Entered: 07/15/2016)
07/18/2016 289 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Response in Opposition to Defendant's Letter
Motion to Strike addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Meredith Schultz dated
July 18, 2016. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.(Schultz, Meredith) (Entered:
07/18/2016)
07/18/2016 290 LETTER RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet
from Meredith Schultz dated July 18, 2016 re: 288 LETTER MOTION for Discovery
to Strike Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Motion for an Adverse Inference Instruction
Pursuant to Rule 37(b), (e), and (f), Fed.R.Civ.P addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet
from Laura A. Menninger dated June 15, 201 REDACTED. Document filed by
Virginia L. Giuffre. (Schultz, Meredith) (Entered: 07/18/2016)
07/18/2016 291 DECLARATION of Meredith Schultz in Opposition re: 288 LETTER MOTION for
Discovery to Strike Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Motion for an Adverse Inference
Instruction Pursuant to Rule 37(b), (e), and (f), Fed.R.Civ.P addressed to Judge Robert
W. Sweet from Laura A. Menninger dated June 15, 201. Document filed by Virginia
L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit REDACTED, # 2 Exhibit REDACTED, # 3
Exhibit REDACTED)(Schultz, Meredith) (Entered: 07/18/2016)
Case:
18-2868, Document 1-2,
As of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399789,
09:56 AMPage74
EDT of31127
of 84
dated 7/13/2016 re: Defendant Maxwell requests the Court strike and disregard
Plaintiff's Sur−Reply in Response to Defendant's Reply in Support of Motion for
Sanctions, or in the alternative, permit Ms. Maxwell to file a Sur Sur−Reply
responding to both the matters raised therein and new documents disclosed
contemporaneously with the Sur−Reply. ENDORSEMENT: Sur sur reply permitted.
So ordered. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 7/18/2016) (kko) (Entered:
07/19/2016)
LETTER MOTION for Discovery to Strike Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Motion for
an Adverse Inference Instruction Pursuant to Rule 37(b), (e), and (f), Fed.R.Civ.P
addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Laura A. Menninger dated June 15,
201. Use the event type Letter found under the event list Other Documents. (db)
(Entered: 07/22/2016)
07/22/2016 300 LETTER addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Laura A. Menninger dated July
15, 2016 re: Motion to Strike Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Motion for an Adverse
Inference Instruction Pursuant to Rule 37(b), (e), and (f), Fed.R.Civ.P. Document filed
by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 07/22/2016)
07/22/2016 301 ORDER: Defendant's motion to strike Plaintiff's motion for an Adverse Inference
Instruction, ECF No. 288 is denied. The parties are directed to submit proposed search
terms and any briefs in support for court determination within ten days of the date of
filing of this order. The briefing schedule and submission date for Plaintiff's motion for
an Adverse Inference Instruction, ECF No. 279, set forth in the Court's July 15, 2016
Order, ECF No. 287, is adjourned. A briefing schedule and submission date will be set
after search terms are determined. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 7/20/2016)
(cf) (Entered: 07/22/2016)
07/25/2016 302 JOINT MOTION Proposed Discovery and Case Management Deadlines and Request
to Modify Pretrial Scheduling Order re: 13 Scheduling Order, . Document filed by
07/25/2016 303 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 272 LETTER MOTION for Leave to File
Sur−Reply addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Sigrid McCawley dated July 12,
2016. Defendant's Sur Sur−Reply In Support of Motion for Rule 37(b) & (c) Sanctions.
26(a).. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit U, # 2
Exhibit V, # 3 Exhibit W, # 4 Exhibit X)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 07/25/2016)
07/25/2016 305 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Plaintiff's Motion for an Extension of Time to
Serve Process Upon and Depose Ross Gow addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from
07/25/2016 306 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery to Serve and Depose Ross
Gow. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.(Schultz, Meredith) (Entered:
07/25/2016)
Case:
18-2868, Document 1-2,
As of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399789,
09:56 AMPage75
EDT of32127
of 84
07/25/2016 307 DECLARATION of Meredith Schultz in Support re: 306 MOTION for Extension of
Time to Complete Discovery to Serve and Depose Ross Gow.. Document filed by
Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, #
5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit REDACTED, # 8 Exhibit REDACTED, # 9
07/25/2016 308 MOTION for Sanctions and finding Civil Contempt against Sarah Kellen for Ignoring
Subpoena. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.(Schultz, Meredith) (Entered:
07/25/2016)
07/25/2016 309 DECLARATION of Meredith Schultz in Support re: 308 MOTION for Sanctions and
finding Civil Contempt against Sarah Kellen for Ignoring Subpoena.. Document filed
by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit,
# 5 Exhibit)(Schultz, Meredith) (Entered: 07/25/2016)
07/25/2016 310 MOTION for Sanctions and for Finding of Civil Contempt Against Nadia Marcinkova
for Ignoring Subpoena. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.(Schultz, Meredith)
(Entered: 07/25/2016)
for Finding of Civil Contempt Against Nadia Marcinkova for Ignoring Subpoena..
Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit)(Schultz, Meredith) (Entered: 07/25/2016)
07/29/2016 312 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Notice of Supplemental Authority addressed to
Judge Robert W. Sweet from Meredith Schultz dated July 29, 2016. Document filed by
07/29/2016 313 NOTICE of Supplemental Authority re: 257 Response in Opposition to Motion.
Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit
07/29/2016 314 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Motion to Enforce the Court's Order addressed
to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Meredith Schultz dated July 29, 2016. Document filed
by Virginia L. Giuffre.(Schultz, Meredith) (Entered: 07/29/2016)
MOTION to Compel and Motion to Enforce the Court's Order and Direct Defendant
to Answer Deposition Questions. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.(Schultz,
Meredith) Modified on 8/10/2016 (db). (Entered: 07/29/2016)
07/29/2016 316 FILING ERROR − DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY − DECLARATION of
Meredith Schultz in Support re: 315 MOTION to Compel and Motion to Enforce the
Court's Order and Direct Defendant to Answer Deposition Questions.. Document filed
by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit REDACTED, # 2 Exhibit
REDACTED)(Schultz, Meredith) Modified on 8/10/2016 (db). (Entered: 07/29/2016)
08/01/2016 317 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on PROPOSED DISCOVERY AND CASE
MANAGEMENT DEADLINES AND REQUEST TO MODIFY PRETRIAL
SCHEDULING ORDER. ENDORSEMENT: So ordered. Granting 302 JOINT
MOTION Proposed Discovery and Case Management Deadlines and Request to
Modify Pretrial Scheduling Order re: 13 Scheduling Order. Document filed by
Ghislaine Maxwell. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 7/30/2016) (rjm). (Entered:
08/01/2016)
08/01/2016 Set/Reset Deadlines: Deposition due by 10/14/2016. Motions in Limine due by
11/21/2016. Pretrial Order due by 11/21/2016. (rjm) (Entered: 08/01/2016)
08/01/2016 318 ORDER: Plaintiff's motions for a finding of civil contempt against Sarah Kellen and
Nadia Marcinkova shall be taken on submission returnable August 25, 2016. All
Court's previous orders. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 7/30/2016) (cf)
(Entered: 08/01/2016)
Case:
18-2868, Document 1-2,
As of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399789,
09:56 AMPage76
EDT of33127
of 84
08/01/2016)
08/01/2016 320 MOTION Defendant's Submission Regarding "Search Terms" And Notice Of
Compliance With Court Order Concerning Forensic Examination Of Devices.
08/01/2016 321 DECLARATION of Laura A. Menninger in Support re: 320 MOTION Defendant's
Submission Regarding "Search Terms" And Notice Of Compliance With Court Order
Concerning Forensic Examination Of Devices.. Document filed by Ghislaine
Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5
Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 08/01/2016)
08/01/2016 322 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Plaintiff's Proposed Search Terms addressed to
Judge Robert W. Sweet from Meredith Schutlz dated August 1, 2016. Document filed
08/01/2016 323 NOTICE of of Sumbission of Proposed Search Terms re: 301 Order,,. Document filed
by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Schultz, Meredith) (Entered: 08/01/2016)
08/02/2016 326 ORDER: Plaintiff's second motion to compel defendant to answer deposition questions
shall be taken on submission returnable August 18, 2016. All papers shall be served in
accordance with Local Civil Rule 6.1 and pursuant to this Court's previous orders. It is
so ordered. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 8/2/2016) (kl) (Entered:
08/02/2016)
08/02/2016 327 ORDER: Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to serve process upon and depose
Ross Gow shall be taken on submission returnable August 11, 2016. All papers shall
be served pursuant to this Court's previous orders. It is so ordered. (Signed by Judge
Robert W. Sweet on 8/2/2016) (kl) (Entered: 08/02/2016)
dated 7/25/2016 re: This is a letter motion to file Ms. Maxwell's Sur Sur−Reply In
Support of Motion for Rule 37(b) & (c) Sanctions exhibits under seal pursuant to this
Court's Protective Order (Doc. # 62). ENDORSEMENT: So ordered. (Signed by Judge
dated 8/1/2016 re: This is a letter motion to file Ms. Maxwell's Submission Regarding
"Search Terms" and Notice of Compliance with Court Order Concerning Forensic
Examination of Computer Device and supporting exhibits under seal pursuant to this
08/03/2016 330 APPLICATION FOR LETTERS ROGATORY by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Schultz,
08/03/2016 331 APPLICATION FOR LETTERS ROGATORY by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments:
# 1 Exhibit 1 (Composite), # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, #
6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7)(Schultz, Meredith) (Entered: 08/03/2016)
08/04/2016 332 ORDER granting 312 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Notice of Supplemental
Authority addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Meredith Schultz dated July 29,
2016. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. So ordered. (Signed by Judge Robert W.
Case:
18-2868, Document 1-2,
As of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399789,
09:56 AMPage77
EDT of34127
of 84
Complete Discovery to Serve and Depose Ross Gow. . Document filed by Ghislaine
08/08/2016 334 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Motion for Protective Order addressed to Judge
Robert W. Sweet from Sigrid McCawley dated August 8, 2016. Document filed by
08/08/2016 335 MOTION for Protective Order and Motion for the Court to Direct Defendant to
Disclose All Individuals to whom Defendant has Disseminated Confidential
Information. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.(Schultz, Meredith) (Entered:
08/08/2016)
08/08/2016 336 DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in Support re: 335 MOTION for Protective
Order and Motion for the Court to Direct Defendant to Disclose All Individuals to
whom Defendant has Disseminated Confidential Information.. Document filed by
Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit REDACTED, # 2 Exhibit REDACTED,
# 3 Exhibit REDACTED)(Schultz, Meredith) (Entered: 08/08/2016)
08/08/2016 337 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Plaintiff's Supplement to Motion for Adverse
Inference Instruction Based on New Information addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet
from Meredith Schultz dated August 8, 2016. Document filed by Virginia L.
08/08/2016 338 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 279 MOTION for Sanctions Motion for
Adverse Inference Instruction REDACTED. Supplement Based on New Information.
Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 REDACTED
DECLARATION, # 2 Exhibit REDACTED, # 3 Exhibit REDACTED, # 4 Exhibit
08/08/2016 339 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 315 MOTION to Compel and Motion to
Enforce the Court's Order and Direct Defendant to Answer Deposition Questions. .
and Motion to Enforce the Court's Order and Direct Defendant to Answer Deposition
Questions.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2
Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 08/08/2016)
Time to Complete Discovery to Serve and Depose Ross Gow. . Document filed by
08/09/2016 344 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Plaintiff's Motion to Compel addressed to Judge
08/09/2016 345 MOTION to Compel Defendant to Produce Documents Subject to Improper Objection
and Improper Claim of Privilege. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.(Schultz,
08/09/2016 346 DECLARATION of Meredith Schultz in Support re: 345 MOTION to Compel
Defendant to Produce Documents Subject to Improper Objection and Improper Claim
of Privilege.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit
REDACTED, # 5 Exhibit REDACTED)(Schultz, Meredith) (Entered: 08/09/2016)
08/09/2016 347 ORDER. Plaintiff's motion for a protective order shall be taken on submission
returnable Thursday, September 1, 2016. All papers shall be served pursuant to Local
Civil Rule 6.1 and this Court's previous orders. It is so ordered. (Signed by Judge
Case:
18-2868, Document 1-2,
As of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399789,
09:56 AMPage78
EDT of35127
of 84
08/09/2016 348 STANDING ORDER. To reduce unnecessary filings and delay, it is hereby ordered
that letter motions to file submissions under seal pursuant to the Court's Protective
Order, ECF No. 62, are granted. The Protective Order is amended accordingly such
that filing a letter motion seeking sealing for each submission is no longer necessary.
A party wishing to challenge the sealing of any particular submission may do so by
motion. It is so ordered. Granting 322 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Plaintiff's
Proposed Search Terms addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Meredith Schutlz
dated August 1, 2016. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre; Granting 334 LETTER
MOTION to Seal Document Motion for Protective Order addressed to Judge Robert
W. Sweet from Sigrid McCawley dated August 8, 2016. Document filed by Virginia L.
Giuffre; Granting 337 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Plaintiff's Supplement to
Motion for Adverse Inference Instruction Based on New Information addressed to
Judge Robert W. Sweet from Meredith Schultz dated August 8, 2016. Document filed
by Virginia L. Giuffre; Granting 344 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Plaintiff's
Motion to Compel addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Sigrid McCawley dated
August 9, 2016. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Signed by Judge Robert W.
08/09/2016 349 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
dated 8/8/2016 re: This is a letter motion to file Ms. Maxwell's Response in Opposition
to Plaintiff's Motion to Enforce the Court's Order and Direct Defendant to Answer
Deposition Questions Filed Under Seal and Supporting exhibits under seal pursuant to
this Court's Protective Order (Doc. #62). ENDORSEMENT: So ordered. (Signed by
08/10/2016)
08/09/2016 350 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: 337 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Plaintiff's
Supplement to Motion for Adverse Inference Instruction Based on New Information
addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Meredith Schultz dated August 8, 2016.
Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. ENDORSEMENT: So ordered. (Signed by
08/10/2016)
08/09/2016 351 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: 334 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Motion
for Protective Order addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Sigrid McCawley dated
August 8, 2016. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. ENDORSEMENT: So
ordered. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 8/9/2016) (rjm) (Entered: 08/10/2016)
08/10/2016)
08/09/2016 352 ORDER. Defendant will run Plaintiff's Proposed Search Terms as set forth in
Plaintiff's August 1, 2016 submission. Defendant will search all text and associated
metadata set forth below, and as further specified and set forth in this Order.
Terminating 320 MOTION Defendant's Submission Regarding "Search Terms" And
Notice Of Compliance With Court Order Concerning Forensic Examination Of
Devices. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on
8/9/2016) (rjm) (Entered: 08/10/2016)
ERROR. Notice to Attorney Meredith L Schultz to RE−FILE Document 315
MOTION to Compel and Motion to Enforce the Court's Order and Direct
Defendant to Answer Deposition Questions. Use the event type Direct found under
the event list Motions. (db) (Entered: 08/10/2016)
Case:
18-2868, Document 1-2,
As of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399789,
09:56 AMPage79
EDT of36127
of 84
08/10/2016 ***NOTICE TO ATTORNEY TO RE−FILE DOCUMENT − DEFICIENT
DOCKET ENTRY ERROR. Notice to Attorney Meredith L Schultz to RE−FILE
Document 316 Declaration in Support of Motion. ERROR(S): Document(s)
linked to filing error(s). (db) (Entered: 08/10/2016)
08/10/2016 353 MOTION to Strike Document No. [338, and all supporting documents] to Plaintiff's
Supplement to Motion for Adverse Inference Instruction Based on New Information.
08/10/2016 354 MOTION to Compel Responses to Defendant's Second Set of Discovery Requests to
Plaintiff, and for Sanctions. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.(Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 08/10/2016)
Responses to Defendant's Second Set of Discovery Requests to Plaintiff, and for
Sanctions.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2
Exhibit B)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 08/10/2016)
08/11/2016 356 MOTION to Direct DEFENDANT TO ANSWER DEPOSITION QUESTIONS FILED
UNDER SEAL. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.(Schultz, Meredith) (Entered:
08/11/2016)
MOTION to Direct DEFENDANT TO ANSWER DEPOSITION QUESTIONS
[SCHULTZ DECLARATION ISO_DE 356_MOTION]. Document filed by Virginia L.
Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2 (Sealed), # 3 Exhibit 3 (Sealed), # 4
Exhibit 4 (Sealed), # 5 Exhibit 5 (Sealed), # 6 Exhibit 6 (Sealed), # 7 Exhibit 7
(Sealed), # 8 Exhibit 8 (Sealed))(Schultz, Meredith) Modified on 8/12/2016 (db).
(Entered: 08/11/2016)
08/11/2016 358 REQUEST FOR INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE (LETTER
ROGATORY). THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, presents its compliments to the Foreign and
Commonwealth Office, London SW1A 2AL, United Kingdom or other appropriate
judicial authority and, pursuant to the Evidence (Proceedings in other Jurisdictions)
Act 1975 and Part 34 of the English Civil Procedure Rules, requests international
judicial assistance to issue orders of subpoena duces tecum to require a witness to
appear for questioning and to produce documents so that evidence may be obtained for
a civil proceeding in the above−captioned action which is pending before this Court,
and as further specified and set forth in this Request for International Judicial
Assistance (Letter Rogatory). (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 8/11/2016) (rjm)
(Entered: 08/11/2016)
08/11/2016 Transmission to Judgments and Orders Clerk. Transmitted re: 358 Order to the
Judgments and Orders Clerk. (rjm) (Entered: 08/11/2016)
08/11/2016 359 ORDER. Defendant's motion to strike, motion to compel, and motion for sanctions
shall be taken on submission returnable Thursday, September 8, 2016. All papers shall
be served pursuant to Local Civil Rule 6.1 and this Court's previous orders. It is so
dated 8/10/2016 re: This is a letter motion requesting that the Court permit the filing of
Ms. Maxwell's Motion to Compel Responses to Defendant's Second Set of Discovery
Requests to Plaintiff, and for Sanctions in excess of the 25 pages permitted pursuant to
this Court's Practice Standard 2D. ENDORSEMENT: So ordered. (Signed by Judge
08/11/2016 361 ORDER. Plaintiff's motion to compel shall be taken on submission returnable
Thursday, September 1, 2016. All papers shall be served pursuant to Local Civil Rule
6.1 and this Court's previous orders. It is so ordered. (Signed by Judge Robert W.
08/11/2016 362 MOTION to Intervene ., MOTION to Unseal Document or in the Alternative to
Modify Protective Order.( Return Date set for 9/8/2016 at 12:00 PM.) Document filed
by Alan M. Dershowitz.(Celli, Andrew) (Entered: 08/11/2016)
Case:
18-2868, Document 1-2,
As of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399789,
09:56 AMPage80
EDT of37127
of 84
08/11/2016 363 DECLARATION of Alan M. Dershowitz in Support re: 362 MOTION to Intervene .
MOTION to Unseal Document or in the Alternative to Modify Protective Order..
Document filed by Alan M. Dershowitz. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, #
3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H,
# 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14
Exhibit N)(Celli, Andrew) (Entered: 08/11/2016)
08/11/2016 364 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 362 MOTION to Intervene . MOTION to
Unseal Document or in the Alternative to Modify Protective Order. . Document filed
by Alan M. Dershowitz. (Celli, Andrew) (Entered: 08/11/2016)
08/11/2016 365 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Andrew G. Celli on behalf of Alan M. Dershowitz.
(Celli, Andrew) (Entered: 08/11/2016)
08/11/2016 366 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by David A Lebowitz on behalf of Alan M. Dershowitz.
(Lebowitz, David) (Entered: 08/11/2016)
[SCHULTZ DECLARATION ISO_DE 356_MOTION]. Use the event type
Declaration in Support of Motion found under the event list Replies, Opposition
and Supporting Documents. (db) (Entered: 08/12/2016)
08/12/2016 367 DECLARATION of Meredith Schultz in Support re: 357 MOTION to Direct
DEFENDANT TO ANSWER DEPOSITION QUESTIONS [SCHULTZ DECLARATION
ISO_DE 356_MOTION]., 315 MOTION to Compel and Motion to Enforce the Court's
Order and Direct Defendant to Answer Deposition Questions., 356 MOTION to Direct
DEFENDANT TO ANSWER DEPOSITION QUESTIONS FILED UNDER SEAL..
Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 (Sealed), # 2
(Sealed), # 6 Exhibit 6 (Sealed), # 7 Exhibit 7 (Sealed), # 8 Exhibit 8
(Sealed))(Schultz, Meredith) (Entered: 08/12/2016)
08/12/2016 368 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 315 MOTION to Compel and
Motion to Enforce the Court's Order and Direct Defendant to Answer Deposition
Questions., 357 MOTION to Direct DEFENDANT TO ANSWER DEPOSITION
QUESTIONS [SCHULTZ DECLARATION ISO_DE 356_MOTION]., 356 MOTION to
Direct DEFENDANT TO ANSWER DEPOSITION QUESTIONS FILED UNDER
SEAL. . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Schultz, Meredith) (Entered:
08/12/2016)
08/12/2016 369 DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in Support re: 357 MOTION to Direct
ISO_DE 356_MOTION].. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit REDACTED, # 2 Exhibit REDACTED, # 3 Exhibit REDACTED, # 4 Exhibit
08/12/2016 370 MOTION for Protective Order (REDACTED) Regarding Personal Financial
Information. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2
Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 08/12/2016)
Order (REDACTED) Regarding Personal Financial Information.. Document filed by
Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit
08/15/2016 373 ORDER: Defendant's motion for a protective order shall be taken on submission
Civil Rule 6.1 and this Court's previous orders. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on
8/15/2016) (cf) (Entered: 08/15/2016)
Case:
18-2868, Document 1-2,
As of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399789,
09:56 AMPage81
EDT of38127
of 84
08/15/2016 374 ORDER: Proposed Intervenor Alan Dershowitz's motion for permissive intervention
and unsealing shall be taken on submission returnable Thursday, September 8, 2016.
All papers shall be served pursuant to Local Civil Rule 6.1 and this Court's previous
orders. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 8/15/2016) (cf) (Entered: 08/15/2016)
08/17/2016 375 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 353 MOTION to Strike Document No. [338,
and all supporting documents] to Plaintiff's Supplement to Motion for Adverse
Inference Instruction Based on New Information. . Document filed by Virginia L.
08/17/2016 376 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL AND SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL FOR
NON−PARTY JEFFREY EPSTEIN: Undersigned counsel and non−party Jeffrey
Epstein, through counsel, respectfully submit this notice of withdrawal and
substitution of counsel Upon approval of this Court, the Law Offices of Gregory L.
Poe PLLC (including Gregory L. Poe and Rachel S. Li Wai Suen) shall withdraw from
the representation of Mr. Epstein in connection with this action and Jack Goldberger,
Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A., 250 N. Australian Avenue #1400, West Palm
Beach, Florida 33401, (561) 207−8305, shall enter an appearance on behalf of Mr.
Epstein as a non−party in this action. So ordered. Attorney Jack Alan Goldberger for
Jeffrey Epstein added. Attorney Rachel S. Li Wai Suen and Gregory L. Poe
terminated. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 8/17/2016) (rjm) (Entered:
08/17/2016)
08/17/2016 377 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Plaintiff's Response In Opposition to
Defendant's Motion to Compel and for Sanctions. Document filed by Virginia L.
Defendant's Second Set of Discovery Requests to Plaintiff, and for Sanctions. .
Sanctions.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit
08/18/2016 380 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 335 MOTION for Protective Order and
Motion for the Court to Direct Defendant to Disclose All Individuals to whom
Defendant has Disseminated Confidential Information. . Document filed by Ghislaine
Protective Order and Motion for the Court to Direct Defendant to Disclose All
Individuals to whom Defendant has Disseminated Confidential Information..
Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3
Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit
H)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 08/18/2016)
Document filed by Alan M. Dershowitz. (Lebowitz, David) (Entered: 08/19/2016)
08/19/2016 383 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 345 MOTION to Compel Defendant to
Produce Documents Subject to Improper Objection and Improper Claim of Privilege. .
of Privilege.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2
08/19/2016 385 DECLARATION of REDACTED in Opposition re: 345 MOTION to Compel
of Privilege.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura) (Entered:
08/19/2016)
Case:
18-2868, Document 1-2,
As of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399789,
09:56 AMPage82
EDT of39127
of 84
08/19/2016)
08/19/2016)
08/22/2016 388 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 370 MOTION for Protective Order
(REDACTED) Regarding Personal Financial Information. . Document filed by
# 3 Exhibit REDACTED, # 4 Exhibit REDACTED, # 5 Exhibit REDACTED, # 6
08/22/2016 390 MOTION to Compel Defendant to Produce Financial Information to Plaintiff .
08/23/2016 392 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 335 MOTION for Protective
whom Defendant has Disseminated Confidential Information. . Document filed by
Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Composite Sealed 1, # 2 Exhibit Sealed
2, # 3 Exhibit Sealed 3, # 4 Exhibit Sealed 4)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered:
08/23/2016)
dated 8/22/2016 re: request that Ms. Maxwell be permitted to submit her reply by close
of business on August 25. ENDORSEMENT: So ordered. Set Deadlines/Hearing as to
354 MOTION to Compel Responses to Defendant's Second Set of Discovery Requests
to Plaintiff, and for Sanctions: Replies due by 8/25/2016. (Signed by Judge Robert W.
08/23/2016 395 MEMO ENDORSEMENT granting 377 Letter Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages.
ENDORSEMENT: So ordered. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 8/23/2016) (tn)
(Entered: 08/23/2016)
08/23/2016 396 ORDER with respect to 390 Motion to Compel: Plaintiff's motion to compel defendant
to produce financial information, seeking relief oppositional to Defendant's motion for
a protective order regarding financial information, shall be taken on submission the
same date returnable Thursday, September 8, 2016. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet
on 8/23/2016) (tn) (Entered: 08/23/2016)
of Privilege. . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered:
08/24/2016)
of Privilege.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed
Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit Sealed Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit Sealed Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit
Sealed Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit Sealed Exhibit 5)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered:
08/24/2016)
Case:
18-2868, Document 1-2,
As of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399789,
09:56 AMPage83
EDT of40127
of 84
08/25/2016 400 MOTION for Leave to File A Sur−Reply or, Alternatively, to Strike Plaintiff's
Misrepresentations of Fact to the Court . Document filed by Ghislaine
08/25/2016 401 DECLARATION of Laura A. Menninger in Support re: 400 MOTION for Leave to
File A Sur−Reply or, Alternatively, to Strike Plaintiff's Misrepresentations of Fact to
the Court .. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2
Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F)(Menninger,
Sanctions. . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura) (Entered:
08/25/2016)
08/26/2016 LETTERS ROGATORY ISSUED on August 26, 2016, and picked up by Boies,
Schiller & Flexner LLP and to be served in London, Senior Courts of England and
Wales Foreign Process Section. (km) (Entered: 08/26/2016)
08/29/2016 404 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 370 MOTION for Protective Order (REDACTED)
Regarding Personal Financial Information. . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit D)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered:
08/29/2016)
08/29/2016 406 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 362 MOTION to Intervene . MOTION to
08/29/2016 407 DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in Opposition re: 362 MOTION to Intervene .
Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10
Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit, # 13 Exhibit, # 14 Exhibit, # 15 Exhibit, # 16
Exhibit, # 23 Exhibit)(Schultz, Meredith) (Entered: 08/29/2016)
08/29/2016 408 DECLARATION of Paul Cassell in Opposition re: 362 MOTION to Intervene .
08/30/2016 409 MOTION for Jack A. Goldberger to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt
Office staff. Document filed by Jeffrey Epstein. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Text of
Proposed Order)(Goldberger, Jack) (Entered: 08/30/2016)
No. 409 MOTION for Jack A. Goldberger to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $
dated 8/29/2016 re: Request that the Court permit the filing of Ms. Maxwell's Reply in
Support of Motion for Protective Order Regarding Personal Financial Information in
excess of the 10 pages permitted pursuant to this Court's Practice Standard 2D.
Case:
18-2868, Document 1-2,
As of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399789,
09:56 AMPage84
EDT of41127
of 84
(kko) (Entered: 08/30/2016)

08/30/2016 411 ORDER granting 400 Motion for Leave to File Document. Leave granted to file a sur
reply. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 8/30/2016) (cf) (Entered: 08/30/2016)
dated 8/25/2016 re: This is a letter motion concerns Ms. Maxwell's Reply In Support
of her Motion to Compel Responses to Defendant's Second Set of Discovery Requests
to Plaintiff, and for Sanctions. We request that the defense be permitted to exceed the
10−page limit. ENDORSEMENT: So ordered. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on
8/30/2016) (kko) (Entered: 08/30/2016)
08/31/2016 413 MOTION Modify Scheduling Order re: 317 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous
Relief, . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.(Edwards, Bradley) (Entered:
08/31/2016)
09/01/2016 414 RESPONSE to Motion re: 390 MOTION to Compel Defendant to Produce Financial
Information to Plaintiff . . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 09/01/2016)
09/06/2016 417 LETTER MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages (Reply Brief) addressed to Judge
Robert W. Sweet from Sigrid S. McCawley dated 09/06/16. Document filed by
09/06/2016 418 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 390 MOTION to Compel Defendant to Produce
Financial Information to Plaintiff . . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Schultz,
09/06/2016 419 ORDER FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE granting 409 Motion for Jack A.
Goldberger to Appear Pro Hac Vice. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 9/1/2016)
(rjm) (Entered: 09/06/2016)
09/06/2016 420 MEMO ENDORSEMENT granting 413 MOTION Modify Scheduling Order re: 317
Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief. ENDORSEMENT: So ordered. (Signed by
Judge Robert W. Sweet on 9/6/2016) (kl) (Entered: 09/06/2016)
Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Reopen Plaintiff's Deposition
addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Meredith Schultz dated June 28, 2016, filed
by Virginia L. Giuffre. ENDORSEMENT: So ordered. (Signed by Judge Robert W.
Sweet on 9/6/2016) (kl) (Entered: 09/06/2016)
09/06/2016 Transmission to Sealed Records Clerk. Transmitted re: 421 Memo Endorsement, to the
Sealed Records Clerk for the sealing or unsealing of document or case. (kl) (Entered:
09/06/2016)
09/06/2016 422 MOTION to Compel Settlement Agreement (Renewed). Document filed by Ghislaine
Settlement Agreement (Renewed).. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Menninger,
09/07/2016 424 ORDER. Defendant's renewed motion to compel production of the settlement
agreement shall be heard at noon on Thursday, September 22, 2016 in Courtroom 18C,
United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street. All papers shall be served in accordance
with Local Civil Rule 6.1. It is so ordered. (Oral Argument set for 9/22/2016 at 12:00
W. Sweet.) (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 9/7/2016) (rjm) (Entered:
09/07/2016)
09/07/2016 425 ORDER granting 417 LETTER MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages (Reply
Brief) addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Sigrid S. McCawley dated 09/06/16.
Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. So ordered. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet
Case:
18-2868, Document 1-2,
As of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399789,
09:56 AMPage85
EDT of42127
of 84
on 9/7/2016) (rjm) (Entered: 09/07/2016)

09/07/2016 426 LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 362 MOTION
to Intervene . MOTION to Unseal Document or in the Alternative to Modify Protective
Order. addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Andrew G. Celli, Jr. and David A.
Lebowitz dated September 7, 2016. Document filed by Alan M.
Dershowitz.(Lebowitz, David) (Entered: 09/07/2016)
09/08/2016 427 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Expert Reports (Unopposed). Document filed
09/09/2016 429 ORDER granting 426 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. So
ordered. Replies due by 9/15/2016. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 9/8/2016)
(kl) (Main Document 429 replaced on 9/13/2016) (kgo). (Main Document 429
replaced on 9/13/2016) (kgo). (Entered: 09/09/2016)
09/12/2016 430 MEMO ENDORSEMENT granting 427 Letter Motion for Extension of Time.
(kgo) (Main Document 430 replaced on 9/13/2016) (kgo). (Entered: 09/12/2016)
09/15/2016 433 Vacated as to Nadia Marcinkova as per Judge's Order dated 3/20/2017, Doc. #
757 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Sigrid S.
McCawley dated 9/13/2016 re: Ms. Giuffre would respectfully request that the Court
Order that (1) that Nadia Marcinkova and Sarah Kellen be directed to appear for
deposition (2) that Nadia Marcinkova and Sarah Kellen pay Giuffre's costs and
reasonable attorney's fees associated with bringing the motion, and that (3) Nadia
Marcinkova and Sarah Kellen be ordered to pay a civil penalty of $200 per day for
each day after which they fail to appear at the rescheduled deposition and any other
sanction the court believes is just and proper. ENDORSEMENT: So ordered. (Signed
by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 9/15/2016) (rjm) Modified on 3/20/2017 (jwh).
(Entered: 09/15/2016)
09/15/2016 434 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Paul G. Cassell
dated 9/13/2016 re: Undersigned counsel sends this letter advising that Cassell
believes no redactions are required to the Court's opinion. ENDORSEMENT: So
Document filed by Alan M. Dershowitz. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit O, # 2 Exhibit P, #
3 Exhibit Q, # 4 Exhibit R, # 5 Exhibit S, # 6 Exhibit T, # 7 Exhibit U, # 8 Exhibit V,
# 9 Exhibit W, # 10 Exhibit X)(Celli, Andrew) (Entered: 09/15/2016)
09/15/2016 436 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 362 MOTION to Intervene .
MOTION to Unseal Document or in the Alternative to Modify Protective Order. .
Document filed by Alan M. Dershowitz. (Celli, Andrew) (Entered: 09/15/2016)
09/16/2016 437 NOTICE of Parties' Joint Stipulation regarding Discovery Motion re: 422 MOTION to
Compel Settlement Agreement (Renewed).. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
09/19/2016 438 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: 437 NOTICE of Parties' Joint Stipulation regarding
Discovery Motion re: 422 MOTION to Compel Settlement Agreement (Renewed).
Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. ENDORSEMENT: So ordered. The following
hearing(s) was terminated: Oral Argument. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on
9/19/2016) (rjm) (Entered: 09/19/2016)
09/20/2016 440 NOTICE of Filing Proposed Redacted Opinion. Document filed by Sharon Churcher.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Redacted Opinion)(Feder, Eric) (Entered:
09/20/2016)
Case:
18-2868, Document 1-2,
As of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399789,
09:56 AMPage86
EDT of43127
of 84
09/21/2016 441 MOTION for Discovery for Court Approval of Plaintiff's Certification of Production.
09/21/2016 442 DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in Support re: 441 MOTION for Discovery for
Court Approval of Plaintiff's Certification of Production.. Document filed by Virginia
L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2 Sealed, # 3 Exhibit 3 Sealed, # 4
Exhibit 4 Sealed, # 5 Exhibit 5 Sealed)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 09/21/2016)
09/22/2016 443 NOTICE of Plaintiff Notice of Related Action in the United Kingdom to Obtain the
Deposition of Defendant's Press Agent, Ross Gow. Document filed by Virginia L.
Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2)(McCawley,
09/26/2016 444 LETTER MOTION for Leave to File a less−redacted version of Professor Dershowitzs
Reply Declaration addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Andrew G. Celli dated
9/26/2016. Document filed by Alan M. Dershowitz.(Celli, Andrew) (Entered:
09/26/2016)
09/26/2016 445 ORDER: Plaintiff's Motion for Court Approval of Plaintiff's Certification of
Production shall be heard at noon on Thursday, October 13, 2016 in Courtroom 18C,
with Local Civil Rule 6.1 Motion Hearing set for 10/13/2016 at 12:00 PM in
Sweet. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 9/23/2016) (cf) (Entered: 09/26/2016)
09/27/2016 446 MEMO ENDORSEMENT: on PLAINTIFF VIRGINIA GIUFFRE'S MOTION FOR
AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO SERVE PROCESS UPON AND DEPOSE ROSS
GOW. ENDORSEMENT: Motion granted. Time extended 60 days. So ordered.
Granting 306 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. The following
deadline(s) was terminated: Deposition Deadline. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet
on 9/27/2016) (rjm) (Entered: 09/27/2016)
09/28/2016 447 LETTER RESPONSE to Motion addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Sigrid S.
McCawley dated September 28, 2016 re: 444 LETTER MOTION for Leave to File a
less−redacted version of Professor Dershowitzs Reply Declaration addressed to Judge
Robert W. Sweet from Andrew G. Celli dated 9/26/2016. . Document filed by Virginia
L. Giuffre. (Schultz, Meredith) (Entered: 09/28/2016)
09/29/2016 448 NOTICE of Plaintiff's Notice of English Court's Issuance of Order Commanding Ross
Gow to Sit for Deposition. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit Composite Exhibit 1)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 09/29/2016)
09/30/2016 449 MOTION to Compel Testimony of Jeffrey Epstein. Document filed by Ghislaine
09/30/2016 450 DECLARATION of Jeffrey S. Pagliuca in Support re: 449 MOTION to Compel
Testimony of Jeffrey Epstein.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: #
1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit
F)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 09/30/2016)
09/30/2016 451 JOINT MOTION re: 13 Scheduling Order, Amended Proposed Discovery and Case
Management Deadlines and Request to Modify Pretrial Scheduling Order. Document
filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.(Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 09/30/2016)
10/03/2016 452 ORDER re: 444 LETTER MOTION for Leave to File a less−redacted version of
Professor Dershowitzs Reply Declaration addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from
Andrew G. Celli dated 9/26/2016. Proposed Intervenor Alan M. Dershowitz's
September 26, 2016 letter motion for leave to publicly file a less−redacted version of
Dershowitz's Reply Declaration shall be heard at noon on Thursday, October 13, 2016
served in accordance with Local Civil Rule 6.1. Motion Hearing set for 10/13/2016 at
12:00 PM in Courtroom 18C, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge
Robert W. Sweet. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 9/30/2016) (cf) (Entered:
10/03/2016)
10/03/2016 453 ORDER terminating 441 Letter Motion for Discovery. Hearing vacated as moot. So
ordered. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 10/3/2016) (cf) (Entered: 10/03/2016)
Case:
18-2868, Document 1-2,
As of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399789,
09:56 AMPage87
EDT of44127
of 84
10/03/2016 454 NOTICE of Withdrawal of Opposition to DE 444 re: 444 LETTER MOTION for
Leave to File a less−redacted version of Professor Dershowitzs Reply Declaration
addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Andrew G. Celli dated 9/26/2016., 452
Order Setting Hearing on Motion,,. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Schultz,
10/03/2016 455 ORDER granting 451 Motion. So ordered. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on
10/3/2016) (cf) (Entered: 10/03/2016)
10/03/2016 Set/Reset Deadlines: Deposition due by 11/30/2016. Motions due by 2/24/2017.
Pretrial Order due by 2/10/2017. Responses due by 1/31/2017 Replies due by
2/10/2017. (cf) (Entered: 10/03/2016)
10/03/2016 456 ORDER: Defendant's motion to compel the testimony of Jeffrey Epstein shall be heard
at noon on Thursday, October 20, 2016 in Courtroom 18C, United States Courthouse,
500 Pearl Street. All papers shall be served in accordance with Local Civil Rule 6.1.
10/06/2016 457 LETTER addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from David A. Lebowitz dated October
6, 2016 re: Plaintiff's Proposed Order Granting Leave to File Less Redacted
Declaration. Document filed by Alan M. Dershowitz.(Lebowitz, David) (Entered:
10/06/2016)
10/11/2016 459 LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply addressed to Judge
Robert W. Sweet from Jack Goldberger dated October 5, 2016. Document filed by
Jeffrey Epstein.(Goldberger, Jack) (Entered: 10/11/2016)
10/11/2016 460 JOINT LETTER MOTION to Continue addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from
Jack Goldberger dated October 11, 2016. Document filed by Jeffrey
Epstein.(Goldberger, Jack) (Entered: 10/11/2016)
10/11/2016 461 ORDER GRANTING DERSHOWITZ'S SEPTEMBER 26, 2016, LETTER MOTION
TO PUBLICALLY FILE A LESS REDACTED VERSION OF DERSHOWITZ'S
REPLY DECLARATION. Proposed Intervenor Alan M. Dershowitz's Motion to
re−file Dershowitz's Reply Declaration with all references to paragraphs 20 and 21 of
Mr. Cassell's declaration unredacted and not under seal is GRANTED: Proposed
Intervenor Alan M. Dershowitz is directed to re−file Dershowitz' s Reply Declaration
with all references to paragraphs 20 and 21 of Mr. Cassell' s declaration unredacted
and not under seal. The hearing scheduled for Thursday, October 13, 2016, is hereby
vacated. It is so ordered. Granting 444 LETTER MOTION for Leave to File a
Robert W. Sweet from Andrew G. Celli dated 9/26/2016. Document filed by Alan M.
Dershowitz. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 10/6/2016) (rjm) (Entered:
10/11/2016)
to File Document to the Sealed Records Clerk for the sealing or unsealing of document
or case. (rjm) (Entered: 10/11/2016)
to Compel Testimony of Jeffrey Epstein., 459 LETTER MOTION for Extension of
Time to File Response/Reply addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Jack
Goldberger dated October 5, 2016. addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Sigrid
McCawley dated October 11, 2016. Document filed by Virginia L.
10/11/2016 463 ORDER granting 459 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re
449 MOTION to Compel Testimony of Jeffrey Epstein: So ordered. Responses due by
10/17/2016. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 10/7/2016) (tn) (Entered:
10/11/2016)
10/12/2016 464 ORDER: Defendant's motion to compel the testimony of Jeffrey Epstein previously
scheduled for October 20 shall instead be heard at noon on Thursday, November 3,
2016 in Courtroom 18C, United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street. (Set
Case:
18-2868, Document 1-2,
As of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399789,
09:56 AMPage88
EDT of45127
of 84
Deadlines/Hearing as to 449 MOTION to Compel Testimony of Jeffrey Epstein. :

Sweet on 10/12/2016) (cla) (Entered: 10/12/2016)
10/13/2016 465 ORDER granting 462 LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File
Response/Reply as to 449 MOTION to Compel Testimony of Jeffrey Epstein., 459
LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply addressed to Judge
Robert W. Sweet from Jack Goldberger dated October 5, 2016. addressed to Judge
Robert W. Sweet from Sigrid McCawley dated October 11, 2016. Document filed by
(rjm) (Entered: 10/13/2016)
10/14/2016 466 MOTION to Reopen Defendant's Deposition Based on Defendant's Late Production of
New, Key Documents. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.(McCawley, Sigrid)
(Entered: 10/14/2016)
10/14/2016 467 DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in Support re: 466 MOTION to Reopen
Defendant's Deposition Based on Defendant's Late Production of New, Key
Documents.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed
Composite, # 2 Exhibit Sealed Composite, # 3 Exhibit Sealed)(McCawley, Sigrid)
(Entered: 10/14/2016)
10/14/2016 468 MOTION to Compel Ghislaine Maxwell to Produce Data from Undisclosed Email
Account and for an Adverse Inference Instruction. Document filed by Virginia L.
Ghislaine Maxwell to Produce Data from Undisclosed Email Account and for an
Adverse Inference Instruction.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments:
# 1 Exhibit Sealed Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit Sealed Composite Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit
Sealed Exhibit 3)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 10/14/2016)
10/17/2016 470 RESPONSE to Motion re: 449 MOTION to Compel Testimony of Jeffrey Epstein. .
Testimony of Jeffrey Epstein.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: #
1 Exhibit Sealed Composite)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 10/17/2016)
10/17/2016 472 ORDER: Plaintiff's motion to reopen Defendant's deposition and motion to compel
shall be heard at noon on Thursday, November 3, 2016 in Courtroom 18C, United
States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street. All papers shall be served in accordance with
Local Civil Rule 6.1. (Set Deadlines/Hearing as to 468 MOTION to Compel Ghislaine
Maxwell to Produce Data from Undisclosed Email Account and for an Adverse
Inference Instruction., 466 MOTION to Reopen Defendant's Deposition Based on
Defendant's Late Production of New, Key Documents. : Motion Hearing set for
(cla) (Entered: 10/17/2016)
10/17/2016 473 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 449 MOTION to Compel Testimony of
Jeffrey Epstein. . Document filed by Jeffrey Epstein. (Goldberger, Jack) (Entered:
10/17/2016)
10/17/2016 474 DECLARATION of Jack Goldberger in Opposition re: 449 MOTION to Compel
Testimony of Jeffrey Epstein.. Document filed by Jeffrey Epstein. (Goldberger, Jack)
(Entered: 10/17/2016)
10/20/2016 475 MOTION for Martin G. Weinberg to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00,
Clerk's Office staff. Document filed by Jeffrey Epstein. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate
of Good Standing, # 2 Proposed Order)(Weinberg, Martin) (Entered: 10/20/2016)
No. 475 MOTION for Martin G. Weinberg to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $
Case:
18-2868, Document 1-2,
As of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399789,
09:56 AMPage89
EDT of46127
of 84

10/20/2016 476 LETTER addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Eric J. Feder dated 10/20/2016 re:
Request to Publish Redacted Opinion (See Dkt 440). Document filed by Sharon
Churcher.(Feder, Eric) (Entered: 10/20/2016)
10/21/2016 477 ORDER FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE granting 475 Motion for Martin G.
Weinberg to Appear Pro Hac Vice. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 10/21/2016)
(rjm) (Entered: 10/21/2016)
10/24/2016 478 NOTICE of Plaintiff's Notice of Nadia Marcinkova's Failure to Appear at Her
Deposition. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2
Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 10/24/2016)
10/24/2016 479 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 468 MOTION to Compel Ghislaine Maxwell
to Produce Data from Undisclosed Email Account and for an Adverse Inference
Instruction. . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura) (Entered:
10/24/2016)
Adverse Inference Instruction.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments:
(Entered: 10/24/2016)
10/24/2016 481 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 466 MOTION to Reopen Defendant's
Deposition Based on Defendant's Late Production of New, Key Documents. .
10/24/2016 482 DECLARATION of Laura A. Menninger in Opposition re: 466 MOTION to Reopen
Documents.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2
10/24/2016)
10/24/2016 483 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 449 MOTION to Compel Testimony of Jeffrey
Epstein. . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura) (Entered:
10/24/2016)
10/26/2016 484 ORDER. Non−party Sharon Churcher's request for issuance of the redacted version of
the Court's opinion shall be treated as a motion and heard on Thursday, November 3,
2016 in Courtroom 18C, United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street. All papers shall
be served in accordance with Local Civil Rule 6.1. It is so ordered. (Oral Argument set
(rjm) (Entered: 10/26/2016)
10/27/2016 485 ORDER: Defendant's letter dated October 26, 2016 shall be designated as confidential
pursuant to the Protective Order. It is so ordered. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet
on 10/27/2016) (kl) (Entered: 10/27/2016)
10/27/2016 486 ORDER: Non−party Sharon Churcher's request for issuance of the redacted version of
the Court's opinion, previously scheduled to be heard on November 3, shall instead
heard at noon on Thursday, November 10, 2016 in Courtroom 18C, United States
Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street. It is so ordered. (Oral Argument set for 11/10/2016 at
Robert W. Sweet.) (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 10/27/2016) (kl) (Entered:
10/27/2016)
10/27/2016 487 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Erica Tamar Dubno on behalf of Nadia Marcinko.
(Dubno, Erica) (Entered: 10/27/2016)
dated 10/26/2016 re: writing to request the Court continue the hearing currently
scheduled on November 3, 2016 to November 10, 2016 because counsel for Ms.
Maxwell are unavailable on November 3, 2016. ENDORSEMENT: So ordered.
(Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 10/27/2016) (kl) (Entered: 10/27/2016)
Case:
18-2868, Document 1-2,
As of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399789,
09:56 AMPage90
EDT of47127
of 84
Produce Data from Undisclosed Email Account and for an Adverse Inference
Instruction. REDACTED. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Schultz, Meredith)
(Entered: 10/28/2016)
# 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit REDACTED, # 3 Exhibit REDACTED, # 4 Exhibit
10/28/2016 492 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 466 MOTION to Reopen Defendant's Deposition
Based on Defendant's Late Production of New, Key Documents. REDACTED.
Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Schultz, Meredith) (Entered: 10/28/2016)
10/28/2016 493 DECLARATION of Meredith Schultz in Support re: 466 MOTION to Reopen
Documents.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit
dated 10/28/2016 re: I am writing to request the Court continue the deadline to submit
one of the defense rebuttal expert opinions by one business day from October 28, 2016
to October 31, 2016. ENDORSEMENT: So ordered. (Signed by Judge Robert W.
11/07/2016 497 ORDER: The portions of the November 2, 2016 Opinion pertaining to ECF No. 354
were issued in error and are hereby withdrawn. It is so ordered. (Signed by Judge
on 11/10/2016 re: 451 JOINT MOTION re: 13 Scheduling Order, Amended Proposed
Discovery and Case Management Deadlines and Request to Modify Pretrial
Scheduling Order filed by Ghislaine Maxwell, 468 MOTION to Compel Ghislaine
Maxwell to Produce Data from Undisclosed Email Accountand for an Adverse
Inference Instruction filed by Virginia L. Giuffre, 449 MOTION to CompelTestimony
of Jeffrey Epstein. filed by Ghislaine Maxwell, 466 MOTION to Reopen Defendant's
Deposition Based on Defendant's Late Production of New, Key Documents filed by
Virginia L. Giuffre. (Court Reporter Martha Martin) Motion to compel discovery
pending. (Chan, Tsz) (Entered: 11/15/2016)
11/16/2016 500 FILING ERROR − NO ORDER SELECTED FOR APPEAL − NOTICE OF
INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL. Document filed by Alan M. Dershowitz. Filing fee $
505.00, receipt number 0208−12994142. Form C and Form D are due within 14 days
to the Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. (Celli, Andrew) Modified on 11/17/2016 (tp).
(Entered: 11/16/2016)
11/17/2016 ***NOTICE TO ATTORNEY REGARDING DEFICIENT APPEAL. Notice to
attorney Celli, Andrew to RE−FILE Document No. 500 Notice of Interlocutory
Appeal. The filing is deficient for the following reason(s): the order/judgment
being appealed was not selected. Re−file the appeal using the event type
Corrected Notice of Appeal found under the event list Appeal Documents −
attach the correct signed PDF − select the correct named filer/filers − select the
correct order/judgment being appealed. (tp) (Entered: 11/17/2016)
11/17/2016 501 ORDER: Defendant's motion for reconsideration of portions of the Court's November
2, 2016 opinion shall be heard at noon on Thursday, December 8, 2016 in Courtroom
18C, United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street. All papers shall be served in
accordance with Local Civil Rule 6.1. IT IS SO ORDERED., ( Oral Argument set for
Case:
18-2868, Document 1-2,
As of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399789,
09:56 AMPage91
EDT of48127
of 84
(ama) (Entered: 11/17/2016)
11/21/2016 502 NOTICE of Filing Under Seal Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration or Clarification
of Portions of Court's November 2, 2016 Order. Document filed by Ghislaine
11/21/2016 503 [REDACTED] SEALED OPINION # 106882 re: 215 MOTION to Quash subpoena of
Sharon Churcher , filed by Sharon Churcher. Upon the conclusions set forth above, the
motion of Churcher is granted and the Subpoena is quashed. The parties are directed to
jointly file a proposed redacted version of this Opinion consistent with the Protective
Order or notify the Court that none are necessary within two weeks of the date of
receipt of this Opinion. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 9/1/16) (cla) (Entered:
11/21/2016)
11/23/2016 504 NOTICE OF APPEAL from 496 Sealed Order. Document filed by Alan M.
Dershowitz. Form C and Form D are due within 14 days to the Court of Appeals,
Second Circuit. (tp) (Entered: 11/23/2016)
11/23/2016 Appeal Fee Paid electronically via Pay.gov: for 504 Notice of Appeal. Filing fee $
505.00. Pay.gov receipt number 0208−12994142, paid on 11/16/2016. (tp) (Entered:
11/23/2016)
11/23/2016 Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Certified Copy of Docket Sheet to US Court of
Appeals re: 504 Notice of Appeal. (tp) (Entered: 11/23/2016)
11/23/2016 Appeal Record Sent to USCA (Electronic File). Certified Indexed record on Appeal
Electronic Files for 504 Notice of Appeal filed by Alan M. Dershowitz were
transmitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals. (tp) (Entered: 11/23/2016)
11/30/2016 505 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Meredith L. Schultz
dated 11/28/2016 re: This is an agreed letter motion to extend the time to file the
Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration to
Monday, December 5, 2016. ENDORSEMENT: So ordered. (Responses due by
12/5/2016) (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 11/29/2016) (rjm) (Entered:
11/30/2016)
11/30/2016 506 ORDER. Defendant's motion for reconsideration previously scheduled to be heard on
December 8, 2016 shall instead be taken on submission. It is so ordered. The following
11/30/2016) (rjm) (Entered: 11/30/2016)
dated 11/30/2016 re: We request permission to conclude the Defendant's expert
depositions on Friday December 2, 2016. ENDORSEMENT: So ordered. (Signed by
Judge Robert W. Sweet on 12/1/2016) (kgo) (Entered: 12/05/2016)
dated 12/7/2016 re: agreed letter motion to extend the time to file the Defendant's
Reply in Support of her Motion for Reconsideration or Clarification of Portion of
Court's November 2, 2016 Order to December 14, 2016. ENDORSEMENT: So
ordered. (Replies due by 12/14/2016.) (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on
12/8/2016) (cf) (Entered: 12/08/2016)
12/09/2016 509 MOTION for Sanctions Based on Plaintiff's Intentional Destruction of Evidence.
Based on Plaintiff's Intentional Destruction of Evidence.. Document filed by Ghislaine
Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit
D)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 12/09/2016)
12/13/2016 512 ORDER: Defendant's motion for sanctions shall be heard at noon on Thursday,
January 19, 2017 in Courtroom 18C, United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street. All
papers shall be served in accordance with Local Civil Rule 6.1., Set Deadlines/Hearing
Case:
18-2868, Document 1-2,
As of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399789,
09:56 AMPage92
EDT of49127
of 84
as to 509 MOTION for Sanctions Based on Plaintiff's Intentional Destruction of

Evidence. :( Motion Hearing set for 1/19/2017 at 12:00 PM in Courtroom 18C, 500
Robert W. Sweet on 12/13/2016) (lmb) (Entered: 12/13/2016)
12/16/2016 513 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 509 MOTION for Sanctions Based on
Plaintiff's Intentional Destruction of Evidence. . Document filed by Virginia L.
12/16/2016 514 DECLARATION of Meredith Schultz in Opposition re: 509 MOTION for Sanctions
Based on Plaintiff's Intentional Destruction of Evidence.. Document filed by Virginia
L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed 1, # 2 Exhibit Sealed 2, # 3 Exhibit
Sealed 3, # 4 Exhibit Sealed 4, # 5 Exhibit Sealed 5, # 6 Exhibit Sealed Composite
12/20/2016 515 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 509 MOTION for Sanctions Based on Plaintiff's
Intentional Destruction of Evidence. . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit E, # 2 Exhibit F, # 3 Exhibit G)(Menninger,
dated 12/19/2016 re: Letter Motion to file the Reply in Support of Defendant's Motion
for Sanctions to and including December 20, 2016. ENDORSEMENT: So ordered.
(Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 12/24/2016) (cla) (Entered: 01/03/2017)
dated 12/29/2016 re: I am writing to request the Court to extend the deposition
deadline of Plaintiff's designated expert Dianne Flores from December 29, 2016 to
January 5, 2017. ENDORSEMENT: So ordered. (Deposition due by 1/5/2017.)
(Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 1/4/2016) (rjm) (Entered: 01/05/2017)
01/05/2017 520 MOTION in Limine To Exclude Expert Testimony and Opinion of Chris Anderson.
01/05/2017 521 DECLARATION of Jeffrey S. Pagliuca in Support re: 520 MOTION in Limine To
Exclude Expert Testimony and Opinion of Chris Anderson.. Document filed by
Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4
Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, #
10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 01/05/2017)
01/05/2017 522 MOTION in Limine To Exclude Expert Testimony and Opinions of William F.
Chandler. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.(Menninger, Laura) (Entered:
01/05/2017)
Exclude Expert Testimony and Opinions of William F. Chandler.. Document filed by
(Entered: 01/05/2017)
01/05/2017 524 MOTION in Limine To Exclude Expert Testimony and Opinion of Professor Terry
Coonan, J.D.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.(Menninger, Laura) (Entered:
01/05/2017)
Exclude Expert Testimony and Opinion of Professor Terry Coonan, J.D... Document
filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Menninger,
01/05/2017 526 MOTION in Limine To Exclude Expert Testimony and Opinion of Dianne C. Flores.
Case:
18-2868, Document 1-2,
As of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399789,
09:56 AMPage93
EDT of50127
of 84
Exclude Expert Testimony and Opinion of Dianne C. Flores.. Document filed by
Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered:
01/05/2017)
01/05/2017 528 MOTION in Limine To Exclude Expert Testimony and Opinion of Dr. Bernard
Jansen. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.(Menninger, Laura) (Entered:
01/05/2017)
Exclude Expert Testimony and Opinion of Dr. Bernard Jansen.. Document filed by
Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered:
01/05/2017)
01/05/2017 530 MOTION in Limine To Exclude Expert Testimony and Opinion of Doctor Gilbert
Kliman. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.(Menninger, Laura) (Entered:
01/05/2017)
Exclude Expert Testimony and Opinion of Doctor Gilbert Kliman.. Document filed by
01/06/2017 532 ORDER. The motion to quash filed by Bradley J. Edwards in the Southern District of
Florida under case number 16−mc−61292−JG has been transferred to this Court.
Therefore, the motion, which was originally filed June 13, 2016, shall be heard at noon
on Thursday, February 2, 2017 in Courtroom 18C, United States Courthouse, 500
Pearl Street. All papers shall be served in accordance with Local Civil Rule 6.1. It is so
ordered. (Oral Argument set for 2/2/2017 at 12:00 PM in Courtroom 18C, 500 Pearl
01/06/2017 533 MOTION in Limine and Incorporated Memorandum of Law. Document filed by
01/06/2017 534 DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in Support re: 533 MOTION in Limine and
Incorporated Memorandum of Law.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed 1, # 2 Exhibit Sealed 2, # 3 Exhibit Sealed
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Redacted 1, # 2 Exhibit Redacted 2, # 3 Exhibit Redacted 3,
# 4 Exhibit Redacted 4, # 5 Exhibit Redacted 5)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered:
01/06/2017)
01/06/2017 537 NOTICE of Motion for Summary Judgment. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
MOTION for Summary Judgment . Document filed by Ghislaine
Maxwell.(Menninger, Laura) Modified on 1/9/2017 (db). (Entered: 01/06/2017)
01/06/2017 539 FILING ERROR − DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY − DECLARATION of Laura
A. Menninger in Support re: 538 MOTION for Summary Judgment .. Document filed
by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4
Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G−KK, # 8 Exhibit LL, # 9 Exhibit
MM)(Menninger, Laura) Modified on 1/9/2017 (db). (Entered: 01/06/2017)
MOTION for Summary Judgment . Use the event type Memorandum in Support
of Motion found under the event list Replies, Opposition and Supporting
Documents. ***REMINDER*** − Refile the 537 Notice AS THE MOTION for
Case:
18-2868, Document 1-2,
As of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399789,
09:56 AMPage94
EDT of51127
of 84
Summary Judgment, then file and link any supporting documents. (db) (Entered:
01/09/2017)
DOCKET ENTRY ERROR. Notice to Attorney Laura A. Menninger to
RE−FILE Document 539 Declaration in Support of Motion. ERROR(S):
Document(s) linked to filing error. (db) (Entered: 01/09/2017)
01/09/2017 540 MOTION for Summary Judgment . Document filed by Ghislaine
01/09/2017 541 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 540 MOTION for Summary Judgment . .
01/09/2017 542 DECLARATION of Laura A. Menninger in Support re: 540 MOTION for Summary
Judgment .. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2
Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit
G−KK, # 8 Exhibit LL, # 9 Exhibit MM)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 01/09/2017)
01/12/2017 544 ORDER: Defendant's motion for summary judgment shall be heard at noon on
Thursday, February 9, 2017 in Courtroom 18C, United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl
Street. All papers shall be served in accordance with Local Civil Rule 6.1. (Motion
Hearing set for 2/9/2017 at 12:00 PM in Courtroom 18C, 500 Pearl Street, New York,
NY 10007 before Judge Robert W. Sweet.) (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on
1/11/2017) (cla) (Entered: 01/12/2017)
01/12/2017 545 ORDER: Plaintiff's motions in limine shall be heard at noon on Thursday, February 2,
be served in accordance with Local Civil Rule 6.1. (Motion Hearing set for 2/2/2017 at
Robert W. Sweet.) (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 1/11/2017) (cla) (Entered:
01/12/2017)
01/17/2017 547 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Alexander Seton Lorenzo on behalf of Sarah
Vickers. (Lorenzo, Alexander) (Entered: 01/17/2017)
01/18/2017 548 ORDER: Defendant's motions in limine shall be heard at noon on Thursday, February
2, 2017 in Courtroom 18C, United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street. All papers
shall be served in accordance with Local Civil Rule 6.1. (Motion Hearing set for
(cla) (Entered: 01/18/2017)
01/19/2017 549 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Jay Marshall Wolman on behalf of Michael
Cernovich d/b/a Cernovich Media. (Wolman, Jay) (Entered: 01/19/2017)
01/19/2017 550 MOTION to Intervene and Unseal. Document filed by Michael Cernovich d/b/a
Cernovich Media.(Wolman, Jay) (Entered: 01/19/2017)
01/19/2017 551 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 550 MOTION to Intervene and Unseal. .
Document filed by Michael Cernovich d/b/a Cernovich Media. (Wolman, Jay)
(Entered: 01/19/2017)
01/19/2017 552 DECLARATION of Michael Cernovich in Support re: 550 MOTION to Intervene and
Unseal.. Document filed by Michael Cernovich d/b/a Cernovich Media. (Wolman,
Jay) (Entered: 01/19/2017)
01/19/2017 553 ORDER: The letters regarding page limits shall be treated as a motion and heard at
noon on Thursday, January 26, 2017 in Courtroom 18C, United States Courthouse,
Motion Hearing set for 1/26/2017 at 12:00 AM in Courtroom 18C, 500 Pearl Street,
Case:
18-2868, Document 1-2,
As of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399789,
09:56 AMPage95
EDT of52127
of 84
01/19/2017 555 MEMO ENDORSEMENT denying 509 Motion for Sanctions. ENDORSEMENT:
Spoliation has not been established at the time of the Plaintiff's acts and the motion is
denied. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 1/19/2017) (kgo) Modified on
1/20/2017 (kgo). (Entered: 01/20/2017)
01/19/2017 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Robert W. Sweet: Motion Hearing
held on 1/19/2017 re: 509 MOTION for Sanctions Based on Plaintiff's Intentional
Destruction of Evidence filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Court Reporter Jennifer Thun)
01/20/2017 554 MOTION for John E. Stephenson, Jr. to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00,
Clerk's Office staff. Document filed by Sarah Vickers. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of
John E. Stephenson, Jr., # 2 Certificate of Good Standing, # 3 Text of Proposed
Order)(Stephenson, John) (Entered: 01/20/2017)
No. 554 MOTION for John E. Stephenson, Jr. to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee
no deficiencies. (ma) (Entered: 01/20/2017)
01/20/2017 556 ORDER: The arguments for the motion to quash filed by Bradley J. Edwards,
Defendant's motions in limine, and Plaintiff's motions in limine, previously scheduled
for February 2, and the argument for Defendant's motion for summary judgment,
previously scheduled for February 9, shall instead be heard at noon on Thursday,
February 16, 2017 in Courtroom 18C, United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street. All
papers shall be served in accordance with Local Civil Rule 6.1. Motion Hearing set for
2/16/2017 at 12:00 PM in Courtroom 18B, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007
(kgo) (Entered: 01/20/2017)
01/23/2017 557 ORDER FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE granting 554 Motion for John E.
Stephenson, Jr. to Appear Pro Hac Vice. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on
1/23/2017) (anc) (Entered: 01/23/2017)
01/23/2017 558 ORDER: The sealed letter motion submitted by Plaintiff on January 20, 2017 shall be
heard at noon on Thursday, February 2, 2017 in Courtroom 18C, United States
Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street. The motion to intervene filed January 19, 2017 shall be
Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street. All papers shall be served in accordance with Local Civil
Rule 6.1. (Motion Hearing set for 2/2/2017 at 12:00 PM in Courtroom 18C, 500 Pearl
Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Robert W. Sweet. Motion Hearing set for
(cla) (Entered: 01/23/2017)
01/24/2017 559 ORDER. Per the Agreed Letter Motion filed by the parties, the hearing scheduled to
take place on Thursday, January 26, 2017 is hereby vacated. The Plaintiff is granted
leave to file a response in opposition to the Defendant's motion for summary judgment
that is the same page length as the Defendant's motion on the same. It is so ordered.
01/25/2017 560 NOTICE of of Withdrawal. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (McCawley,
01/27/2017 561 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Defendant's Designations of Deposition Excerpts of
Alan Dershowitz. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered:
01/27/2017)
01/27/2017 562 DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in Support re: 561 MOTION in Limine to
Exclude Defendant's Designations of Deposition Excerpts of Alan Dershowitz..
Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3
Exhibit Sealed 3, # 4 Exhibit Sealed 4)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 01/27/2017)
Virginia Giuffre in an Unrelated Case. Document filed by Virginia L.
Case:
18-2868, Document 1-2,
As of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399789,
09:56 AMPage96
EDT of53127
of 84
Exclude Defendant's Designations of Deposition Excerpts of Virginia Giuffre in an
Unrelated Case.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit
Sealed 1)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 01/27/2017)
01/27/2017 565 NOTICE of Filing Plaintiff's Objections to Defendant's Deposition Designations and
Plaintiff's Cross Designations. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (McCawley,
01/27/2017 566 Objection to Plaintiff's Deposition Designations. Document filed by Ghislaine
01/27/2017 567 MOTION in Limine to Exclude In Toto Certain Depositions Designated By Plaintiff
for Use at Trial. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.(Menninger, Laura) (Entered:
01/27/2017)
01/27/2017 568 DECLARATION of Laura A. Menninger in Support re: 567 MOTION in Limine to
Exclude In Toto Certain Depositions Designated By Plaintiff for Use at Trial..
Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 01/27/2017)
01/30/2017 569 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 530 MOTION in Limine To Exclude Expert
Testimony and Opinion of Doctor Gilbert Kliman. . Document filed by Virginia L.
01/30/2017 570 DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in Opposition re: 530 MOTION in Limine To
Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed 1, # 2 Exhibit Sealed 2, # 3
Exhibit Sealed 3, # 4 Exhibit Sealed 4, # 5 Exhibit Sealed 5)(McCawley, Sigrid)
(Entered: 01/30/2017)
01/30/2017 571 ORDER: Plaintiff's and Defendant's motions in limine filed January 27, 2017, and all
issues related to deposition designations, shall be heard at noon on Thursday, February
(cla) (Entered: 01/30/2017)
Testimony and Opinion of Professor Terry Coonan, J.D.. . Document filed by Virginia
filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed 1, # 2 Exhibit Sealed 2,
# 3 Exhibit Sealed 3, # 4 Exhibit Sealed 4, # 5 Exhibit Sealed 5)(McCawley, Sigrid)
(Entered: 01/30/2017)
Testimony and Opinions of William F. Chandler. . Document filed by Virginia L.
Exhibit Sealed 3)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 01/30/2017)
01/30/2017 576 NOTICE of Letter Reply in Support of Plaintiff's Letter Motion to Add New Witness
re: 558 Order Setting Hearing on Motion,,. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
Testimony and Opinion of Dianne C. Flores. . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
Case:
18-2868, Document 1-2,
As of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399789,
09:56 AMPage97
EDT of54127
of 84

(Entered: 01/31/2017)
Testimony and Opinion of Chris Anderson. . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
Testimony and Opinion of Dr. Bernard Jansen. . Document filed by Virginia L.
Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed 1, # 2 Exhibit Sealed
01/31/2017 583 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 535 MOTION in Limine and Incorporated
Memorandum of Law. Regarding Gregory B. Taylor and Kyle D. Jacobson. Document
Memorandum of Law. Regarding Dr. Phillip Esplin. Document filed by Ghislaine
01/31/2017 585 DECLARATION of Jeffrey S. Pagliuca in Opposition re: 533 MOTION in Limine and
Incorporated Memorandum of Law.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
01/31/2017 586 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 540 MOTION for Summary Judgment . .
Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Rule 56.1
Statement of Facts, # 2 Exhibit Declaration, # 3 Exhibit Redacted 1−50)(McCawley,
Robert W. Sweet. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Jennifer Thun, (212) 805−0300.
02/02/2017 589 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 550 MOTION to Intervene and Unseal. .
02/02/2017 590 DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in Opposition re: 550 MOTION to Intervene
and Unseal.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2
on 2/2/2017 re: 591 LETTER MOTION to Reopen re: 576 Notice (Other), 558 Order
Setting Hearing on Motion,, Discovery re New Witness (original filed 1/19/17)
addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Sigrid S. McCawley dated 01/19/17. filed
by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Court Reporter Khris Sellin)The Court resolved the motion
and granted limited discovery as to depose the third person witness. (Chan, Tsz)
(Entered: 02/03/2017)
Case:
18-2868, Document 1-2,
As of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399789,
09:56 AMPage98
EDT of55127
of 84
02/03/2017 591 LETTER MOTION to Reopen re: 576 Notice (Other), 558 Order Setting Hearing on
Motion,, Discovery re New Witness (original filed 1/19/17) addressed to Judge Robert
W. Sweet from Sigrid S. McCawley dated 01/19/17. Document filed by Virginia L.
02/03/2017 592 NOTICE of Filing Defendant's Counter−Designations to Plaintiff's Deposition
Designations. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura) (Entered:
02/03/2017)
02/07/2017 595 FILING ERROR − DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY − MOTION for Ty Gee to
and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff. Document filed by
Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order, # 2
Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing)(Menninger, Laura) Modified on 2/8/2017 (wb).
(Entered: 02/07/2017)
02/07/2017 596 FILING ERROR − DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY − DECLARATION of Ty Gee
in Support re: 595 MOTION for Ty Gee to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00,
Clerk's Office staff.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura)
Modified on 2/8/2017 (wb). (Entered: 02/07/2017)
VICE. Notice to RE−FILE Document No. 595 MOTION for Ty Gee to Appear
Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number 0208−13289811. Motion and
supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff., 596 Declaration in
Support of Motion,.. The filing is deficient for the following reason(s): Pursuant
to rule 1.3. please attach and affadavit or Declaration of the Attorney;. Re−file
the motion as a Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice − attach the correct signed PDF −
select the correct named filer/filers − attach valid Certificates of Good Standing
issued within the past 30 days − attach Proposed Order.. (wb) (Entered:
02/08/2017)
02/08/2017 597 MOTION for Ty Gee to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Motion and supporting papers to be
reviewed by Clerk's Office staff. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
(Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration, # 2 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing, # 3
Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 02/08/2017)
No. 597 MOTION for Ty Gee to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Motion and supporting
papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff.. The document has been reviewed
and there are no deficiencies. (bcu) (Entered: 02/08/2017)
02/09/2017 599 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 535 MOTION in Limine and
Incorporated Memorandum of Law. . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed 1, # 2 Exhibit Composite Sealed 2, # 3 Exhibit
02/09/2017 601 NOTICE of of Intent to Offer Statements Under, If Necessary, The Residual Hearsay
Rule. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered:
02/09/2017)
Case:
18-2868, Document 1-2,
As of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399789,
09:56 AMPage99
EDT of56127
of 84

02/09/2017 604 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 550 MOTION to Intervene and Unseal. . Document
filed by Michael Cernovich d/b/a Cernovich Media. (Wolman, Jay) (Entered:
02/09/2017)
02/09/2017 605 DECLARATION of Jay M. Wolman in Support re: 550 MOTION to Intervene and
Unseal.. Document filed by Michael Cernovich d/b/a Cernovich Media. (Attachments:
# 1 Exhibit 1 − Daily Mail Article, # 2 Exhibit 2 − Palm Beach Daily News Article, #
3 Exhibit 3 − Silenced Cast)(Wolman, Jay) (Entered: 02/09/2017)
02/10/2017 606 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 567 MOTION in Limine to Exclude In Toto
Certain Depositions Designated By Plaintiff for Use at Trial. . Document filed by
02/10/2017 607 DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in Opposition re: 567 MOTION in Limine to
Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed 1, # 2 Exhibit
Sealed 2, # 3 Exhibit Sealed 3)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 02/10/2017)
02/10/2017 608 MOTION in Limine to Present Testimony From Jeffrey Epstein for Purposes of
Obtaining an Adverse Inference. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.(McCawley,
Present Testimony From Jeffrey Epstein for Purposes of Obtaining an Adverse
Inference.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed
02/10/2017 611 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 520 MOTION in Limine To Exclude Expert
Testimony and Opinion of Chris Anderson. . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
Testimony and Opinions of William F. Chandler. . Document filed by Ghislaine
Testimony and Opinion of Dr. Bernard Jansen. . Document filed by Ghislaine
Testimony and Opinion of Professor Terry Coonan, J.D.. . Document filed by
filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit C, # 2 Exhibit D, # 3 Exhibit
E)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 02/10/2017)
Testimony and Opinion of Dianne C. Flores. . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit B)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered:
02/10/2017)
Testimony and Opinion of Doctor Gilbert Kliman. . Document filed by Ghislaine
Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit D, # 2 Exhibit E)(Menninger, Laura)
Case:
18-2868, Document 1-2,
As of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/2018
2399789,
09:56 AM
Page100
EDT 57of 127
of 84
(Entered: 02/10/2017)
02/10/2017 620 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 540 MOTION for Summary Judgment . . Document
filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Rule 56.1 Statement of
Facts)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 02/10/2017)
Judgment .. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit NN, # 2
Exhibit OO, # 3 Exhibit PP, # 4 Exhibit QQ, # 5 Exhibit RR)(Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 02/10/2017)
02/10/2017 622 JOINT PRETRIAL STATEMENT . Document filed by Ghislaine
02/13/2017 623 ORDER FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE granting 597 Motion for Ty Gee to
Appear Pro Hac Vice. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 2/10/2017) (jwh)
(Entered: 02/13/2017)
dated 2/10/17 re: Counsel writes to request a five day, unopposed, extension of time to
respond to Plaintiff's Motions. ENDORSEMENT: So ordered. (Signed by Judge
Robert W. Sweet on 2/13/2017) (mro) (Entered: 02/14/2017)
02/14/2017 625 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Jeffrey S. Pagluica
dated 2/10/2017 re: extension of the page limit for Ms. Maxwell's Reply in Support of
Summary Judgment. ENDORSEMENT: So ordered. (Signed by Judge Robert W.
Sweet on 2/13/2017) (jwh) (Entered: 02/14/2017)
02/14/2017 626 ORDER: Plaintiff's motion in limine filed February 10, 2017 shall be heard at noon on
Street. Any opposition shall be filed by February 16, 2017; any reply shall be filed by
February 20 2017. ( Oral Argument set for 2/23/2017 at 12:00 PM in Courtroom 18C,
500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Robert W. Sweet.) (Signed by
Judge Robert W. Sweet on 2/13/2017) (mro) (Entered: 02/14/2017)
02/14/2017 Set/Reset Deadlines: Responses due by 2/16/2017 Replies due by 2/20/2017. (mro)
(Entered: 02/14/2017)
02/15/2017 628 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 561 MOTION in Limine to Exclude
Defendant's Designations of Deposition Excerpts of Alan Dershowitz. . Document
Defendant's Designations of Deposition Excerpts of Virginia Giuffre in an Unrelated
Case. . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura) (Entered:
02/15/2017)
on 2/16/2017 re: 524 MOTION in Limine To Exclude Expert Testimony and Opinion
of Professor Terry Coonan, J.D. filed by Ghislaine Maxwell, 540 MOTION for
Summary Judgment filed by Ghislaine Maxwell, 533 MOTION in Limine and
Incorporated Memorandum of Law filed by Virginia L. Giuffre, 526 MOTION in
Limine To Exclude Expert Testimony and Opinion of Dianne C. Flores filed by
Ghislaine Maxwell, 522 MOTION in Limine To Exclude Expert Testimony and
Opinions of William F. Chandler filed by Ghislaine Maxwell, 550 MOTION to
Intervene and Unseal filed by Michael Cernovich d/b/a Cernovich Media, 528
MOTION in Limine To Exclude Expert Testimony and Opinion of Dr. Bernard Jansen
filed by Ghislaine Maxwell, 535 MOTION in Limine and Incorporated Memorandum
of Law filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Court Reporter Eve Giniger)Decision reserve on
the motion for Summary Judgment and Intervene + Unseal. (Chan, Tsz) (Entered:
02/16/2017)
02/17/2017 630 NOTICE of Plaintiff's Objections to Defendant's Counter Designations. Document
Case:
18-2868, Document 1-2,
As of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/2018
2399789,
09:56 AM
Page101
EDT 58of 127
of 84
02/17/2017 631 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 567 MOTION in Limine to Exclude In Toto
Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit F)(Menninger,
02/17/2017 633 Objection to Plaintiff's Cross Designation of Deposition Testimony. Document filed by
Robert W. Sweet. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Khristine Sellin, (212) 805−0300.
02/21/2017 636 ORDER: Plaintiff's motion in limine filed February 10, 2017 and previously scheduled
to be heard February 23, 2017 shall instead be heard at noon on Thursday, March 9,
2017 in Courtroom 18C, United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street. Opposition
papers shall be due February 24, 2017 and reply papers shall be due by March 2, 2017.
New York, NY 10007 before Judge Robert W. Sweet.) Set Deadlines/Hearing as to
608 MOTION in Limine to Present Testimony From Jeffrey Epstein for Purposes of
Obtaining an Adverse Inference. (Responses due by 2/24/2017, Replies due by
3/2/2017.) (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 2/21/2017) (jwh) (Entered:
02/21/2017)
02/22/2017 637 MOTION to Compel Philip Barden to To Produce All Work Product and Attorney
Client Communications . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.(McCawley, Sigrid)
(Entered: 02/22/2017)
02/22/2017 638 DECLARATION of Meredith Schultz in Support re: 637 MOTION to Compel Philip
Barden to To Produce All Work Product and Attorney Client Communications ..
1, # 2 Exhibit Sealed 2, # 3 Exhibit Sealed 3, # 4 Exhibit Sealed 4, # 5 Exhibit Sealed
dated 2/21/2017 re: requesting that the Court vacate the hearing to rule on deposition
objections currently scheduled for Thursday, February 23, 2017. ENDORSEMENT:
So ordered. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 2/22/2017) (jwh) Modified on
2/28/2017 (jwh). (Entered: 02/22/2017)
02/22/2017 640 MOTION for Protective Order for Non−Party Witness. Document filed by John
Stanley Pottinger, Sarah Ransome.(Pottinger, John) (Entered: 02/22/2017)
02/22/2017 641 DECLARATION of John Stanley Pottinger in Support re: 640 MOTION for
Protective Order for Non−Party Witness.. Document filed by Sarah Ransome.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed 1, # 2 Exhibit Sealed 2)(Pottinger, John) (Entered:
02/22/2017)
02/23/2017 642 ORDER: Plaintiff's motion to compel and the non−party witness's motion for a
protective order, both filed February 22, 2017, shall be heard at noon on Thursday,
March 9, 2017 in Courtroom 18C, United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street.
Opposition papers shall be due March 2, 2017, and reply papers shall be due March 7,
2017. (Motion Hearing set for 3/9/2017 at 12:00 PM in Courtroom 18C, 500 Pearl
Case:
18-2868, Document 1-2,
As of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/2018
2399789,
09:56 AM
Page102
EDT 59of 127
of 84
Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Robert W. Sweet.), (Responses due by
3/2/2017, Replies due by 3/7/2017.) (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 2/23/2017)
(cf) (Entered: 02/23/2017)
02/23/2017 643 JOINT MOTION re: 455 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, 13 Scheduling
Order, Amended Second Proposed Discovery and Case Management Deadlines and
Request to Modify Pretrial Scheduling Order. Document filed by Ghislaine
02/24/2017 644 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 608 MOTION in Limine to Present
Testimony From Jeffrey Epstein for Purposes of Obtaining an Adverse Inference. .
02/24/2017 645 DECLARATION of Laura A. Menninger in Opposition re: 608 MOTION in Limine to
Inference.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2
Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 02/24/2017)
02/24/2017 646 RESPONSE re: 601 Notice (Other) Response to Plaintiffs Notice Of Intent To Offer
Statements Under, If Necessary, The Residual Hearsay Rule. Document filed by
02/27/2017 648 AMENDED SECOND DISCOVERY AND CASE MANAGEMENT DEADLINES
AND REQUEST TO MODIFY PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER granting 643
Motion: The jury trial scheduled for March 13, 2017 is rescheduled to begin on May
15, 2017 and is anticipated to last four weeks; Motions in Limine/other motions shall
be filed by March 3, 2017; March 9, 2017, hearing on Plaintiff Giuffre's Motion to
Present Testimony from Jeffrey Epstein for Purposes of Obtaining an Adverse
Inference, ECF #608, hearing on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel all Work Product and
Attorney Client Communications with Philip Barden, ECF #637, hearing on
outstanding motions including Motion to Quash Edwards Subpoena, filed in the
Southern District of Florida on June 13, 2016 under case number 16−mc−61262, and
March 23, 2017, hearing on 702 Motions ECF #520, 522, 524, 526, 528, 530, 533, 535
and motions in limine. April 6, 2017, hearing on objections to deposition designations.
May 4, 2107, Pre−trial Conference to address any outstanding issues including
confidentiality. So ordered. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 2/24/2017) (jwh)
(Entered: 02/27/2017)
02/27/2017 Set/Reset Deadlines: Motions due by 3/3/2017. (jwh) (Entered: 02/27/2017)
02/27/2017 Set/Reset Deadlines: Revised Joint Pretrial Order due by 4/15/2017. (jwh) (Entered:
03/03/2017)
03/02/2017 649 LETTER MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages addressed to Judge Robert W.
Sweet from Sigrid McCawley dated March 2, 2017. Document filed by Virginia L.
03/02/2017 650 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 608 MOTION in Limine to
Inference. . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered:
03/02/2017)
Inference.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed 1,
# 2 Exhibit Sealed 2)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 03/02/2017)
03/02/2017 653 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 637 MOTION to Compel Philip Barden to To
Produce All Work Product and Attorney Client Communications . . Document filed by
Philip Barden to To Produce All Work Product and Attorney Client Communications ..
Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Menninger,
Case:
18-2868, Document 1-2,
As of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/2018
2399789,
09:56 AM
Page103
EDT 60of 127
of 84

03/02/2017 655 MOTION to Compel Non−Party Witness to Produce Documents, Respond to
Deposition Questions, and Response to Motion for Protective Order. Document filed
Non−Party Witness to Produce Documents, Respond to Deposition Questions, and
Response to Motion for Protective Order.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
(Entered: 03/02/2017)
03/03/2017 657 MOTION to Quash . Document filed by Jeffrey Epstein.(Weinberg, Martin) (Entered:
03/03/2017)
03/03/2017 658 ORDER granting 649 Letter Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages: So ordered.
(Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 3/3/2017) (jwh) (Entered: 03/03/2017)
03/03/2017 659 SECOND MOTION to Compel Ghislaine Maxwell to Disclose Data from Defendant's
Undisclosed Email Account and for An Adverse Inference Instruction . Document
03/03/2017 660 DECLARATION of Meredith Schultz in Support re: 659 SECOND MOTION to
Compel Ghislaine Maxwell to Disclose Data from Defendant's Undisclosed Email
Account and for An Adverse Inference Instruction .. Document filed by Virginia L.
Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Composite Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit Sealed 2, # 3
03/03/2017 661 ORDER: Motions shall be heard on the following dates: Thursday, March 9: Motions
corresponding to ECF Nos. 608, 637, 640, and the motion to quash in Bradley v.
Maxwell, 17−mc−00025. Thursday, March 23: Motions corresponding to ECF Nos.
520, 522, 524, 526, 528, 530, 533, 535, 561, 563, and 567. Thursday, March 30:
Defendant's motion to compel filed March 2, 2017 and all motions filed March 3,
2017. Wednesday, April 5: Objections to deposition designations. (Signed by Judge
Robert W. Sweet on 3/3/2017) (jwh) (Entered: 03/03/2017)
03/03/2017 662 MOTION to Bifurcate Trial Relating to Punitive Damages and Exclusion of any
Reference to Defendants Financial Information in the Liability Phase. Document filed
03/03/2017 663 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Complaint and Settlement Agreement in Jane Doe 102
v. Jeffrey Epstein. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.(Menninger, Laura) (Entered:
03/03/2017)
03/03/2017 664 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Late Disclosed Supplemental Report of Dr. James
Jansen and Video Trial Exhibit of Dr. Gilbert Kliman. Document filed by Ghislaine
03/03/2017 665 MOTION in Limine to Prohibit Questioning Regarding Defendants Adult Consensual
Sexual Activities. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.(Menninger, Laura) (Entered:
03/03/2017)
03/03/2017 666 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence Barred as a Result of Plaintiffs Summary
Judgment Concessions. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.(Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 03/03/2017)
03/03/2017 667 MOTION in Limine to Exclude FBI 302 Statement of Plaintiff. Document filed by
Exclude FBI 302 Statement of Plaintiff.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
03/03/2017 669 MOTION in Limine to Exclude References to Crime Victims Rights Act Litigation.
Exclude References to Crime Victims Rights Act Litigation.. Document filed by
Case:
18-2868, Document 1-2,
As of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/2018
2399789,
09:56 AM
Page104
EDT 61of 127
of 84

03/03/2017)
03/03/2017 671 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Jeffrey Epstein Plea and Non−Prosecution Agreement
and Sex Offender Registration. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.(Menninger,
Exclude Jeffrey Epstein Plea and Non−Prosecution Agreement and Sex Offender
Registration.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2
03/03/2017 673 MOTION in Limine Exclude Deposition Testimony of Sarah Kellen and Nadia
Marcinkova or Any Witness Invoking Their Fifth Amendment Privilege. Document
03/03/2017 674 DECLARATION of Laura A. Menninger in Support re: 673 MOTION in Limine
Exclude Deposition Testimony of Sarah Kellen and Nadia Marcinkova or Any Witness
Invoking Their Fifth Amendment Privilege.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
03/03/2017 675 MOTION in Limine to Permit Questioning Regarding Plaintiffs Sexual History and
Reputation. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.(Menninger, Laura) (Entered:
03/03/2017)
Permit Questioning Regarding Plaintiffs Sexual History and Reputation.. Document
filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C,
# 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 03/03/2017)
03/03/2017 677 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Police Reports and Other Inadmissible Hearsay.
03/03/2017 678 DECLARATION of Jeffrey S. Pagliuca in Support re: 677 MOTION in Limine to
Exclude Police Reports and Other Inadmissible Hearsay.. Document filed by
03/03/2017 679 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Unauthenticated Hearsay Document from a Suspect
Source. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.(Menninger, Laura) (Entered:
03/03/2017)
Exclude Unauthenticated Hearsay Document from a Suspect Source.. Document filed
03/03/2017 681 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Victim Notification Letter. Document filed by
Exclude Victim Notification Letter.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 03/03/2017)
03/03/2017 683 MOTION in Limine PLAINTIFFS MOTION IN LIMINE TO ADMIT THE BLACK
BOOK AS EVIDENCE AT TRIAL. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.(Schultz,
03/03/2017 684 DECLARATION of Sigrid S. McCawley in Support re: 683 MOTION in Limine
PLAINTIFFS MOTION IN LIMINE TO ADMIT THE BLACK BOOK AS EVIDENCE
AT TRIAL.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 (Filed
Under Seal), # 2 Exhibit 2 (Filed Under Seal))(Schultz, Meredith) (Entered:
03/03/2017)
03/03/2017 685 MOTION in Limine PLAINTIFFS MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE
DEFENDANT FROM CALLING PLAINTIFFS ATTORNEYS AS WITNESSES AT
TRIAL. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.(Schultz, Meredith) (Entered:
03/03/2017)
Case:
18-2868, Document 1-2,
As of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/2018
2399789,
09:56 AM
Page105
EDT 62of 127
of 84
03/03/2017 686 MOTION in Limine PLAINTIFF MS. GIUFFRES MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN
SUPPORT OF HER MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRESENT ALL EVIDENCE OF
DEFENDANTS INVOLVEMENT IN EPSTEIN SEXUAL ABUSE AND SEX
TRAFFICKING. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.(Schultz, Meredith) (Entered:
03/03/2017)
PLAINTIFF MS. GIUFFRES MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF HER
MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRESENT ALL EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANTS
INVOLVEMENT IN EPSTEIN SEXUAL ABUSE AND SEX TRAFFICKING..
Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 (Filed Under
Seal))(Schultz, Meredith) (Entered: 03/03/2017)
03/03/2017 689 MOTION in Limine to Present Testimony for Purpose of Obtaining an Adverse
Inference Instruction. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.(McCawley, Sigrid)
(Entered: 03/03/2017)
Present Testimony for Purpose of Obtaining an Adverse Inference Instruction..
03/03/2017 691 MOTION in Limine Omnibus. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.(McCawley,
03/03/2017 692 DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in Support re: 691 MOTION in Limine
Omnibus.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed 1,
# 2 Exhibit Sealed 2, # 3 Exhibit Sealed 3, # 4 Exhibit Sealed 4, # 5 Exhibit Sealed 5,
03/03/2017 693 MOTION to Exclude Evidence Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). Document filed by
03/03/2017 694 DECLARATION of Laura A. Menninger in Support re: 693 MOTION to Exclude
Evidence Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 404(b).. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
(Entered: 03/03/2017)
03/06/2017 695 ORDER granting 688 LETTER MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages addressed to
Judge Robert W. Sweet from Sigrid McCawley dated March 3, 2017. Document filed
by Virginia L. Giuffre. So ordered. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 3/6/2017)
(rjm) (Entered: 03/06/2017)
03/06/2017 696 ORDER: An evidentiary hearing to determine the admissibility of the documents
relied upon by proposed expert witness Dianne Flores, and to discuss the handling of
Protective Order material at trial, shall be held on Thursday, March 16, 2017 at 1:00
PM in Courtroom 18C, United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street. (Evidentiary
3/6/2017) (jwh) (Entered: 03/06/2017)
03/07/2017 697 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 637 MOTION to Compel Philip
Barden to To Produce All Work Product and Attorney Client Communications . .
Composite Sealed 2)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 03/07/2017)
Sweet from Meredith Schultz dated March 7, 2017. Document filed by Virginia L.
Case:
18-2868, Document 1-2,
As of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/2018
2399789,
09:56 AM
Page106
EDT 63of 127
of 84
03/07/2017 700 ***STRICKEN DOCUMENT. Deleted document number 700 from the case
record. The document was stricken from this case pursuant to 718 Order on
Motion to Seal Document, . (jwh) REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support
re: 640 MOTION for Protective Order for Non−Party Witness. and Opposition to [DE
655] MOTION to Compel Non−Party Witness to Produce Documents, and Respond to
Deposition Questions. Document filed by John Stanley Pottinger. (Pottinger, John)
Modified on 3/15/2017 (jwh). (Entered: 03/07/2017)
03/07/2017 701 DECLARATION of J. Stanley Pottinger in Support re: 640 MOTION for Protective
Order for Non−Party Witness.. Document filed by John Stanley Pottinger.
03/07/2017)
03/08/2017 702 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: CONFERENCE held on 2/16/2017 before Judge
Robert W. Sweet. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Eve Giniger, (212) 805−0300.
official transcript of a CONFERENCE proceeding held on 2/16/17 has been filed by
the court reporter/transcriber in the above−captioned matter. The parties have seven
(7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this
Judge Robert W. Sweet from Meredith Schultz dated March 7, 2017. Document filed
(rjm) (Entered: 03/08/2017)
on 3/9/2017 re: 640 MOTION for Protective Order for Non−Party Witness filed by
John Stanley Pottinger, Sarah Ransome, 655 MOTION to Compel Non−Party Witness
to Produce Documents, Respond to Deposition Questions, and Response to Motion for
Protective Order filed by Ghislaine Maxwell, 637 MOTION to Compel Philip Barden
to To Produce All Work Product and Attorney Client Communications filed by
Virginia L. Giuffre, 608 MOTION in Limine to Present Testimony From Jeffrey
Epstein for Purposes of Obtaining an Adverse Inference filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
(Court Reporter Kelly Surina)Doc #608 Motion Reserved.Doc #637 Motion
Reserved.Doc #655 Motion was on for 3−30−17 is now set for 3−16−17 at 12:00
p.m.Motion to quash 17 Mc−00025 will be heard on 3−16−17 (Part).Doc #640 Motion
resolved. (Chan, Tsz) (Entered: 03/10/2017)
03/10/2017 705 NOTICE of Reply Notice of Intent to Offer Statements Under, If Necessary, the
Residual Hearsay Rule re: 601 Notice (Other). Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
03/10/2017 706 NOTICE of Sigrid McCawley Declaration in Support of Reply Notice of Intent to
Offer Statements Under, If Necessary, the Residual Hearsay Rule re: 705 Notice
(Other). Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed 1, #
2 Exhibit Sealed 2)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 03/10/2017)
Order for Non−Party Witness., 655 MOTION to Compel Non−Party Witness to
Produce Documents, Respond to Deposition Questions, and Response to Motion for
Protective Order. [RE−FILED W/ ADD'L REDACTION/REPLACE DE 700.
03/13/2017 708 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document 700 Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of
Motion, [Replace DE 700 w/ Redacted DE 707] addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet
Case:
18-2868, Document 1-2,
As of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/2018
2399789,
09:56 AM
Page107
EDT 64of 127
of 84
Protective Order. [RE−FILED W/ADD'L REDACTION/REPLACE DE 700].
Document filed by John Stanley Pottinger. (Pottinger, John) (Entered: 03/13/2017)
Motion, 708 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document 700 Reply Memorandum of Law
in Support of Motion, [Replace DE 700 w/ Redacted DE 707] addressed to Judge
Robert W. Sweet from Meredith Schultz dated 03/13/17., 709 Reply Memorandum of
Law in Support of Motion, 700 Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion,
addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from J. Stanley Pottinger dated 3/13/17.
Document filed by Sarah Ransome.(Pottinger, John) (Entered: 03/13/2017)
Motion to Strike . (jwh) NOTICE of Supplemental Authority. Document filed by
Virginia L. Giuffre. (McCawley, Sigrid) Modified on 3/22/2017 (jwh). (Entered:
03/14/2017)
03/14/2017 712 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 657 MOTION to Quash . . Document filed by
03/14/2017 713 DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in Opposition re: 657 MOTION to Quash ..
03/14/2017 714 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 655 MOTION to Compel Non−Party Witness to
Protective Order. . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 03/14/2017)
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit J, # 2 Exhibit K)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 03/14/2017)
Unauthenticated Hearsay Document from a Suspect Source. . Document filed by
by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed 1, # 2 Exhibit Sealed
03/15/2017 718 ORDER withdrawing 708 Motion to Seal Document ; granting 710 Motion to Seal
Document: So ordered. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 3/15/2017) (jwh)
(Entered: 03/15/2017)
03/15/2017 719 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from J. Stanley Pottinger
dated 3/13/2017 re: request a one−week continuance of the hearing on Defendant's
Motion to Compel Non−Party Witness to Produce Documents and Respond to
Depositions Questions (Doc. 655 ) and Motion for Protective Order for Non−Party
Witness (Doc. 640 ). ENDORSEMENT: So ordered. (Signed by Judge Robert W.
03/15/2017 720 ENDORSED LETTER re: 659 SECOND MOTION to Compel Ghislaine Maxwell to
Disclose Data from Defendant's Undisclosed Email Account and for An Adverse
Inference Instruction , addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Laura A. Menninger
dated 3/10/2017 re: a one−week extension of time in which to file a Response to
Plaintiff's Renewed Motion to Compel. ENDORSEMENT: So ordered. (Set
Deadlines/Hearing as to 659 SECOND MOTION to Compel Ghislaine Maxwell to
Inference Instruction : Responses due by 3/17/2017) (Signed by Judge Robert W.
Case:
18-2868, Document 1-2,
As of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/2018
2399789,
09:56 AM
Page108
EDT 65of 127
of 84
03/15/2017 721 NOTICE of Notice of Intent to Redact Transcript of Proceedings re: 702 Transcript,,.
Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Transcript (Filed
Under Seal))(Schultz, Meredith) (Entered: 03/15/2017)
03/16/2017 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Robert W. Sweet: Evidentiary
Hearing held on 3/16/2017. (Court Reporter Martha Martin)Decision on hearing
03/17/2017 722 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 673 MOTION in Limine Exclude Deposition
Testimony of Sarah Kellen and Nadia Marcinkova or Any Witness Invoking Their Fifth
Amendment Privilege. . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (McCawley, Sigrid)
(Entered: 03/17/2017)
03/17/2017 723 DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in Opposition re: 673 MOTION in Limine
Invoking Their Fifth Amendment Privilege.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed 1)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 03/17/2017)
Complaint and Settlement Agreement in Jane Doe 102 v. Jeffrey Epstein. . Document
03/17/2017 725 OPPOSITION BRIEF re: 721 Notice (Other) of Intent to Redact Transcript of
Proceedings. Document filed by Michael Cernovich d/b/a Cernovich Media.(Wolman,
Jay) (Entered: 03/17/2017)
03/17/2017 726 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 664 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Late
Disclosed Supplemental Report of Dr. James Jansen and Video Trial Exhibit of Dr.
Gilbert Kliman. . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (McCawley, Sigrid)
(Entered: 03/17/2017)
Exclude Late Disclosed Supplemental Report of Dr. James Jansen and Video Trial
Exhibit of Dr. Gilbert Kliman.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: #
1 Exhibit Sealed 1, # 2 Exhibit Sealed 2, # 3 Exhibit Sealed 3, # 4 Exhibit Sealed
References to Crime Victims Rights Act Litigation. . Document filed by Virginia L.
Giuffre. (Edwards, Bradley) (Entered: 03/17/2017)
03/17/2017 729 DECLARATION of Bradley Edwards in Opposition re: 669 MOTION in Limine to
5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit)(Edwards, Bradley) (Entered: 03/17/2017)
03/17/2017 730 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 667 MOTION in Limine to Exclude FBI 302
Statement of Plaintiff. . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Edwards, Bradley)
(Entered: 03/17/2017)
Exclude FBI 302 Statement of Plaintiff.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Edwards, Bradley) (Entered: 03/17/2017)
03/17/2017 732 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 681 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Victim
Notification Letter. . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (McCawley, Sigrid)
(Entered: 03/17/2017)
Exclude Victim Notification Letter.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
03/17/2017 734 FILING ERROR − ELECTRONIC FILING OF NON−ECF DOCUMENT −
CONSENT MOTION to Vacate 433 Endorsed Letter,, STIPULATION AND
[PROPOSED] ORDER VACATING CIVIL CONTEMPT FINDING AND ORDER AS
TO NON−PARTY NADIA MARCINKOVA. Document filed by Nadia
Marcinko.(Dubno, Erica) Modified on 3/21/2017 (db). (Entered: 03/17/2017)
Case:
18-2868, Document 1-2,
As of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/2018
2399789,
09:56 AM
Page109
EDT 66of 127
of 84
03/17/2017 735 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 693 MOTION to Exclude Evidence Pursuant
to Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (McCawley, Sigrid)
(Entered: 03/17/2017)
03/17/2017 736 DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in Opposition re: 693 MOTION to Exclude
Evidence Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 404(b).. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
Robert W. Sweet from Sigrid McCawley dated March 17, 2017. Document filed by
03/17/2017 738 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 675 MOTION in Limine to Permit
Questioning Regarding Plaintiffs Sexual History and Reputation. . Document filed by
03/17/2017 739 DECLARATION of Meredith Schultz in Opposition re: 675 MOTION in Limine to
# 3 Exhibit Sealed 3, # 4 Exhibit Sealed 4)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 03/17/2017)
03/17/2017 740 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 671 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Jeffrey
Epstein Plea and Non−Prosecution Agreement and Sex Offender Registration. .
Registration.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed
1, # 2 Exhibit Sealed 2)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 03/17/2017)
03/17/2017 742 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 683 MOTION in Limine PLAINTIFFS
MOTION IN LIMINE TO ADMIT THE BLACK BOOK AS EVIDENCE AT TRIAL. .
03/17/2017 743 DECLARATION of Jeffrey S. Pagliuca in Opposition re: 683 MOTION in Limine
AT TRIAL.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2
03/17/2017 744 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 686 MOTION in Limine PLAINTIFF MS.
GIUFFRES MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION IN LIMINE
TO PRESENT ALL EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANTS INVOLVEMENT IN EPSTEIN
SEXUAL ABUSE AND SEX TRAFFICKING. . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
03/17/2017 745 DECLARATION of Laura A. Menninger in Opposition re: 686 MOTION in Limine
Testimony for Purpose of Obtaining an Adverse Inference Instruction. . Document
03/17/2017 747 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 677 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Police
Reports and Other Inadmissible Hearsay. . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
Case:
18-2868, Document 1-2,
As of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/2018
2399789,
09:56 AM
Page110
EDT 67of 127
of 84
03/17/2017 749 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 691 MOTION in Limine Omnibus. .
Exclude Police Reports and Other Inadmissible Hearsay.. Document filed by Virginia
Sealed 3, # 4 Exhibit Composite Sealed 4, # 5 Exhibit Sealed 5, # 6 Exhibit Sealed 6, #
7 Exhibit Sealed 7, # 8 Exhibit Composite Sealed 8, # 9 Exhibit Sealed 9)(McCawley,
Omnibus.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2
M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P, # 17 Exhibit Q, # 18 Exhibit R, #
19 Exhibit S)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 03/17/2017)
03/17/2017 752 MOTION to Strike Document No. 711 Plaintiff's Supplemental Authority. Document
03/17/2017 753 DECLARATION of Laura A. Menninger in Support re: 752 MOTION to Strike
Document No. 711 Plaintiff's Supplemental Authority.. Document filed by Ghislaine
Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 03/17/2017)
03/17/2017 754 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 637 MOTION to Compel
Philip Barden to To Produce All Work Product and Attorney Client Communications .
Defendant's Surreply. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 03/17/2017)
Robert W. Sweet. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Kelly Surina, (212) 805−0300.
official transcript of a CONFERENCE proceeding held on 3/9/17 has been filed by the
03/20/2017 757 STIPULATION AND ORDER VACATING CIVIL CONTEMPT FINDING AND
ORDER AS TO NADIA MARCINKOVA: THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY
STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and among the parties through their undersigned
counsel, that the Plaintiff's Motion for a Finding of Civil Contempt against Nadia
Marcinkova shall be withdrawn without costs to any party; and IT IS FURTHER
STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and among the parties, subject to the Order of the
Court, that the Order dated September 15, 2016 [Docket No. 433], as to Nadia
Marcinkova shall be vacated in its entirety. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on
3/20/2017) (jwh) (Entered: 03/20/2017)
03/20/2017 758 ENDORSED LETTER: addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Laura A.
Menninger dated March 17, 2017 re: To exceed page limit. ENDORSEMENT: So
ordered. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 3/20/2017) (ap) (Entered: 03/20/2017)
03/20/2017 759 ENDORSED LETTER re: 659 SECOND MOTION to Compel, 685 MOTION in
Limine; addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Jeffrey S. Pagliuca dated 3/17/2017
re: a one week extension to file responses to Docket Entry # 659 and Docket Entry #
685 . ENDORSEMENT: So ordered. (Set Deadlines/Hearing as to 659 SECOND
MOTION to Compel Ghislaine Maxwell to Disclose Data , 685 MOTION in Limine
PLAINTIFFS MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE DEFENDANT FROM CALLING
PLAINTIFFS ATTORNEYS AS WITNESSES AT TRIAL : Responses due by 3/23/2017)
Case:
18-2868, Document 1-2,
As of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/2018
2399789,
09:56 AM
Page111
EDT 68of 127
of 84
666 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence Barred as a Result of Plaintiffs
Summary Judgment Concessions, 665 MOTION in Limine to Prohibit Questioning
Regarding Defendants Adult Consensual Sexual Activities, 662 MOTION to Bifurcate
Trial Relating to Punitive Damages and Exclusion of any Reference to Defendants
Financial Information in the Liability Phase. So ordered Responses due by 3/22/2017.
03/21/2017 761 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 657 MOTION to Quash . . Document filed by
Jeffrey Epstein. (Weinberg, Martin) (Entered: 03/21/2017)
03/21/2017 762 LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from
Sigrid McCawley dated March 21, 2017. Document filed by Virginia L.
03/21/2017 763 MOTION to Strike Document No. 725 . Document filed by Virginia L.
03/21/2017 764 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 666 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence
Barred as a Result of Plaintiffs Summary Judgment Concessions. . Document filed by
03/22/2017 765 ORDER granting 752 Motion to Strike Document No. 711 : The Defendant's motion to
strike the Plaintiff's Notice of Supplemental Authority, ECF No. 711, is granted. The
cited authority is inadmissible, and has been submitted previously in connection with
Plaintiff's motion seeking financial information from the Defendant. (Signed by Judge
03/22/2017 766 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 662 MOTION to Bifurcate Trial Relating to
Punitive Damages and Exclusion of any Reference to Defendants Financial
Information in the Liability Phase. . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
03/22/2017 767 ORDER granting 762 Letter Motion for Extension of Time. SO ORDERED. (Signed
by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 3/22/2017) (ras) (Entered: 03/22/2017)
03/22/2017 768 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 665 MOTION in Limine to Prohibit
Questioning Regarding Defendants Adult Consensual Sexual Activities. . Document
Prohibit Questioning Regarding Defendants Adult Consensual Sexual Activities..
03/23/2017 770 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 689 MOTION in Limine to Present Testimony for
Purpose of Obtaining an Adverse Inference Instruction. [Re Kellen/Marcinkova].
Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Comp 1 (Sealed), #
2 Exhibit 2 (Sealed))(Schultz, Meredith) (Entered: 03/23/2017)
of Professor Terry Coonan, J.D. filed by Ghislaine Maxwell, 561 MOTION in Limine
to Exclude Defendant's Designations of Deposition Excerpts of Alan Dershowitz filed
by Virginia L. Giuffre, 533 MOTION in Limine and Incorporated Memorandum of
Law filed by Virginia L. Giuffre, 520 MOTION in Limine To Exclude Expert
Testimony and Opinion of Chris Anderson filed by Ghislaine Maxwell, 526 MOTION
in Limine To Exclude Expert Testimony and Opinion of Dianne C. Flores filed by
Ghislaine Maxwell, 567 MOTION in Limine to Exclude In Toto Certain Depositions
Designated By Plaintiff for Use at Trial filed by Ghislaine Maxwell, 522 MOTION in
Limine To Exclude Expert Testimony and Opinions of William F. Chandler filed by
Ghislaine Maxwell, 563 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Defendant's Designations of
Deposition Excerpts of Virginia Giuffre in an Unrelated Case filed by Virginia L.
Giuffre, 528 MOTION in Limine To Exclude Expert Testimony and Opinion of Dr.
Bernard Jansen filed by Ghislaine Maxwell, 530 MOTION in Limine To Exclude
Expert Testimony and Opinion of Doctor Gilbert Kliman filed by Ghislaine Maxwell,
535 MOTION in Limine and Incorporated Memorandum of Law filed by Virginia L.
Giuffre. (Court Reporter Lisa Fellis) Documents #520,522,524,526,528,530,533,and
Case:
18-2868, Document 1-2,
As of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/2018
2399789,
09:56 AM
Page112
EDT 69of 127
of 84
535 are taken on submission. Document #563 The Court will deal with this on trial.
Document #567 Will be heard on April 5, 2017 at 12:00 p.m. Document #640, 655
Resolved in open court, partially granted and partially denied.(Chan, Tsz) (Entered:
03/23/2017)
03/23/2017 771 DECLARATION of Sigrid S. McCawley in Support re: 689 MOTION in Limine to
Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Composite 1
(Sealed), # 2 Exhibit 2 (Sealed))(Schultz, Meredith) (Entered: 03/23/2017)
MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE DEFENDANT FROM CALLING PLAINTIFFS
ATTORNEYS AS WITNESSES AT TRIAL. . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
PLAINTIFFS ATTORNEYS AS WITNESSES AT TRIAL.. Document filed by Ghislaine
Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit
J)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 03/23/2017)
03/24/2017 774 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 683 MOTION in Limine
AT TRIAL. . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered:
03/24/2017)
AT TRIAL.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit
dated 3/22/17 re: Ms. Maxwell respectfully requests that she be permitted to submit
her reply by March 31, 2017. ENDORSEMENT: Extension to 3/30 is granted. So
ordered. ( Replies due by 3/30/2017.) (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on
3/24/2017) (mro) (Entered: 03/24/2017)
dated 3/23/17 re: This Court issued a sealed opinion today, March 23, 2017, that
ordered additional briefing and a hearing on the issues related to the search of any
email accounts, on dates to be decided by the parties. In light of this Court's Order,
defendant requests that any response be combined in the upcoming briefing schedule.
(mro) (Entered: 03/24/2017)
INVOLVEMENT IN EPSTEIN SEXUAL ABUSE AND SEX TRAFFICKING. .
Composite Sealed 2, # 3 Exhibit Sealed 3, # 4 Exhibit Sealed 4)(McCawley, Sigrid)
(Entered: 03/24/2017)
Case:
18-2868, Document 1-2,
As of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/2018
2399789,
09:56 AM
Page113
EDT 70of 127
of 84
03/24/2017 783 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 667 MOTION in Limine to Exclude FBI 302
Statement of Plaintiff. . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 03/24/2017)
03/24/2017 784 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 669 MOTION in Limine to Exclude References to
Crime Victims Rights Act Litigation. . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
(Attachments: # 1 Appendix A, # 2 Appendix B)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered:
03/24/2017)
Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit B, # 2 Exhibit C)(Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 03/24/2017)
03/24/2017 786 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 664 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Late Disclosed
Supplemental Report of Dr. James Jansen and Video Trial Exhibit of Dr. Gilbert
Kliman. . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura) (Entered:
03/24/2017)
Exhibit of Dr. Gilbert Kliman.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: #
1 Exhibit A)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 03/24/2017)
03/24/2017 788 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 671 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Jeffrey Epstein
Plea and Non−Prosecution Agreement and Sex Offender Registration. . Document
Registration.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit C, # 2
Exhibit D)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 03/24/2017)
03/24/2017 790 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 675 MOTION in Limine to Permit Questioning
Regarding Plaintiffs Sexual History and Reputation. . Document filed by Ghislaine
03/24/2017 791 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 681 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Victim
Notification Letter. . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 03/24/2017)
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit D)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 03/24/2017)
03/27/2017 793 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Portions of February 16, 2017 Hearing
Transcript addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Meredith Schultz dated March
27, 2017. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.(Schultz, Meredith) (Entered:
03/27/2017)
03/27/2017 794 MOTION Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to Bring Personal Electronic Device and
General Purpose Computing Devices to the Courthouse . Document filed by Virginia
L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to
Bring Personal Electronic Device and General Purpose Computing Devices to the
Courthouse)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 03/27/2017)
03/27/2017 795 LETTER MOTION for Oral Argument for March 31st Hearing to Start at 10:00am
addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Meredith Schultz dated March 27, 2017.
03/27/2017 796 NOTICE of Notice of Intent to Redact 03/09/17 Transcript of Proceedings [DE 756]
re: 756 Notice of Filing Transcript,,. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 (Filed Under Seal))(Schultz, Meredith) (Entered:
03/27/2017)
Sweet from Sigrid McCawley. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.(McCawley,
Case:
18-2868, Document 1-2,
As of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/2018
2399789,
09:56 AM
Page114
EDT 71of 127
of 84
Omnibus. . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered:
03/27/2017)
Omnibus.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit
(Entered: 03/27/2017)
03/28/2017 800 AMENDED MOTION Motion leave to bring Personal Electronic Devices and General
Purpose Computing Device into the Courthouse re: 794 MOTION Plaintiffs Motion
for Leave to Bring Personal Electronic Device and General Purpose Computing
Devices to the Courthouse . . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1
Text of Proposed Order STANDING ORDER M10−468, AS REVISED)(McCawley,
03/28/2017 802 NOTICE of Filing Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant's Objections to Plaintiff's
Deposition Designations. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (McCawley, Sigrid)
(Entered: 03/28/2017)
03/28/2017 803 NOTICE of of Filing Typographical Errors Relating to Plaintiff's Deposition
Designations for Use at Trial. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (McCawley,
03/28/2017 804 MOTION Requesting Rulings on Her Outstanding Motions. Document filed by
03/28/2017 805 MOTION for Leave to Bring Personal Electronic Devices and General Purpose
Computing Devices Into the Courthouse. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
03/28/2017 806 Objection to Production of (Blank) Submitted for in Camera Review. Document filed
03/28/2017 807 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 666 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence
03/29/2017 809 ENDORSED LETTER re: 673 MOTION in Limine, 663 MOTION in Limine, 693
MOTION to Exclude Evidence Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 404(b), 677 MOTION in
Limine, addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Jeffrey S. Pagliuca dated 3/24/2017
re: an extension to file replies to Motions at Dockets 663 , 673 , 677 , and 693 .
ENDORSEMENT: So ordered. (Set Deadlines/Hearing as to 673 MOTION in Limine
Invoking Their Fifth Amendment Privilege, 663 MOTION in Limine to Exclude
Complaint and Settlement Agreement in Jane Doe 102 v. Jeffrey Epstein, 693
Limine to Exclude Police Reports and Other Inadmissible Hearsay: Replies due by
03/29/2017)
03/29/2017 810 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 763 MOTION to Strike Document No.
725 . . Document filed by Michael Cernovich d/b/a Cernovich Media. (Wolman, Jay)
(Entered: 03/29/2017)
from Movant−Intervenor Michael Cernovich d/b/a Cernovich Media dated March 29,
2017 re: 793 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Portions of February 16, 2017
Hearing Transcript addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Meredith Schultz dated
March 27, 2017. . Document filed by Michael Cernovich d/b/a Cernovich Media.
(Wolman, Jay) (Entered: 03/29/2017)
Case:
18-2868, Document 1-2,
As of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/2018
2399789,
09:56 AM
Page115
EDT 72of 127
of 84
03/29/2017 812 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 665 MOTION in Limine to Prohibit Questioning
Regarding Defendants Adult Consensual Sexual Activities. . Document filed by
03/29/2017 813 NOTICE of of Plaintiff's Proposed Redactions to This Court's Order Denying
Summary Judgment. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit
03/30/2017 814 LETTER MOTION to Continue addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Martin G.
Weinberg dated 3/30/17. Document filed by Jeffrey Epstein.(Weinberg, Martin)
(Entered: 03/30/2017)
03/30/2017 815 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 677 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Police Reports
and Other Inadmissible Hearsay. . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit D, # 2 Exhibit E, # 3 Exhibit F, # 4
Exhibit G)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 03/30/2017)
03/30/2017 817 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 673 MOTION in Limine Exclude Deposition
Amendment Privilege. . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 03/30/2017)
03/30/2017 818 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 663 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Complaint and
Settlement Agreement in Jane Doe 102 v. Jeffrey Epstein. . Document filed by
Exclude Complaint and Settlement Agreement in Jane Doe 102 v. Jeffrey Epstein..
03/30/2017 820 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 693 MOTION to Exclude Evidence Pursuant to
Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 03/30/2017)
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit J, # 2 Exhibit K, # 3 Exhibit L)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered:
03/30/2017)
03/30/2017 822 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 662 MOTION to Bifurcate Trial Relating to
Information in the Liability Phase. . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
03/30/2017 823 NOTICE of of Intent to Request Redaction of Sealed Opinion. Document filed by
Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed 1)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered:
03/30/2017)
on 3/30/2017 re: 671 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Jeffrey Epstein Plea and
Non−Prosecution Agreement and Sex Offender Registration filed by Ghislaine
Maxwell, [667 MOTION in Limine to Exclude FBI 302 Statement of Plaintiff filed by
Ghislaine Maxwell, 675 MOTION in Limine to Permit Questioning Regarding
Plaintiffs Sexual History and Reputation filed by Ghislaine Maxwell, 681 MOTION in
Limine to Exclude Victim Notification Letter filed by Ghislaine Maxwell, 664
MOTION in Limine to Exclude Late Disclosed Supplemental Report of Dr. James
Jansen and Video Trial Exhibit of Dr. Gilbert Kliman filed by Ghislaine Maxwell, 669
MOTION in Limine to Exclude References to Crime Victims Rights Act Litigation
filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Court Reporter Khris Sellin)Motion pending. (Chan, Tsz)
(Entered: 04/03/2017)
on 3/31/2017 re: 677 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Police Reports and Other
Case:
18-2868, Document 1-2,
As of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/2018
2399789,
09:56 AM
Page116
EDT 73of 127
of 84
Inadmissible Hearsay filed by Ghislaine Maxwell, 673 MOTION in Limine Exclude

Deposition Testimony of Sarah Kellen and Nadia Marcinkova or Any Witness
Invoking Their Fifth Amendment Privilege filed by Ghislaine Maxwell, 662 MOTION
to Bifurcate Trial Relating to Punitive Damages and Exclusion of any Reference to
Defendants Financial Information in the Liability Phase filed by Ghislaine Maxwell,
691 MOTION in Limine Omnibus filed by Virginia L. Giuffre, 689 MOTION in
Limine to Present Testimony for Purpose of Obtaining an Adverse Inference
Instruction filed by Virginia L. Giuffre, 666 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence
Barred as a Result of Plaintiffs Summary Judgment Concessions filed by Ghislaine
Maxwell. (Court Reporter Ellen Simone and Khris Sellin)Motion pending. (Chan, Tsz)
(Entered: 04/03/2017)
04/03/2017 824 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: Conference held on 3/16/2017 before Judge Robert
W. Sweet. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Martha Martin, (212) 805−0300. Transcript
for 7/3/2017.(Siwik, Christine) (Entered: 04/03/2017)
electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days...(Siwik,
Christine) (Entered: 04/03/2017)
04/03/2017 826 Objection to Plaintiff's Deposition Designations (AMENDED). Document filed by
PLAINTIFFS ATTORNEYS AS WITNESSES AT TRIAL. . Document filed by Virginia
PLAINTIFFS ATTORNEYS AS WITNESSES AT TRIAL.. Document filed by Virginia
L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit Sealed Exhibit 2, #
3 Exhibit Sealed Exhibit 3)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 04/03/2017)
04/03/2017 829 LETTER RESPONSE to Motion addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Ty Gee
dated April 3, 2017 re: 793 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Portions of
February 16, 2017 Hearing Transcript addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from
Meredith Schultz dated March 27, 2017. . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
04/04/2017 830 OPPOSITION BRIEF re: 806 Objection (non−motion) and Second Motion to Compel
Defendant to Produce Documents. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.(McCawley,
W. Sweet. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Lisa Picciano Fellis, (212) 805−0300.
Case:
18-2868, Document 1-2,
As of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/2018
2399789,
09:56 AM
Page117
EDT 74of 127
of 84
04/05/2017 833 OPPOSITION BRIEF re: 813 Notice (Other) . Document filed by Michael Cernovich
d/b/a Cernovich Media.(Wolman, Jay) (Entered: 04/05/2017)
04/05/2017 834 ORDER: A hearing on ECF No. 806 shall be held on Thursday, April 13, 2017 at noon
in Courtroom 18C, United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street. Defendant's reply
papers shall be due April 11, 2017. ( Status Conference set for 4/13/2017 at 12:00 PM
in Courtroom 18C, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Robert W.
Sweet.) (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 4/5/2017) (mro) (Entered: 04/05/2017)
on 4/5/2017 re: 685 MOTION in Limine PLAINTIFFS MOTION IN LIMINE TO
PRECLUDE DEFENDANT FROM CALLING PLAINTIFFS ATTORNEYS AS
WITNESSES AT TRIAL filed by Virginia L. Giuffre, 567 MOTION in Limine to
Exclude In Toto Certain Depositions Designated By Plaintiff for Use at Trial filed by
Ghislaine Maxwell, 657 MOTION to Quash filed by Jeffrey Epstein. (Court Reporter
Paula Speer and Sonia Ketter)Deposition designations take on submission.ECF No.
567 Partially resolved.ECF No. 657 Granted.ECF No. 685 Decision Reserved. (Chan,
Tsz) (Entered: 04/07/2017)
04/05/2017 Set/Reset Deadlines: Replies due by 4/11/2017. (mro) (Entered: 04/11/2017)
04/07/2017 837 ORDER denying as moot 804 Motion for request for the Court to Rule on outstanding
motions: The Defendant's motion for the Court to rule on outstanding motions, ECF
No. 804, is denied as moot. ECF No. 231 was resolved by sealed opinion dated August
30, 2016, and ECF No. 354 was resolved by sealed opinion sent to the parties April 4,
2017. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 4/7/2017) (jwh) (Entered: 04/07/2017)
04/07/2017 838 NOTICE of Plaintiff's Briefing on an Adverse Inference Instruction Regarding
Defendant's Failure to Comply with This Court's Order to Produce Her Electronic
Documents and Communications. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (McCawley,
04/07/2017 839 NOTICE of Declaration in Support of Plaintiff's Briefing on an Adverse Inference
Instruction Regarding Defendant's Failure to Comply with This Courts Orders to
Produce Her Electronic Documents and Communications re: 838 Notice (Other),.
Sealed 2, # 3 Exhibit Sealed 3, # 4 Exhibit Sealed 4, # 5 Exhibit Sealed 5, # 6 Exhibit
Sealed Composite 6)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 04/07/2017)
04/10/2017 840 NOTICE of of Intent to Request Redactions to the March 16, 2017 Transcript.
Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed
04/11/2017 841 REPLY re: 806 Objection (non−motion) to Production of (Blank) Submitted for in
04/11/2017)
04/11/2017 842 DECLARATION of Jeffrey S. Pagliuca in Support re: 806 Objection (non−motion).
04/11/2017 843 NOTICE of Plaintiff's Proposed Redactions to This Court's April 4, 2017 Order
Denying Defendant's Motion to Compel and Motion for Sanctions. Document filed by
04/11/2017)
04/11/2017 844 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 837 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief,
Defendant's Motion Requesting Ruling on Her Outstanding Motions. Document filed
by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix A, # 2 Appendix B)(Menninger,
04/11/2017 845 MOTION to Appoint Special Master to Preside Over Third Deposition of Defendant.
Case:
18-2868, Document 1-2,
As of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/2018
2399789,
09:56 AM
Page118
EDT 75of 127
of 84
04/11/2017 846 DECLARATION of Laura A. Menninger in Support re: 845 MOTION to Appoint
Special Master to Preside Over Third Deposition of Defendant.. Document filed by
04/11/2017)
04/12/2017 847 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: argument held on 3/31/2017 before Judge Robert
W. Sweet. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Khristine Sellin, (212) 805−0300. Transcript
official transcript of a argument proceeding held on 3/31/17 has been filed by the court
reporter/transcriber in the above−captioned matter. The parties have seven (7) calendar
days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If
no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to
the public without redaction after 90 calendar days...(Siwik, Christine) (Entered:
04/12/2017)
04/12/2017)
Sweet. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Ellen Simone, (212) 805−0300. Transcript may be
viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court
official transcript of a motion proceeding held on 3/31/17 has been filed by the court
04/12/2017)
04/12/2017 853 ORDER denying 844 Motion for Reconsideration; terminating 230 Motion for Reopen
Deposition of Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre: The Defendant's motion for reconsideration,
ECF No. 844, is denied. The sealed opinion dated August 30, 2016 resolving ECF No.
230 also resolved ECF No. 231. ECF No. 231, the Defendant's motion for sanctions,
was denied. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 4/12/2017) (jwh) Modified on
4/27/2017 (jwh). (Entered: 04/12/2017)
on 4/13/2017 re: 659 SECOND MOTION to Compel Ghislaine Maxwell to Disclose
Data from Defendant's Undisclosed Email Account and for An Adverse Inference
Instruction filed by Virginia L. Giuffre, 806 Objection (non−motion) filed by
Ghislaine Maxwell. (Court Reporter Karen Gorlaski and Steve Griffing)Decision
Reserved. (Chan, Tsz) (Entered: 04/14/2017)
Case:
18-2868, Document 1-2,
As of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/2018
2399789,
09:56 AM
Page119
EDT 76of 127
of 84
04/14/2017 854 NOTICE of Filing Under Seal The Declaration of Experts K.Gus Dimitrelos and
Steven A. Williams re: 838 Notice (Other),. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
04/17/2017 855 LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to Exchange Exhibit List and Submit the
Revised Joint Pre−Trial Order addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Sigrid
McCawley dated April 17, 2017. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.(McCawley,
04/18/2017 856 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 845 MOTION to Appoint Special Master to
Preside Over Third Deposition of Defendant. . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
04/18/2017 857 ORDER granting 855 Letter Motion for Extension of Time: So ordered. (Pretrial Order
due by 4/18/2017.) (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 4/18/2017) (jwh) (Entered:
04/18/2017)
04/18/2017 858 NOTICE of Filing Response to Proposed Intervenor Michael Cernovich Opposition to
Notice of Plaintiff's Proposed Redactions to This Court's Order Denying Summary
Judgment re: 833 Opposition Brief. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
04/18/2017 859 JOINT PRETRIAL STATEMENT . Document filed by Virginia L.
Denying Bradley edwards Motion to Quash. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
04/18/2017 861 ORDER of USCA (Certified Copy) as to 504 Notice of Appeal filed by Alan M.
Dershowitz. USCA Case Number 16−3945. The parties in the above−referenced case
have filed a stipulation withdrawing this appeal pursuant to Local Rule 42.1. The
stipulation is hereby "So Ordered". Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk USCA for the
Second Circuit. Certified: 04/18/2017. (nd) (Entered: 04/19/2017)
04/20/2017 863 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 845 MOTION to Appoint Special Master to Preside
Over Third Deposition of Defendant. . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
04/20/2017 864 FILING ERROR − DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY − MOTION to Compel
Non−Party Witness to Produce Documents and Respond to Deposition Questions and
to Complete Search of ESI. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1
Declaration of Laura Menninger, # 2 Exhibits A−F)(Menninger, Laura) Modified on
5/2/2017 (db). (Entered: 04/20/2017)
04/24/2017 866 JOINT LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time addressed to Judge Robert W.
Sweet from Sigrid McCawley dated April 24, 2017. Document filed by Virginia L.
04/25/2017 867 ORDER: granting 866 Letter Motion for Extension of Time. So ordered. (Signed by
Judge Robert W. Sweet on 4/25/2017) (ap) (Entered: 04/25/2017)
04/26/2017 869 ORDER denying 845 Motion to Appoint Special Master to Preside Over Third
Deposition of Defendant. The defendant Ghislaine Maxwell ("Maxwell" or the
"Defendant") has moved for the appointment of a special master to preside over her
final deposition. The motion is denied. The final deposition of Maxwell will be limited
to three (3) hours and will be held in Courtroom 18C at 500 Pearl Street, on a date and
time on which the parties and the Court agree. The deposition will be supervised by
the Court. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 4/24/2017) (mro) (Entered:
04/26/2017)
04/26/2017 870 ORDER: The motion to compel filed April 20, 2017 shall be heard on Wednesday,
May 3, 2017 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 18C, United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl
Case:
18-2868, Document 1-2,
As of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/2018
2399789,
09:56 AM
Page120
EDT 77of 127
of 84
Street. All papers shall be served in accordance with Local Civil Rule 6.1. ( Oral
Argument set for 5/3/2017 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 18C, 500 Pearl Street, New
York, NY 10007 before Judge Robert W. Sweet.) (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet
on 4/24/2017) (mro) (Entered: 04/26/2017)
04/26/2017 871 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 864 MOTION to Compel Non−Party Witness
to Produce Documents and Respond to Deposition Questions and to Complete Search
of ESI. . Document filed by John Stanley Pottinger. (Pottinger, John) (Entered:
04/26/2017)
04/27/2017 872 OPINION: Because of the existence of triable issues of material fact rather than
opinion and because the pre−litigation privilege is inapplicable, the motion for
summary judgment is denied. For the reasons set forth above, the motion for summary
judgment is denied. The parties are directed to jointly file a proposed redacted version
of this Opinion consistent with the Protective Order or notify the Court that none are
necessary within one week of the date of receipt of this Opinion. Motions terminated:
denying 540 MOTION for Summary Judgment, filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Signed
by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 4/27/2017) (ap) Modified on 4/28/2017 (ap). (Entered:
04/27/2017)
04/28/2017 873 NOTICE of Errata. Document filed by Jeffrey Epstein. (Goldberger, Jack) (Entered:
04/28/2017)
04/28/2017 874 REDACTION Declaration by Jeffrey Epstein(Goldberger, Jack) (Entered:
04/28/2017)
04/28/2017 875 NOTICE of Pursuant to Rule 415 Of Similiar Acts Evidence. Document filed by
Produce Documents and Respond to Deposition Questions and to Complete Search of
ESI. . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura) (Entered:
04/28/2017)
to Complete Search of ESI.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit F)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 04/28/2017)
04/28/2017 878 MOTION to Exclude Undisclosed Witnesses and Exhibits Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
37(c) . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.(Menninger, Laura) (Entered:
04/28/2017)
Undisclosed Witnesses and Exhibits Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c) .. Document
# 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G)(Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 04/28/2017)
04/28/2017 880 PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS. Document filed by Ghislaine
05/01/2017 881 PROPOSED VOIR DIRE QUESTIONS. Document filed by Virginia L.
Giuffre.(Edwards, Bradley) (Entered: 05/01/2017)
MOTION in Limine to Exclude Philip Barden. Document filed by Virginia L.
Giuffre.(McCawley, Sigrid) Modified on 5/2/2017 (db). (Entered: 05/01/2017)
05/01/2017 883 FILING ERROR − DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY − DECLARATION of Sigrid
McCawley in Support re: 882 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Philip Barden..
Sealed Composite 2, # 3 Exhibit Sealed 3)(McCawley, Sigrid) Modified on 5/2/2017
(db). (Entered: 05/01/2017)
05/01/2017 884 PROPOSED VOIR DIRE QUESTIONS. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
(Attachments: # 1 Appendix Defendant's Proposed Jury Questionnaire)(Menninger,
Case:
18-2868, Document 1-2,
As of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/2018
2399789,
09:56 AM
Page121
EDT 78of 127
of 84
MOTION in Limine to Exclude Philip Barden. Use the event type Miscellaneous
Relief found under the event list Motion(s). (db) (Entered: 05/02/2017)
DOCKET ENTRY ERROR. Notice to Attorney Sigrid S. McCawley to RE−FILE
linked to filing error. (db) (Entered: 05/02/2017)
05/02/2017 885 MOTION to Exclude Philip Barden from Testifying at Trial, to Exclude Defenses
Based Upon Certain Documents and for Adverse Inference Jury Instruction .
Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 05/02/2017)
05/02/2017 886 DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in Support re: 885 MOTION to Exclude Philip
Barden from Testifying at Trial, to Exclude Defenses Based Upon Certain Documents
and for Adverse Inference Jury Instruction .. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
05/02/2017 887 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Paul G Cassell on behalf of Sarah Ransome.
(Cassell, Paul) (Entered: 05/02/2017)
05/02/2017 888 REDACTION Declaration of Jack Goldberger by Jeffrey Epstein(Goldberger, Jack)
(Entered: 05/02/2017)
05/02/2017 889 ORDER: The Defendant's motion filed April 28, 2017 shall be heard on Wednesday,
May 10, 2017 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 18C, united States Courthouse, 500 Pearl
Street, All papers shall be served in accordance with Local Civil Rule 6.1. (Oral
on 5/2/2017) (ap) (Entered: 05/02/2017)
dated 5/1/2017 re: request for a one−day extension of time to submit Ms. Maxwell's
financial affidavit. ENDORSEMENT: So ordered. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet
on 5/2/2017) (jwh) (Entered: 05/02/2017)
05/02/2017 891 ORDER: The Plaintiff's motion in limine filed May 1, 2017 shall be heard on
Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 18C, United States Courthouse,
(Set Deadlines/Hearing as to 885 MOTION to Exclude Philip Barden from Testifying
at Trial, to Exclude Defenses Based Upon Certain Documents and for Adverse
Inference Jury Instruction : Motion Hearing set for 5/10/2017 at 11:00 AM in
Sweet.) (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 5/2/2017) (jwh) (Entered: 05/02/2017)
05/03/2017 892 OPINION re: 793 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Portions of February 16,
2017 Hearing Transcript addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Meredith Schultz
dated March 27, 2017 filed by Virginia L. Giuffre, 763 MOTION to Strike Document
No. 725 filed by Virginia L. Giuffre, 550 MOTION to Intervene and Unseal filed by
Michael Cernovich d/b/a Cernovich Media: This opinion resolves ECF Nos. 550, 763,
and 793. The motion of the Intervenor to intervene is granted. The motion to modify
the Protective Order is denied. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 5/2/2017) (jwh)
(Entered: 05/03/2017)
05/03/2017 893 RESPONSE re: 875 Notice (Other) in Opposition to Plaintiffs Notice Pursuant to Rule
415 of Similar Acts Evidence. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger,
05/03/2017 894 NOTICE of of Intent to Request Redactions to March 30 & 31, 2017 Hearing
Transcripts. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed
05/03/2017 895 DECLARATION of Laura A. Menninger in Support re: 893 Response. Document
(Entered: 05/03/2017)
Case:
18-2868, Document 1-2,
As of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/2018
2399789,
09:56 AM
Page122
EDT 79of 127
of 84
05/04/2017 Set/Reset Hearings: Oral Argument set for 5/10/2017 at 12:00 PM before Judge Robert
W. Sweet. Pretrial Conference set for 5/10/2017 at 12:00 PM before Judge Robert W.
Sweet.(As per chambers the hearings have been rescheduled) (lb) (Entered:
05/04/2017)
05/04/2017 Set/Reset Deadlines as to 885 MOTION to Exclude Philip Barden from Testifying at
Trial, to Exclude Defenses Based Upon Certain Documents and for Adverse Inference
Jury Instruction . Motion Hearing set for 5/10/2017 at 12:00 PM before Judge Robert
W. Sweet. (lb) (Entered: 05/04/2017)
05/04/2017 Set/Reset Deadlines as to 878 MOTION to Exclude Undisclosed Witnesses and
Exhibits Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c) .. Motion Hearing set for 5/10/2017 at 12:00
PM before Judge Robert W. Sweet. (lb) (Entered: 05/04/2017)
05/04/2017 896 MOTION to Compel Non−Party Witness to Produce Documents and Respond to
Deposition Questions and to Complete Search of ESI (Refiled). Document filed by
to Complete Search of ESI (Refiled).. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−F)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 05/04/2017)
Public Access to Judicial Proceedings. Document filed by NYP Holdings, Inc.,, Daily
News, L.P..(Feder, Eric) (Entered: 05/04/2017)
05/04/2017 899 LETTER addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Jay M. Wolman dated 5/4/17 re:
Joinder to Request of NYP Holdings, Inc., and Daily News, L.P. 898 . Document filed
by Michael Cernovich d/b/a Cernovich Media.(Wolman, Jay) (Entered: 05/04/2017)
05/05/2017 900 MOTION for Order to Show Cause and to Enforce Court's March 22, 2017 Order.
05/05/2017 901 DECLARATION of Meredith Schultz in Support re: 900 MOTION for Order to Show
Cause and to Enforce Court's March 22, 2017 Order.. Document filed by Virginia L.
Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed 1)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 05/05/2017)
05/05/2017 902 MOTION Plaintiff's Motion for LEave to Permit Magna Legal Services to Bring
Personal Electronic Devices and Video Equipment to Courthouse . Document filed by
Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered:
05/05/2017)
Robert W. Sweet. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Sonya Ketter Huggins, (212)
805−0300. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through
the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript
Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due
5/26/2017. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 6/5/2017. Release of Transcript
Restriction set for 8/3/2017.(McGuirk, Kelly) (Entered: 05/05/2017)
Sweet from Meredith Schultz dated May 5, 2017. Document filed by Virginia L.
05/05/2017 906 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 878 MOTION to Exclude Undisclosed
Witnesses and Exhibits Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c) . . Document filed by
Case:
18-2868, Document 1-2,
As of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/2018
2399789,
09:56 AM
Page123
EDT 80of 127
of 84
# 7 Exhibit Sealed 7, # 8 Exhibit Sealed 8, # 9 Exhibit Sealed 9, # 10 Exhibit Sealed
05/05/2017 908 MOTION for Order Directing the FBI to Produce Photographs to the Court .
Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.(Edwards, Bradley) (Entered: 05/05/2017)
05/05/2017 909 DECLARATION of Bradley Edwards in Support re: 908 MOTION for Order
Directing the FBI to Produce Photographs to the Court .. Document filed by Virginia
L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed A, # 2 Exhibit Sealed B)(Edwards,
Bradley) (Entered: 05/05/2017)
05/08/2017 910 JOINT LETTER MOTION to Adjourn Conference addressed to Judge Robert W.
Sweet from Sigrid McCawley and Jeff Pagliuca dated May 8, 2017. Document filed by
05/09/2017 912 ORDER granting 910 Letter Motion to Adjourn Conference: So ordered. (Oral
Argument set for 5/25/2017 at 12:00 PM before Judge Robert W. Sweet. Pretrial
Conference set for 5/25/2017 at 12:00 PM before Judge Robert W. Sweet.) (Signed by
Judge Robert W. Sweet on 5/9/2017) (jwh) (Entered: 05/09/2017)
Jury Instruction ; 878 MOTION to Exclude Undisclosed Witnesses and Exhibits
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c): Motion Hearing set for 5/25/2017 at 12:00 PM
before Judge Robert W. Sweet. (jwh) (Entered: 05/09/2017)
Sweet from Sigrid McCawley and Jeff Pagliuca dated May 10, 2017. Document filed
by Virginia L. Giuffre.(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 05/10/2017)
05/11/2017 914 ORDER granting 913 Letter Motion to Adjourn Conference: So ordered. (Signed by
05/19/2017 915 NOTICE OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL from 892 Memorandum & Opinion,,.
Document filed by Alan M. Dershowitz. Form C and Form D are due within 14 days
to the Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. (Lebowitz, David) (Entered: 05/19/2017)
05/19/2017 Appeal Fee Due: for 915 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal. $505.00 Appeal fee due by
6/2/2017. (nd) (Entered: 05/19/2017)
Appeals re: 915 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal. (nd) (Entered: 05/19/2017)
Electronic Files for 915 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal filed by Alan M. Dershowitz
were transmitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals. (nd) (Entered: 05/19/2017)
05/24/2017 916 STIPULATION OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL It is hereby stipulated and agreed by
and between the parties and/or their respective counsel(s) that the above−captioned
action is voluntarily dismissed, with prejudice against the defendant(s) Ghislaine
Maxwell and without costs to either party pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.(Edwards,
Bradley) (Main Document 916 replaced on 5/25/2017) (ama). (Main Document 916
replaced on 5/26/2017) (tn). (Main Document 916 replaced on 5/30/2017) (tn).
(Entered: 05/24/2017)
05/25/2017 USCA Case Number 17−1625 from the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
assigned to 915 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal filed by Alan M. Dershowitz. (nd)
(Entered: 05/25/2017)
05/25/2017 Terminate Transcript Deadlines (jwh) (Entered: 05/25/2017)
Case:
18-2868, Document 1-2,
As of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/2018
2399789,
09:56 AM
Page124
EDT 81of 127
of 84
05/25/2017 918 LETTER addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Andrew G. Celli, Jr. dated May
25, 2017 re: Request for Leave to File a Letter Under Seal. Document filed by Alan M.
Dershowitz.(Celli, Andrew) (Entered: 05/25/2017)
05/25/2017 ***DELETED DOCUMENT. Deleted document number 917 Joint Stipulation
for Voluntary Dismissal. The document was incorrectly filed in this case. (tn)
(Entered: 05/26/2017)
05/25/2017 919 JOINT STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL: that this action shall be DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE, with each party to bear its own attorneys' fees and costs.
Ghislaine Maxwell terminated. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 5/25/2017) (tn)
(tn). Modified on 5/30/2017 (tn). (Entered: 05/30/2017)
05/31/2017 920 NOTICE OF APPEAL from 892 Memorandum & Opinion,,. Document filed by
Michael Cernovich d/b/a Cernovich Media. Filing fee $ 505.00, receipt number
0208−13725473. Form C and Form D are due within 14 days to the Court of Appeals,
Second Circuit. (Wolman, Jay) (Entered: 05/31/2017)
Electronic Files for 920 Notice of Appeal, filed by Michael Cernovich d/b/a Cernovich
Media were transmitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals. (tp) (Entered: 05/31/2017)
06/06/2017 Appeal Fee Paid electronically via Pay.gov: for 915 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal.
Filing fee $ 505.00. Pay.gov receipt number 0208−13685185, paid on 05/19/2017.
[USCA Case Number 17−1625]. (nd) (Entered: 06/06/2017)
06/21/2017 922 LETTER addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Andrew G. Celli. Jr. dated June
21, 2017 re: Confidentiality Designations. Document filed by Alan M. Dershowitz.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, #
6 Exhibit 6)(Celli, Andrew) (Entered: 06/21/2017)
10/03/2017 924 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Submitted by Proposed Intervenors Jeffrey
Epstein and Lesley Groff addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Michael C. Miller
dated October 3, 2017. Document filed by Jeffrey Epstein.(Miller, Michael) (Entered:
10/03/2017)
W. Sweet on 10/3/2017) (mro) (Entered: 10/04/2017)
10/06/2017 927 ORDER: The motion for leave to intervene and to modify the protective order by
proposed Intervenors Jeffrey Epstein and Lesley Groff shall be heard at 11:00 AM on
Wednesday, November 8, 2017 in Courtroom 18C, United States Courthouse, 500
Pearl Street. Motion Hearing set for 11/8/2017 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 18C, 500
Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Robert W. Sweet. (Signed by Judge
Robert W. Sweet on 10/6/2017) (cf) (Entered: 10/06/2017)
10/19/2017 928 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 924 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document
Submitted by Proposed Intervenors Jeffrey Epstein and Lesley Groff addressed to
Judge Robert W. Sweet from Michael C. Miller dated October 3, 2017. . Document
on 11/8/2017 re: 924 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Submitted by Proposed
Intervenors Jeffrey Epstein and Lesley Groff addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet
from Michael C. Miller dated October 3, 2017. filed by Jeffrey Epstein. (Court
Reporter Pamela Utter)Motion pending. (Chan, Tsz) (Entered: 11/09/2017)
Case:
18-2868, Document 1-2,
As of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/2018
2399789,
09:56 AM
Page125
EDT 82of 127
of 84
Robert W. Sweet. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Pamela Utter, (212) 805−0300.
11/28/2017 933 NOTICE of Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of November 8 2017 Hearing
Transcript. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1
Redacted)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 11/28/2017)
Dershowitz, 920 Notice of Appeal, filed by Michael Cernovich d/b/a Cernovich
Media, 915 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal filed by Alan M. Dershowitz. USCA Case
Number 16−3945 (L), 17−1625 (Con), 17−1722 (Con). Appellee moves to file her
appellate brief under seal. Upon due consideration, it is hereby ORDERED that the
motion is GRANTED. See Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 126
(2d Cir. 2006). To the extent that they have not yet done so, the parties are also hereby
instructed to brief for the merits panel the question of appellate jurisdiction in this
case. See, e.g., Nosik v. Singe, 40 F.3d 592, 59667 (2d Cir. 1994). Catherine O'Hagan
Wolfe, Clerk USCA for the Second Circuit. Certified: 2/20/2018. (nd) (Entered:
02/20/2018)
04/06/2018 935 MOTION to Intervene ., MOTION to Unseal Document . Document filed by Julie
Brown, Miami Herald Media Company.(Walz, Christine) (Entered: 04/06/2018)
Unseal Document . . Document filed by Julie Brown, Miami Herald Media Company.
(Walz, Christine) (Entered: 04/06/2018)
04/09/2018 937 ORDER: The motion to intervene and unseal brought by proposed intervenors Julie
Brown and the Miami Herald Media Company shall be heard at 12:00 PM on
Wednesday, May 9th, 2018 in Courtroom 18C, United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl
Deadlines/Hearing as to 935 MOTION to Intervene; MOTION to Unseal Document: (
Sweet on 4/9/2018) (mro) (Entered: 04/09/2018)
04/10/2018 938 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Christine Walz on behalf of Julie Brown, Miami
Herald Media Company. (Walz, Christine) (Entered: 04/10/2018)
04/10/2018 939 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Sanford Lewis Bohrer on behalf of Julie Brown,
Miami Herald Media Company. (Bohrer, Sanford) (Entered: 04/10/2018)
04/10/2018 940 RULE 7.1 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. Identifying Other Affiliate
McClatchy Company for Miami Herald Media Company. Document filed by Miami
Herald Media Company.(Walz, Christine) (Entered: 04/10/2018)
Unseal Document . . Document filed by Michael Cernovich d/b/a Cernovich Media.
dated 4/19/2018 re: Defendant's response is currently due April 20, 2018. Defendant
seeks a one week extension up to and including April 27, 2018. Counsel for
Intervenors Christine Walz do not oppose this request. ENDORSEMENT: SO
Case:
18-2868, Document 1-2,
As of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/2018
2399789,
09:56 AM
Page126
EDT 83of 127
of 84
ORDERED., ( Responses due by 4/27/2018) (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on

4/20/2018) (ama) (Entered: 04/20/2018)
04/23/2018 943 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Sigrid McCawley,
Esq. dated 4/20/2018 re: Plaintiff seeks a one week extension up to and including April
27, 2018. ENDORSEMENT: So ordered. (Responses due by 4/27/2018.) (Signed by
Judge Robert W. Sweet on 4/23/2018) (anc) (Entered: 04/23/2018)
04/27/2018 944 RESPONSE to Motion re: 935 MOTION to Intervene . MOTION to Unseal Document
. . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 04/27/2018)
. . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 04/27/2018)
MOTION to Unseal Document . . Document filed by Miami Herald Media Company.
05/08/2018 947 LETTER addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Andrew G. Celli, Jr. dated May 8,
2018 re: Pending application of Julie Brown and the Miami Herald Media Company to
intervene and unseal. Document filed by Alan M. Dershowitz. (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit A − June 2017 Letter (Redacted))(Celli, Andrew) (Entered: 05/08/2018)
on 5/10/2018 re: 935 MOTION to Intervene. MOTION to Unseal Document filed by
Julie Brown, Miami Herald Media Company. (Court Reporter Kelly SurinaMotion
Pending. (Chan, Tsz) (Entered: 05/10/2018)
08/21/2018 951 LETTER addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Christine N. Walz dated August
21, 2018 re: status of pending motion. Document filed by Julie Brown, Miami Herald
Media Company.(Walz, Christine) (Entered: 08/21/2018)
08/23/2018 952 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Christine N. Walz from Robert W. Sweet,
U.S.D.J. dated 8/22/2018 re: The motion is under advisement. ENDORSEMENT:
Dear Ms. Walz, Thank you for your letter of August 21, 2018. The motion is under
advisement. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 8/22/2018) (ne) (Entered:
08/23/2018)
08/27/2018 953 OPINION: re: 935 MOTION to Intervene . MOTION to Unseal Document . filed by
Julie Brown, Miami Herald Media Company. Based on the facts and conclusions set
forth above, the Intervenors' motion to intervene is granted, and this motion to unseal
is denied and the action is closed. It is so ordered. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet
on 8/27/2018) (js) (Entered: 08/27/2018)
09/25/2018 954 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Madelaine Jane Woolfrey Harrington on behalf of
Julie Brown, Miami Herald Media Company. (Harrington, Madelaine) (Entered:
09/25/2018)
09/26/2018 955 NOTICE OF APPEAL from 953 Memorandum & Opinion,. Document filed by Julie
Brown, Miami Herald Media Company. Filing fee $ 505.00, receipt number
Case:
18-2868, Document 1-2,
As of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/2018
2399789,
09:56 AM
Page127
EDT 84of 127
of 84
Second Circuit. (Walz, Christine) (Entered: 09/26/2018)
Appeals re: 955 Notice of Appeal,. (nd) (Entered: 09/26/2018)
Electronic Files for 955 Notice of Appeal, filed by Julie Brown, Miami Herald Media
Company were transmitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals. (nd) (Entered: 09/26/2018)
CaseCase
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
18-2868, Document
Document
2, 09/28/2018,
953 Filed
2399797,
08/27/18
Page1
Page
of 41
1 of 41
CaseCase
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
18-2868, Document
Document
2, 09/28/2018,
953 Filed
2399797,
08/27/18
Page2
Page
of 41
2 of 41
CaseCase
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
18-2868, Document
Document
2, 09/28/2018,
953 Filed
2399797,
08/27/18
Page3
Page
of 41
3 of 41
CaseCase
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
18-2868, Document
Document
2, 09/28/2018,
953 Filed
2399797,
08/27/18
Page4
Page
of 41
4 of 41
CaseCase
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
18-2868, Document
Document
2, 09/28/2018,
953 Filed
2399797,
08/27/18
Page5
Page
of 41
5 of 41
CaseCase
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
18-2868, Document
Document
2, 09/28/2018,
953 Filed
2399797,
08/27/18
Page6
Page
of 41
6 of 41
CaseCase
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
18-2868, Document
Document
2, 09/28/2018,
953 Filed
2399797,
08/27/18
Page7
Page
of 41
7 of 41
CaseCase
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
18-2868, Document
Document
2, 09/28/2018,
953 Filed
2399797,
08/27/18
Page8
Page
of 41
8 of 41
CaseCase
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
18-2868, Document
Document
2, 09/28/2018,
953 Filed
2399797,
08/27/18
Page9
Page
of 41
9 of 41
CaseCase
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
18-2868, Document
Document
2, 09/28/2018,
953 Filed
2399797,
08/27/18
Page10
Pageof10
41of 41
CaseCase
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
18-2868, Document
Document
2, 09/28/2018,
953 Filed
2399797,
08/27/18
Page11
Pageof11
41of 41
CaseCase
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
18-2868, Document
Document
2, 09/28/2018,
953 Filed
2399797,
08/27/18
Page12
Pageof12
41of 41
CaseCase
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
18-2868, Document
Document
2, 09/28/2018,
953 Filed
2399797,
08/27/18
Page13
Pageof13
41of 41
CaseCase
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
18-2868, Document
Document
2, 09/28/2018,
953 Filed
2399797,
08/27/18
Page14
Pageof14
41of 41
CaseCase
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
18-2868, Document
Document
2, 09/28/2018,
953 Filed
2399797,
08/27/18
Page15
Pageof15
41of 41
CaseCase
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
18-2868, Document
Document
2, 09/28/2018,
953 Filed
2399797,
08/27/18
Page16
Pageof16
41of 41
CaseCase
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
18-2868, Document
Document
2, 09/28/2018,
953 Filed
2399797,
08/27/18
Page17
Pageof17
41of 41
CaseCase
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
18-2868, Document
Document
2, 09/28/2018,
953 Filed
2399797,
08/27/18
Page18
Pageof18
41of 41
CaseCase
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
18-2868, Document
Document
2, 09/28/2018,
953 Filed
2399797,
08/27/18
Page19
Pageof19
41of 41
CaseCase
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
18-2868, Document
Document
2, 09/28/2018,
953 Filed
2399797,
08/27/18
Page20
Pageof20
41of 41
CaseCase
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
18-2868, Document
Document
2, 09/28/2018,
953 Filed
2399797,
08/27/18
Page21
Pageof21
41of 41
CaseCase
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
18-2868, Document
Document
2, 09/28/2018,
953 Filed
2399797,
08/27/18
Page22
Pageof22
41of 41
CaseCase
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
18-2868, Document
Document
2, 09/28/2018,
953 Filed
2399797,
08/27/18
Page23
Pageof23
41of 41
CaseCase
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
18-2868, Document
Document
2, 09/28/2018,
953 Filed
2399797,
08/27/18
Page24
Pageof24
41of 41
CaseCase
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
18-2868, Document
Document
2, 09/28/2018,
953 Filed
2399797,
08/27/18
Page25
Pageof25
41of 41
CaseCase
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
18-2868, Document
Document
2, 09/28/2018,
953 Filed
2399797,
08/27/18
Page26
Pageof26
41of 41
CaseCase
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
18-2868, Document
Document
2, 09/28/2018,
953 Filed
2399797,
08/27/18
Page27
Pageof27
41of 41
CaseCase
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
18-2868, Document
Document
2, 09/28/2018,
953 Filed
2399797,
08/27/18
Page28
Pageof28
41of 41
CaseCase
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
18-2868, Document
Document
2, 09/28/2018,
953 Filed
2399797,
08/27/18
Page29
Pageof29
41of 41
CaseCase
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
18-2868, Document
Document
2, 09/28/2018,
953 Filed
2399797,
08/27/18
Page30
Pageof30
41of 41
CaseCase
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
18-2868, Document
Document
2, 09/28/2018,
953 Filed
2399797,
08/27/18
Page31
Pageof31
41of 41
CaseCase
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
18-2868, Document
Document
2, 09/28/2018,
953 Filed
2399797,
08/27/18
Page32
Pageof32
41of 41
CaseCase
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
18-2868, Document
Document
2, 09/28/2018,
953 Filed
2399797,
08/27/18
Page33
Pageof33
41of 41
CaseCase
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
18-2868, Document
Document
2, 09/28/2018,
953 Filed
2399797,
08/27/18
Page34
Pageof34
41of 41
CaseCase
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
18-2868, Document
Document
2, 09/28/2018,
953 Filed
2399797,
08/27/18
Page35
Pageof35
41of 41
CaseCase
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
18-2868, Document
Document
2, 09/28/2018,
953 Filed
2399797,
08/27/18
Page36
Pageof36
41of 41
CaseCase
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
18-2868, Document
Document
2, 09/28/2018,
953 Filed
2399797,
08/27/18
Page37
Pageof37
41of 41
CaseCase
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
18-2868, Document
Document
2, 09/28/2018,
953 Filed
2399797,
08/27/18
Page38
Pageof38
41of 41
CaseCase
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
18-2868, Document
Document
2, 09/28/2018,
953 Filed
2399797,
08/27/18
Page39
Pageof39
41of 41
CaseCase
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
18-2868, Document
Document
2, 09/28/2018,
953 Filed
2399797,
08/27/18
Page40
Pageof40
41of 41
CaseCase
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
18-2868, Document
Document
2, 09/28/2018,
953 Filed
2399797,
08/27/18
Page41
Pageof41
41of 41

40 Foley Square
New York, NY 10007

Date: September 28, 2018 DC Docket #: 15-cv-7433

DC Judge: Sweet
NOTICE OF RECORD ON APPEAL FILED
In the above referenced case the document indicated below has been filed in the Court.
____ Record on Appeal - Certified List
____ Record on Appeal - CD ROM
____ Record on Appeal - Paper Documents
_XX___ Record on Appeal - Electronic Index
____ Record on Appeal - Paper Index

CA02db Intake
From: NYSD_ECF_Pool@nysd.uscourts.gov
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2018 1:46 PM
To: NYSD CourtMail
Subject: Activity in Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Giuffre v. Maxwell Appeal Record Sent to USCA - Electronic File
This is an automatic e‐mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e‐mail
because the mail box is unattended.
***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and
parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if
receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges,
download a copy of each document during this first viewing. However, if the referenced document is a transcript, the
free copy and 30 page limit do not apply.
U.S. District Court
Southern District of New York
Notice of Electronic Filing

The following transaction was entered on 9/26/2018 at 1:46 PM EDT and filed on 9/26/2018
Case Name: Giuffre v. Maxwell
Case Number: 1:15‐cv‐07433‐RWS
Filer:
WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 05/25/2017
Document Number: No document attached
Docket Text:
Appeal Record Sent to USCA (Electronic File). Certified Indexed record on Appeal Electronic
Files for [955] Notice of Appeal, filed by Julie Brown, Miami Herald Media Company were
transmitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals. (nd)

1:15‐cv‐07433‐RWS Notice has been electronically mailed to:

Laura R. Handman laurahandman@dwt.com, marnishapiro@dwt.com, nycdocket@dwt.com, wdcdocket@dwt.com

Michael Campion Miller mmiller@steptoe.com, bhamerschlag@steptoe.com, cjenkins@steptoe.com,
ehartman@steptoe.com

Jeffrey S. Pagliuca jpagliuca@hmflaw.com, nsimmons@hmflaw.com

Laura A. Menninger lmenninger@hmflaw.com, alundberg@hmflaw.com, brodriguez@hmflaw.com,
nsimmons@hmflaw.com

Sanford Lewis Bohrer sandy.bohrer@hklaw.com, elvin.ramos@hklaw.com, estarlin@hklaw.com,
glenn.huzinec@hklaw.com

1
Andrew G. Celli acelli@ecbalaw.com, dedwards@ecbalaw.com, docketing@ecbalaw.com

Erica Tamar Dubno erica.dubno@fahringerlaw.com, dubnoe@aol.com

Alexander Seton Lorenzo alexander.lorenzo@alston.com, autodocket‐nyc@alston.com, managingclerksoffice‐
nyc@alston.com

Eric Joel Feder ericfeder@dwt.com, nycdocket@dwt.com, tracyjohnson@dwt.com

John E. Stephenson, Jr john.stephenson@alston.com, autodocket‐nyc@alston.com

Martin Gary Weinberg owlmgw@att.net, owlmcb@att.net

Sigrid S. McCawley smccawley@bsfllp.com, NYC_Managing_Clerk@bsfllp.com, achristie@bsfllp.com,
mschultz@bsfllp.com, sperkins@bsfllp.com

David A Lebowitz dlebowitz@ecbalaw.com, dedwards@ecbalaw.com, docketing@ecbalaw.com

Jay Marshall Wolman jmw@randazza.com, ecf@randazza.com

Meredith L Schultz mschultz@bsfllp.com, dknowlton@bsfllp.com

Paul G Cassell cassellp@law.utah.edu

Bradley James Edwards brad@epllc.com, ecf@epllc.com

John Pottinger stanpottinger@aol.com

Jack Alan Goldberger jgoldberger@agwpa.com, smahoney@agwpa.com

Christine Walz christine.walz@hklaw.com, elvin.ramos@hklaw.com, glenn.huzinec@hklaw.com

Madelaine Jane Woolfrey Harrington madelaine.harrington@hklaw.com, elvin.ramos@hklaw.com,
glenn.huzinec@hklaw.com

1:15‐cv‐07433‐RWS Notice has been delivered by other means to:

2
Case:
18-2868, Document As
4-2,of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399803,
09:56 AMPage3
EDT of
1 86
of 84
CLOSED,APPEAL,ECF
U.S. District Court
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:15−cv−07433−RWS

Related Case: 1:17−mc−00025−RWS Jury Demand: Both
17−01625 Slander
Cause: 28:1332ct Diversity−(Citizenship) Jurisdiction: Diversity
Plaintiff
Lehrman, P.L.
(954)−524−2820
Fax: (954)−524−2822
PRO HAC VICE
John Pottinger
49 Twin Lakes Road
(917)−446−4641
Meredith L Schultz
Suite 1200
(954)−356−0011
Fax: (954)−356−0022
Paul G Cassell
University of Utah
Salt Lake City, UT 84112−0730
(801)−585−5202
Fax: (801)−585−2750
Sigrid S. McCawley
954−356−0011
Fax: 954−356−0022
V.
Case:
4-2,of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399803,
09:56 AMPage4
EDT of
2 86
of 84
Defendant
Denver, CO 80203
(303)−831−7364
Fax: (303)−832−2628
PRO HAC VICE
Laura A. Menninger
Denver, CO 80203
(303)−831−7364
Fax: (303)−832−2628
V.
Respondent
New York, NY 10020
(212) 489−8230
Fax: (212) 489−8340
LEAD ATTORNEY
Laura R. Handman
Suite 200
Washington, DC 20006−3402
202 508−6600 x6624
Fax: 202 508−6699
LEAD ATTORNEY
Respondent
Poe & Burton PLLC
(202) 583−2500
Fax: (202) 583−0565
LEAD ATTORNEY

(561)−659−8305
Fax: (561)−835−8691
Case:
4-2,of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399803,
09:56 AMPage5
EDT of
3 86
of 84
LEAD ATTORNEY
PRO HAC VICE

Boston, MA 02116
617−227−3700
Fax: 617−338−9538
LEAD ATTORNEY

New York, NY 10036
(212) 506−3900
Fax: (212) 506−3950

Poe & Burton PLLC
(202)−583−2500
Fax: (202)−583−0565
Applicant
Miscellaneous
Fahringer & Dubno
New York, NY 10017
212−319−5351
Fax: 212−319−6657
LEAD ATTORNEY
Interested Party
90 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10016
(212) 210−9400
Fax: (212) 210−9444
LEAD ATTORNEY

Street
Atlanta, GA 30309
(404)−881−7697
Case:
4-2,of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399803,
09:56 AMPage6
EDT of
4 86
of 84
LEAD ATTORNEY
Interested Party
NYP Holdings, Inc.,
Interested Party
Daily News, L.P.
V.
Material Witness
LEAD ATTORNEY
John Pottinger
V.
Intervenor
New York, NY 10020
212−763−5000
Fax: 212−763−5001
LEAD ATTORNEY
David A Lebowitz
New York, NY 10020
(212) 763−5000
Fax: (212) 763−5001
Intervenor
Hartford, CT 06103
702−420−2001
Fax: 305−437−7662
LEAD ATTORNEY
Intervenor
Holland & Knight
31 West 52nd Street
New York, NY 10019
Case:
4-2,of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399803,
09:56 AMPage7
EDT of
5 86
of 84
(212)−513−3368
Fax: (212)−385−9010
LEAD ATTORNEY

701 Brickell Avenue
Suite 3000
Miami, FL 33131
(305)−789−7678
Fax: (305)−679−6335
LEAD ATTORNEY

31 West 52nd Street
New York, NY 10019
(212)−513−3374
Fax: (212)−385−9010
Email: madelaine.harrington@hklaw.com
Intervenor
LEAD ATTORNEY

LEAD ATTORNEY


Number 0208−11409928)Document filed by VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE.(McCawley,
09/21/2015 2 FILING ERROR − DEFICIENT PLEADING − SIGNATURE ERROR − CIVIL
09/21/2015)
(Entered: 09/21/2015)
09/21/2015 4 FILING ERROR − DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY − MOTION for Sigrid S.
09/21/2015)
VICE. Notice to RE−FILE Document No. 4 MOTION for Sigrid S. McCawley to
Case:
4-2,of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399803,
09:56 AMPage8
EDT of
6 86
of 84
Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number 0208−11410210.
Order;. Re−file the motion as a Corrected Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice −
attach the correct signed PDF − select the correct named filer/filers − attach valid
Certificates of Good Standing issued within the past 30 days − attach Proposed
Order.. (sdi) (Entered: 09/21/2015)
name was entered in all caps;. (dgo) (Entered: 09/22/2015)
09/22/2015 CASE OPENING INITIAL ASSIGNMENT NOTICE: The above−entitled action is
http://nysd.uscourts.gov/judges/District. Attorneys are responsible for providing
09/22/2015 5 ELECTRONIC SUMMONS ISSUED as to Ghislaine Maxwell. (dgo) (Entered:
09/22/2015)
09/25/2015 6 MOTION to Amend/Correct Notice Regarding Deficient Motion to Appear Pro Hac
09/25/2015 8 SUMMONS RETURNED EXECUTED Summons and Complaint served. Ghislaine
(ajs) (Entered: 09/29/2015)
10/08/2015)
dated 10/9/2015 re: I write pursuant to Section 1.E. of Your Honor's Individual
otherwise respond to Plaintiff's Complaint from October 13, 2015 up to and including
11/30/2015. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 10/12/2015) (rjm) (Entered:
10/13/2015)
Case:
4-2,of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399803,
09:56 AMPage9
EDT of
7 86
of 84
10/30/2015 13 ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. All motions are to be made returnable at
10/30/2015)
12/01/2015)
12/01/2015 15 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 14 MOTION to Dismiss . . Document filed
(Entered: 12/01/2015)
Decision on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
noon on January 14, 2016 in Courtroom 18C, United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl
Deadlines/Hearing as to 17 MOTION to Stay Discovery Pending Decision on
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. 14 MOTION to Dismiss. : Motion Hearing set for
(spo) (Entered: 12/02/2015)
12/10/2015 20 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 17 MOTION to Stay Discovery Pending
Decision on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit Composite
Exhibit 2 Part 1, # 3 Exhibit Composite Exhibit 2 Part 2, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit 3, # 5
Exhibit Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit Composite Exhibit 5 Part 1, # 7 Exhibit Composite
Exhibit 5 Part 2, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit 6, # 9 Exhibit Exhibit 7, # 10 Exhibit Exhibit 8, #
Pending Decision on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. . Document filed by Ghislaine
12/17/2015 23 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 14 MOTION to Dismiss . . Document
Case:
18-2868, Document 4-2,
As of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399803,
09:56 AMPage10
EDT of8 of
8684
respond or object to Plaintiff's First Request for Production within fourteen days of the
as set forth above. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge Robert W.
01/25/2016 30 NOTICE of Response to Defendant's Notice of Supplemental Authority re: 29 Notice
(Other). Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered:
01/25/2016)
Robert W. Sweet. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Michael McDaniel, (212) 805−0300.
Improper Claim of Privilege . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.(McCawley,
Privilege .. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2
Objections . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1
Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1, # 2
Exhibit 4 Part 2, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit 7, # 9
Exhibit 10 Part 2, # 13 Exhibit Exhibit 11)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 02/26/2016)
03/02/2016 38 MOTION for Protective Order . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.(Menninger,
Order .. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit
Case:
18-2868, Document 4-2,
As of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399803,
09:56 AMPage11
EDT of9 of
8684

03/04/2016 40 RESPONSE to Motion re: 38 MOTION for Protective Order . . Document filed by
Order .. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit,
(Entered: 03/04/2016)
Claim of Privilege . . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (McCawley, Sigrid)
(Entered: 03/07/2016)
(Entered: 03/07/2016)
Compel Ghislaine Maxwell to Produce Documents Subject To Improper Objections . .
(Entered: 03/07/2016)
Privilege .. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2
03/07/2016)
03/08/2016 48 ORDER: Plaintiff's motions to compel, filed February 26, and Defendant's motion for
03/09/2016 49 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 38 MOTION for Protective Order . . Document
(vf) (Entered: 03/10/2016)
W. Sweet on 1/13/2016) Copies Sent By Chambers. (spo) Modified on 3/14/2016
(spo). (Entered: 03/14/2016)
Case:
4-2,of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399803,
09:56 AMPage12
EDT 10of 86
of 84
Produce Documents Subject To Improper Objections . . Document filed by Virginia L.
Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1 Part 1, # 2
Exhibit Exhibit 3 Part 4, # 9 Exhibit Exhibit 4, # 10 Exhibit Exhibit 5, # 11 Exhibit
Exhibit 6, # 12 Exhibit Exhibit 7 Part 1, # 13 Exhibit Exhibit 7 Part 2, # 14 Exhibit
Exhibit 7 Part 3, # 15 Exhibit Exhibit 8, # 16 Exhibit Exhibit 9, # 17 Exhibit Exhibit
Maxwell to Produce Documents Subject to Improper Claim of Privilege . . Document
03/14/2016)
(ldi). (Entered: 03/15/2016)
(Other) And Incorporated Memorandum of Law. Document filed by Virginia L.
Giuffre.(McCawley, Sigrid) Modified on 3/17/2016 (ldi). (Entered: 03/15/2016)
(rjm) (Entered: 03/16/2016)
03/16/2016 61 ORDER: Plaintiff's motions for leave to serve rolling production and privilege log,
03/16/2016)
Motions. (ldi) (Entered: 03/17/2016)
Case:
4-2,of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399803,
09:56 AMPage13
EDT 11of 86
of 84
(Other) And Incorporated Memorandum of Law. Use the event type Memorandum
Supporting Documents. (ldi) (Entered: 03/17/2016)
(mro) (Entered: 03/18/2016)
03/22/2016 63 MOTION for Protective Order Regarding Deposition of Defendant. Document filed by
Order Regarding Deposition of Defendant.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
(Entered: 03/22/2016)
W. Sweet. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Vincent Bologna, (212) 805−0300. Transcript
03/23/2016 68 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 64 MOTION to Compel Plaintiff to Disclose
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 26. . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit
Deposition of Defendant. . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (McCawley, Sigrid)
(Entered: 03/23/2016)
Order Regarding Deposition of Defendant.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
Exhibit Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit 6)(McCawley, Sigrid)
(Entered: 03/23/2016)
Case:
4-2,of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399803,
09:56 AMPage14
EDT 12of 86
of 84

(Entered: 03/24/2016)
03/24/2016 73 ORDER: Plaintiff's motion to compel Defendant to produce documents subject to
proceedings held March 17, 2016, docket no. 66. With respect to Plaintiff's motion to
(spo) (Entered: 03/24/2016)
(spo) (Entered: 03/28/2016)
03/31/2016 75 MOTION to Compel Responses to Defendant's First Set of Discovery Requests to
Plaintiff. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.(Menninger, Laura) (Entered:
03/31/2016)
Defendant's First Set of Discovery Requests to Plaintiff. . Document filed by Virginia
by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2, # 3
Exhibit Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit
04/05/2016 80 MOTION for Paul G. Cassell to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt
04/05/2016)
deficiencies. (wb) (Entered: 04/05/2016)
W. Sweet. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Pamela Utter, (212) 805−0300. Transcript may
Case:
4-2,of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399803,
09:56 AMPage15
EDT 13of 86
of 84
for 7/11/2016.(Grant, Patricia) (Entered: 04/07/2016)
04/07/2016 84 ORDER: Defendant's letter objection to pro hac vice admission of Paul G. Cassell,
Wednesday April 13, 2016. Plaintiff's reply to Defendant's letter, if any, shall be
4/6/2016) (spo) (Entered: 04/07/2016)
04/07/2016 85 ORDER: Defendant' s motion to compel, filed March 31, 2016, shall be heard at noon
on April 21, 2016 in Courtroom 18C, United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street.
Certificate Good Standing_Edwards, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Edwards, Bradley)
(Entered: 04/07/2016)
No. 86 MOTION for Bradley James Edwards to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee
04/07/2016 87 MOTION for Adjournment of Hearing on April 13, 2016 . Document filed by
04/08/2016 88 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 86 MOTION for Bradley James Edwards to
21, 2016. Plaintiff's reply to Defendant's letter with respect to Mr. Cassell, if any,
Plaintiff's reply to Defendant's objection with respect to Mr. Edwards shall be
4/8/2016) (mro) (Entered: 04/11/2016)
York, NY 10007 before Judge Robert W. Sweet. (mro) (Entered: 04/11/2016)
Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number 0208−12149795. Motion and supporting
Case:
4-2,of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399803,
09:56 AMPage16
EDT 14of 86
of 84
staff. . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Schultz, Meredith) (Entered:

04/10/2016)
04/11/2016 91 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages For Reply In Support Of Defendants Motion
04/11/2016)
First Set of Discovery Requests to Plaintiff. . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
04/11/2016 93 FILING ERROR − DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY (SEE 94 Declaration) −
to Defendant's First Set of Discovery Requests to Plaintiff.. Document filed by
4/12/2016 (db). (Entered: 04/11/2016)
04/11/2016)
(spo) (Entered: 04/12/2016)
(Entered: 04/13/2016)
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6
04/15/2016 98 ORDER denying in part 96 Motion for Clarification of the Court's order and Forensic
examination. Plaintiff's motion for clarification of the Court's March 17, 2016 ruling is
before April 21, 2016. Plaintiff's reply, if any, shall be served on or before April 25,
First Set of Discovery Requests to Plaintiff. Resubmitted. Document filed by Ghislaine
Sealed Records Clerk for the sealing or unsealing of document or case. (cf) (Entered:
04/15/2016)
04/18/2016 101 MOTION to Compel Plaintiff to Disclose Alleged "On−going Criminal Investigations
Disclose Alleged "On−going Criminal Investigations by Law Enforcement [sic]" or, In
the Alternative, to Stay Proceedings. . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
Case:
4-2,of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399803,
09:56 AMPage17
EDT 15of 86
of 84
Plaintiff to Disclose Alleged "On−going Criminal Investigations by Law Enforcement
(Entered: 04/19/2016)
for Admission Pro Hac Vice by Paul G. Cassell, and Bradley J Edwards. Document
04/19/2016)
4/20/2016 (db). (Entered: 04/19/2016)
Plaintiff's motion to compel Defendant to Produce Documents Subject to Improper
motion for a protective order regarding deposition of Defendant, filed March 22, 2016,
24, 2016. Tr. 4:7−7:16, ECF No. 82. Defendant's motion to compel Plaintiff to
04/20/2016)
(non−motion) found under the event list Other Answers. (db) (Entered:
04/20/2016)
Opposition and Supporting Documents, then link to 80 and 86 Motions. (db)
(Entered: 04/20/2016)
04/20/2016 108 DECLARATION of Jeffrey S. Pagliuca in Support re: 107 Objection (non−motion),,.
04/21/2016 110 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 96 MOTION for Clarification of Court's
Order and For Forensic Examination . . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
(Entered: 04/21/2016)
Case:
4-2,of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399803,
09:56 AMPage18
EDT 16of 86
of 84
on 4/21/2016 re: [10 MOTION to Compel Plaintiff to Disclose Alleged "On−going
Proceedings. filed by Ghislaine Maxwell, 80 MOTION for Paul G. Cassell to Appear
Pro Hac Vic Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number 0208−12149795.Motion and
leave to renew, and Defndant's motion to compel ECF No. 101 is granted in part and
200.00, receipt number 0208−12149795 Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed
by Clerk's Office staff filed by Virginia L. Giuffre, 75 MOTION to Compel Responses
receipt number 0208−12160815 and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's
Alleged "On−going Criminal Investigations by Law Enforcement [sic]" or, In the
(Entered: 04/21/2016)
3 Exhibit)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 04/21/2016)
04/21/2016 116 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 112 MOTION for Paul G. Cassell to
(Entered: 04/21/2016)
Case:
4-2,of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399803,
09:56 AMPage19
EDT 17of 86
of 84
reviewed and there are no deficiencies. (sdi) (Entered: 04/22/2016)

reviewed and there are no deficiencies. (bcu) (Entered: 04/22/2016)
04/22/2016 118 ORDER FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE granting 115 Motion for Bradley J.
(mro) (Entered: 04/22/2016)
Sigrid McCawley dated April 25, 2016. Document filed by Virginia L.
Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit REDACTED, # 8 Exhibit REDACTED)(McCawley,
AFFIDAVIT of Erika Perez in Support re: 96 MOTION for Clarification of Court's
(McCawley, Sigrid) Modified on 4/27/2016 (ldi). (Entered: 04/26/2016)
04/27/2016 124 MOTION Unopposed for Adjournment of Hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Forensic
04/27/2016)
found under the event list Service of Process. (ldi) (Entered: 04/27/2016)
04/28/2016 126 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE of Plaintiff's Non−Redacted Reply in Support of Motion
Pagliuca on April 26, 2016. Service was made by E−MAIL. Document filed by
Plaintiff's motion for a forensic examination is adjourned and shall instead be heard at
noon on May 12, 2016 in Courtroom 18C, United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street.
18C, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Robert W. Sweet. (spo)
(Entered: 04/28/2016)
Case:
4-2,of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399803,
09:56 AMPage20
EDT 18of 86
of 84
04/29/2016 130 Objection re: 128 Notice (Other) to Submission of Law Enforcement Materials for In
04/29/2016)
05/01/2016 131 RESPONSE re: 130 Objection (non−motion) . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
05/01/2016 132 DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in Opposition re: 130 Objection (non−motion).
Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(McCawley, Sigrid)
(Entered: 05/01/2016)
05/02/2016 134 ORDER: With respect to Plaintiff's April 28, 2016 in camera submissions, the Plaintiff
is directed to submit a log in camera on or before April 4, 2016, identifying the
Giuffre. For the foregoing reasons and as set forth above, Plaintiff's motion to compel
on 5/4/2016 (ca). (Entered: 05/02/2016)
W. Sweet. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Steven Greenblum, (212) 805−0300. Transcript
05/04/2016 138 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Brief in Support of the Privilege Claimed for In
05/04/2016)
McCawley in Support. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1
Case:
4-2,of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399803,
09:56 AMPage21
EDT 19of 86
of 84
05/05/2016 142 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant to
McCawley dated May 5, 2016. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.(McCawley,
05/05/2016)
sealing or unsealing of document or case. (spo) (Entered: 05/06/2016)
05/06/2016 147 ORDER: Plaintiff's motion to compel, filed May 5, 2016, shall be heard at noon on
Thursday May 12, 2016 in Courtroom 18C, United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl
(Entered: 05/10/2016)
05/11/2016)
Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell to Answer Deposition Questions Redacted. . Document
Exhibit 2 Part 1, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 2 Part 2, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit 2 Part 3, # 5 Exhibit
Exhibit 3 Part 1, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit 3 Part 2, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit 4, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit
05/11/2016)
Case:
4-2,of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399803,
09:56 AMPage22
EDT 20of 86
of 84
on 5/12/2016 re: 143 MOTION to Compel Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell to Answer
05/20/2016 155 MOTION to Compel Non−Privileged Documents. Document filed by Ghislaine
1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, #
05/20/2016)
(Entered: 05/23/2016)
05/25/2016 159 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Serve Three
(Entered: 05/25/2016)
1, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2 Redacted, # 3 Exhibit Composite Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit
Exhibit Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit Composite Exhibit 9)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered:
05/25/2016)
05/26/2016 164 MOTION to Compel all Attorney−Client Communications and Work Product Put At
Attorneys.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2
Case:
4-2,of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399803,
09:56 AMPage23
EDT 21of 86
of 84
M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P, # 17 Exhibit Q)(Menninger, Laura)

(Entered: 05/26/2016)
05/27/2016 166 ORDER: Plaintiff's motion for leave to serve, filed May 25, 2016, shall be heard at
noon on Thursday June 2, 2016 in Courtroom 18C, United States Courthouse, 500
05/27/2016)
(kgo) (Entered: 05/27/2016)
05/27/2016 171 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Plaintiff's Motion to Exceed Presumptive Ten
05/27/2016)
Exhibit Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit 5 Redacted, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit 6 Redacted, # 7
Exhibit Exhibit 7 Part 1, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit 7 Part 2, # 9 Exhibit Exhibit 8, # 10
05/27/2016 174 ORDER: All pending motions scheduled to be heard at noon on Thursday June 2, 2016
05/27/2016 175 NOTICE of of Acceptance of Service re: 160 MOTION for Leave to Serve Three
05/27/2016 176 MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to 24−Page Motion on Attorney−Client
05/27/2016)
to Compel Non−Privileged Documents addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from
5/31/2016) (kko) (Entered: 05/31/2016)
case. (kko) (Entered: 05/31/2016)
Case:
4-2,of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399803,
09:56 AMPage24
EDT 22of 86
of 84
05/31/2016 179 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 155 MOTION to Compel Non−Privileged
Documents. . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Schultz, Meredith) (Entered:
05/31/2016)
Non−Privileged Documents.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: #
Redacted, # 6 Redacted, # 7 Exhibit)(Schultz, Meredith) (Entered: 05/31/2016)
06/01/2016 181 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document 164 MOTION to Compel all Attorney−Client
Communications and Work Product Put At Issue by Plaintiff and Her Attorneys.
06/01/2016)
06/01/2016 184 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 164 MOTION to Compel all Attorney−Client
Seal Document 164 MOTION to Compel all Attorney−Client Communications and
Work Product Put At Issue by Plaintiff and Her Attorneys. addressed to Judge Robert
Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10
Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11 Sealed, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13 Sealed, # 14
(Entered: 06/01/2016)
06/02/2016 Minute Entry The motions on June 2, 2016 was taken on submission. (Chan, Tsz)
(Entered: 06/07/2016)
06/06/2016 187 ORDER: Plaintiff's motion to exceed the ten deposition limit shall be returnable on
submission on June 16, 2016. All papers shall be served in accordance with Local
06/06/2016)
5/31/2016) (spo) (Entered: 06/06/2016)
Deposition Limit Redacted. . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger,
06/06/2016 191 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 155 MOTION to Compel Non−Privileged
Documents. . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura) (Entered:
06/06/2016)
Case:
4-2,of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399803,
09:56 AMPage25
EDT 23of 86
of 84
1 Exhibit K, # 2 Exhibit L, # 3 Exhibit M)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 06/06/2016)
06/06/2016 193 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 164 MOTION to Compel all Attorney−Client
06/10/2016 200 DECLARATION of Sigrid S. McCawley in Support re: 199 MOTION for Extension
172 MOTION To Exceed Presumptive Ten Deposition Limit Redacted. . Document
06/13/2016 204 DECLARATION of Sigrid S. McCawley in Support re: 202 LETTER MOTION to
06/13/2016)
06/13/2016 205 MOTION for Protective Order re Subpoena to Apple, Inc. Seeking Production of All of
Order re Subpoena to Apple, Inc. Seeking Production of All of Ms. Giuffre's Sent and
Production of All of Ms. Giuffre's Sent and Received Emails and Related Data.
Order re the Subpoena to Microsoft Corporation Seeking Production of All of Ms.
Case:
4-2,of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399803,
09:56 AMPage26
EDT 24of 86
of 84

06/13/2016)
(rjm) (Entered: 06/14/2016)
06/14/2016 210 ORDER. Plaintiff's motions for a protective order, to maintain the confidentiality
1 to Churcher Decl., # 2 Exhibit 2 to Churcher Decl., # 3 Exhibit 3 to Churcher Decl.,
# 4 Exhibit 4 to Churcher Decl., # 5 Exhibit 5 to Churcher Decl., # 6 Exhibit 6 to
Churcher Decl., # 7 Exhibit 7 to Churcher Decl., # 8 Exhibit 8 to Churcher
Decl.)(Feder, Eric) (Entered: 06/15/2016)
1 Exhibit A to Handman Decl.)(Feder, Eric) (Entered: 06/15/2016)
Sharon Churcher . . Document filed by Sharon Churcher. (Feder, Eric) (Entered:
06/15/2016)
Subpoena and for a Protective Order. Document filed by Jeffrey Epstein.(Li Wai
Jeffrey Epstein or in the Alternative Modify Subpoena and for a Protective Order. .
Case:
4-2,of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399803,
09:56 AMPage27
EDT 25of 86
of 84
of Jeffrey Epstein or in the Alternative Modify Subpoena and for a Protective Order..
Deposition Limit Redacted. AMENDED. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
6/20/2016) (ama) (Entered: 06/20/2016)
06/20/2016)
06/20/2016 227 ORDER: Sharon Churcher' s motion to quash shall be heard at noon on Thursday June
06/20/2016)
Complete Depositions. . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 06/20/2016)
E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11
(Entered: 06/20/2016)
06/20/2016 230 MOTION to Reopen Deposition of Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre . Document filed by
26(a).. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2
M, # 14 Exhibit N)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 06/20/2016)
Epstein or in the Alternative Modify Subpoena and for a Protective Order. . Document
Case:
4-2,of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399803,
09:56 AMPage28
EDT 26of 86
of 84
Exhibit Exhibit 5 Part 1 of 3, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit 5 Part 2 of 3, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit 5
E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit K, # 11
Exhibit L, # 12 Exhibit M, # 13 Exhibit N)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 06/21/2016)
(rjm) (Entered: 06/21/2016)
06/21/2016)
06/21/2016 237 ORDER with respect to 230 Motion to Reopen Plaintiff's deposition; with respect to
231 Motion for Sanctions: Defendant's motion to reopen Plaintiff's deposition and
6/21/2016) (tn) (Entered: 06/21/2016)
of Jeffrey Epstein or in the Alternative Modify Subpoena and for a Protective Order. .
Subpoena and for a Protective Order.. Document filed by Jeffrey Epstein.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Li Wai Suen, Rachel) (Entered: 06/21/2016)
Sigrid S. McCawley dated June 22, 2016. Document filed by Virginia L.
Churcher . . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura) (Entered:
06/22/2016)
subpoena of Sharon Churcher .. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments:
(Entered: 06/22/2016)
Case:
4-2,of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399803,
09:56 AMPage29
EDT 27of 86
of 84
# 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit REDACTED, # 5 Exhibit, # 6

Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit,
6/23/2016) (rjm) (Entered: 06/24/2016)
06/24/2016)
granted.Microsoft Subpoena: Motion to quash granted, with leave to renew.Churcher
06/24/2016) (mps) (Entered: 06/24/2016)
Quash. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 6/23/2016) (rjm) (Entered: 06/24/2016)
(rjm) (Entered: 06/24/2016)
Meredith Schultz dated June 28, 2016. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.(Schultz,
Defendant's Motion to Reopen Plaintiff's Deposition addressed to Judge Robert W.
06/28/2016)
Case:
4-2,of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399803,
09:56 AMPage30
EDT 28of 86
of 84
(Entered: 06/28/2016)
REDACTED−CORRECTED. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Schultz,
07/05/2016 262 LETTER MOTION for Leave to File Reply Brief in Further Support of Motion to
J. Feder dated July 5, 2016. Document filed by Sharon Churcher.(Feder, Eric)
(Entered: 07/05/2016)
of Sharon Churcher . . Document filed by Sharon Churcher. (Feder, Eric) (Entered:
07/05/2016)
dated 6/30/2016 re: I write to request a brief 3−day extension of time to file Ms.
Maxwell's Reply in Support of her Motions to Re−open Plaintiff's Deposition and for
Rule 37(b) and (c) Sanctions until July 8, 2016. ENDORSEMENT: So ordered.
(Replies due by 7/8/2016.) (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 7/5/2016) (rjm)
(Entered: 07/07/2016)
Giuffre. So ordered. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 7/5/2016) (rjm) (Entered:
07/07/2016)
Virginia Giuffre . . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 07/08/2016)
to Comply with Court Order and Failure to Comply with Rule 26(a). . Document filed
26(a).. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit O, # 2
Case:
4-2,of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399803,
09:56 AMPage31
EDT 29of 86
of 84
Exhibit P, # 3 Exhibit Q, # 4 Exhibit R, # 5 Exhibit S, # 6 Exhibit T)(Menninger,

07/12/2016 272 LETTER MOTION for Leave to File Sur−Reply addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet
from Sigrid McCawley dated July 12, 2016. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit REDACTED Sur−Reply, # 2 Exhibit REDACTED
REDACTED Exhibit 5, # 8 Exhibit REDACTED Exhibit 6, # 9 Exhibit REDACTED
Exhibit 7, # 10 Exhibit REDACTED Exhibit 8)(Schultz, Meredith) (Entered:
07/12/2016)
Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Reopen Plaintiff's Deposition addressed to Judge
(rjm) (Entered: 07/13/2016)
REDACTED OPINION. ENDORSEMENT: So ordered. re: 264 NOTICE of of
07/13/2016)
07/13/2016)
the sealing or unsealing of document or case. (rjm) (Entered: 07/13/2016)
Sweet. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Vincent Bologna, (212) 805−0300. Transcript may
07/13/2016 278 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Plaintiff's Motion for an Adverse Inference
07/13/2016)
Case:
4-2,of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399803,
09:56 AMPage32
EDT 30of 86
of 84
Court to strike and disregard Plaintiff's Sur−Reply in Response to Defendant's Reply
07/15/2016)
07/15/2016 287 ORDER with respect to 279 Motion for Sanctions: Plaintiff's motion for an adverse
(Entered: 07/15/2016)
Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit
07/18/2016)
from Laura A. Menninger dated June 15, 201 REDACTED. Document filed by
Case:
4-2,of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399803,
09:56 AMPage33
EDT 31of 86
of 84
Plaintiff's Sur−Reply in Response to Defendant's Reply in Support of Motion for
Sanctions, or in the alternative, permit Ms. Maxwell to file a Sur Sur−Reply
contemporaneously with the Sur−Reply. ENDORSEMENT: Sur sur reply permitted.
07/19/2016)
201. Use the event type Letter found under the event list Other Documents. (db)
(Entered: 07/22/2016)
15, 2016 re: Motion to Strike Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Motion for an Adverse
by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 07/22/2016)
07/22/2016 301 ORDER: Defendant's motion to strike Plaintiff's motion for an Adverse Inference
filing of this order. The briefing schedule and submission date for Plaintiff's motion for
(cf) (Entered: 07/22/2016)
to Modify Pretrial Scheduling Order re: 13 Scheduling Order, . Document filed by
Sur−Reply addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Sigrid McCawley dated July 12,
2016. Defendant's Sur Sur−Reply In Support of Motion for Rule 37(b) & (c) Sanctions.
Exhibit V, # 3 Exhibit W, # 4 Exhibit X)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 07/25/2016)
07/25/2016 305 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Plaintiff's Motion for an Extension of Time to
07/25/2016)
Case:
4-2,of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399803,
09:56 AMPage34
EDT 32of 86
of 84
5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit REDACTED, # 8 Exhibit REDACTED, # 9
07/25/2016 308 MOTION for Sanctions and finding Civil Contempt against Sarah Kellen for Ignoring
07/25/2016)
07/25/2016 310 MOTION for Sanctions and for Finding of Civil Contempt Against Nadia Marcinkova
(Entered: 07/25/2016)
07/29/2016 314 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Motion to Enforce the Court's Order addressed
to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Meredith Schultz dated July 29, 2016. Document filed
07/29/2016 316 FILING ERROR − DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY − DECLARATION of
Modify Pretrial Scheduling Order re: 13 Scheduling Order. Document filed by
Ghislaine Maxwell. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 7/30/2016) (rjm). (Entered:
08/01/2016)
08/01/2016 318 ORDER: Plaintiff's motions for a finding of civil contempt against Sarah Kellen and
(Entered: 08/01/2016)
Case:
4-2,of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399803,
09:56 AMPage35
EDT 33of 86
of 84
08/01/2016)
Concerning Forensic Examination Of Devices.. Document filed by Ghislaine
08/01/2016 322 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Plaintiff's Proposed Search Terms addressed to
08/02/2016 326 ORDER: Plaintiff's second motion to compel defendant to answer deposition questions
08/02/2016)
08/02/2016 327 ORDER: Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to serve process upon and depose
dated 7/25/2016 re: This is a letter motion to file Ms. Maxwell's Sur Sur−Reply In
Examination of Computer Device and supporting exhibits under seal pursuant to this
# 1 Exhibit 1 (Composite), # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, #
6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7)(Schultz, Meredith) (Entered: 08/03/2016)
Case:
4-2,of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399803,
09:56 AMPage36
EDT 34of 86
of 84
Complete Discovery to Serve and Depose Ross Gow. . Document filed by Ghislaine
08/08/2016)
08/08/2016 337 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Plaintiff's Supplement to Motion for Adverse
Questions.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2
Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 08/08/2016)
08/09/2016 344 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Plaintiff's Motion to Compel addressed to Judge
and Improper Claim of Privilege. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.(Schultz,
of Privilege.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit
Case:
4-2,of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399803,
09:56 AMPage37
EDT 35of 86
of 84
motion. It is so ordered. Granting 322 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Plaintiff's
Giuffre; Granting 337 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Plaintiff's Supplement to
by Virginia L. Giuffre; Granting 344 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Plaintiff's
to Plaintiff's Motion to Enforce the Court's Order and Direct Defendant to Answer
08/10/2016)
08/10/2016)
08/10/2016)
Plaintiff's August 1, 2016 submission. Defendant will search all text and associated
8/9/2016) (rjm) (Entered: 08/10/2016)
the event list Motions. (db) (Entered: 08/10/2016)
Case:
4-2,of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399803,
09:56 AMPage38
EDT 36of 86
of 84
DOCKET ENTRY ERROR. Notice to Attorney Meredith L Schultz to RE−FILE
08/10/2016 353 MOTION to Strike Document No. [338, and all supporting documents] to Plaintiff's
08/10/2016 354 MOTION to Compel Responses to Defendant's Second Set of Discovery Requests to
Plaintiff, and for Sanctions. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.(Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 08/10/2016)
08/11/2016)
[SCHULTZ DECLARATION ISO_DE 356_MOTION]. Document filed by Virginia L.
Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2 (Sealed), # 3 Exhibit 3 (Sealed), # 4
(Entered: 08/11/2016)
a civil proceeding in the above−captioned action which is pending before this Court,
(Entered: 08/11/2016)
Thursday, September 1, 2016. All papers shall be served pursuant to Local Civil Rule
Modify Protective Order.( Return Date set for 9/8/2016 at 12:00 PM.) Document filed
Case:
4-2,of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399803,
09:56 AMPage39
EDT 37of 86
of 84
Document filed by Alan M. Dershowitz. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, #
3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H,
# 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14
[SCHULTZ DECLARATION ISO_DE 356_MOTION]. Use the event type
and Supporting Documents. (db) (Entered: 08/12/2016)
ISO_DE 356_MOTION]., 315 MOTION to Compel and Motion to Enforce the Court's
QUESTIONS [SCHULTZ DECLARATION ISO_DE 356_MOTION]., 356 MOTION to
SEAL. . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Schultz, Meredith) (Entered:
08/12/2016)
ISO_DE 356_MOTION].. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1
8/15/2016) (cf) (Entered: 08/15/2016)
Case:
4-2,of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399803,
09:56 AMPage40
EDT 38of 86
of 84
and unsealing shall be taken on submission returnable Thursday, September 8, 2016.
and all supporting documents] to Plaintiff's Supplement to Motion for Adverse
Inference Instruction Based on New Information. . Document filed by Virginia L.
NON−PARTY JEFFREY EPSTEIN: Undersigned counsel and non−party Jeffrey
Beach, Florida 33401, (561) 207−8305, shall enter an appearance on behalf of Mr.
Epstein as a non−party in this action. So ordered. Attorney Jack Alan Goldberger for
terminated. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 8/17/2016) (rjm) (Entered:
08/17/2016)
08/17/2016 377 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Plaintiff's Response In Opposition to
Defendant's Motion to Compel and for Sanctions. Document filed by Virginia L.
Defendant's Second Set of Discovery Requests to Plaintiff, and for Sanctions. .
Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit
Produce Documents Subject to Improper Objection and Improper Claim of Privilege. .
of Privilege.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2
08/19/2016)
Case:
4-2,of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399803,
09:56 AMPage41
EDT 39of 86
of 84
08/19/2016)
08/19/2016)
Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Composite Sealed 1, # 2 Exhibit Sealed
2, # 3 Exhibit Sealed 3, # 4 Exhibit Sealed 4)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered:
08/23/2016)
354 MOTION to Compel Responses to Defendant's Second Set of Discovery Requests
to Plaintiff, and for Sanctions: Replies due by 8/25/2016. (Signed by Judge Robert W.
(Entered: 08/23/2016)
08/23/2016 396 ORDER with respect to 390 Motion to Compel: Plaintiff's motion to compel defendant
on 8/23/2016) (tn) (Entered: 08/23/2016)
of Privilege. . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered:
08/24/2016)
of Privilege.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed
Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit Sealed Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit Sealed Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit
Sealed Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit Sealed Exhibit 5)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered:
08/24/2016)
Case:
4-2,of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399803,
09:56 AMPage42
EDT 40of 86
of 84
08/25/2016 400 MOTION for Leave to File A Sur−Reply or, Alternatively, to Strike Plaintiff's
File A Sur−Reply or, Alternatively, to Strike Plaintiff's Misrepresentations of Fact to
the Court .. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2
Sanctions. . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura) (Entered:
08/25/2016)
08/26/2016 LETTERS ROGATORY ISSUED on August 26, 2016, and picked up by Boies,
Wales Foreign Process Section. (km) (Entered: 08/26/2016)
08/29/2016)
Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10
No. 409 MOTION for Jack A. Goldberger to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $
Case:
4-2,of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399803,
09:56 AMPage43
EDT 41of 86
of 84
(kko) (Entered: 08/30/2016)

10−page limit. ENDORSEMENT: So ordered. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on
8/30/2016) (kko) (Entered: 08/30/2016)
Relief, . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.(Edwards, Bradley) (Entered:
08/31/2016)
Information to Plaintiff . . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 09/01/2016)
09/06/2016 418 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 390 MOTION to Compel Defendant to Produce
Financial Information to Plaintiff . . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Schultz,
(rjm) (Entered: 09/06/2016)
Sealed Records Clerk for the sealing or unsealing of document or case. (kl) (Entered:
09/06/2016)
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Menninger,
09/07/2016)
Case:
4-2,of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399803,
09:56 AMPage44
EDT 42of 86
of 84
on 9/7/2016) (rjm) (Entered: 09/07/2016)

Order. addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Andrew G. Celli, Jr. and David A.
Dershowitz.(Lebowitz, David) (Entered: 09/07/2016)
deposition (2) that Nadia Marcinkova and Sarah Kellen pay Giuffre's costs and
(Entered: 09/15/2016)
Document filed by Alan M. Dershowitz. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit O, # 2 Exhibit P, #
3 Exhibit Q, # 4 Exhibit R, # 5 Exhibit S, # 6 Exhibit T, # 7 Exhibit U, # 8 Exhibit V,
MOTION to Unseal Document or in the Alternative to Modify Protective Order. .
9/19/2016) (rjm) (Entered: 09/19/2016)
09/20/2016)
Case:
4-2,of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399803,
09:56 AMPage45
EDT 43of 86
of 84
09/21/2016 441 MOTION for Discovery for Court Approval of Plaintiff's Certification of Production.
09/21/2016 442 DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in Support re: 441 MOTION for Discovery for
Court Approval of Plaintiff's Certification of Production.. Document filed by Virginia
L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2 Sealed, # 3 Exhibit 3 Sealed, # 4
09/26/2016 444 LETTER MOTION for Leave to File a less−redacted version of Professor Dershowitzs
09/26/2016)
on 9/27/2016) (rjm) (Entered: 09/27/2016)
Robert W. Sweet from Andrew G. Celli dated 9/26/2016. . Document filed by Virginia
09/29/2016 448 NOTICE of Plaintiff's Notice of English Court's Issuance of Order Commanding Ross
Exhibit Composite Exhibit 1)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 09/29/2016)
09/30/2016 449 MOTION to Compel Testimony of Jeffrey Epstein. Document filed by Ghislaine
Testimony of Jeffrey Epstein.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: #
1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit
09/30/2016 451 JOINT MOTION re: 13 Scheduling Order, Amended Proposed Discovery and Case
10/03/2016 452 ORDER re: 444 LETTER MOTION for Leave to File a less−redacted version of
September 26, 2016 letter motion for leave to publicly file a less−redacted version of
10/03/2016)
Case:
4-2,of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399803,
09:56 AMPage46
EDT 44of 86
of 84
Leave to File a less−redacted version of Professor Dershowitzs Reply Declaration
10/3/2016) (cf) (Entered: 10/03/2016)
2/10/2017. (cf) (Entered: 10/03/2016)
6, 2016 re: Plaintiff's Proposed Order Granting Leave to File Less Redacted
10/06/2016)
REPLY DECLARATION. Proposed Intervenor Alan M. Dershowitz's Motion to
re−file Dershowitz's Reply Declaration with all references to paragraphs 20 and 21 of
Intervenor Alan M. Dershowitz is directed to re−file Dershowitz' s Reply Declaration
with all references to paragraphs 20 and 21 of Mr. Cassell' s declaration unredacted
Dershowitz. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 10/6/2016) (rjm) (Entered:
10/11/2016)
or case. (rjm) (Entered: 10/11/2016)
to Compel Testimony of Jeffrey Epstein., 459 LETTER MOTION for Extension of
Goldberger dated October 5, 2016. addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Sigrid
McCawley dated October 11, 2016. Document filed by Virginia L.
449 MOTION to Compel Testimony of Jeffrey Epstein: So ordered. Responses due by
10/11/2016)
Case:
4-2,of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399803,
09:56 AMPage47
EDT 45of 86
of 84
Deadlines/Hearing as to 449 MOTION to Compel Testimony of Jeffrey Epstein. :

Robert W. Sweet from Jack Goldberger dated October 5, 2016. addressed to Judge
(rjm) (Entered: 10/13/2016)
(Entered: 10/14/2016)
(Entered: 10/14/2016)
Account and for an Adverse Inference Instruction. Document filed by Virginia L.
# 1 Exhibit Sealed Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit Sealed Composite Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit
10/17/2016 470 RESPONSE to Motion re: 449 MOTION to Compel Testimony of Jeffrey Epstein. .
Testimony of Jeffrey Epstein.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: #
10/17/2016 472 ORDER: Plaintiff's motion to reopen Defendant's deposition and motion to compel
shall be heard at noon on Thursday, November 3, 2016 in Courtroom 18C, United
Defendant's Late Production of New, Key Documents. : Motion Hearing set for
(cla) (Entered: 10/17/2016)
Jeffrey Epstein. . Document filed by Jeffrey Epstein. (Goldberger, Jack) (Entered:
10/17/2016)
Testimony of Jeffrey Epstein.. Document filed by Jeffrey Epstein. (Goldberger, Jack)
(Entered: 10/17/2016)
Case:
4-2,of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399803,
09:56 AMPage48
EDT 46of 86
of 84

(rjm) (Entered: 10/21/2016)
10/24/2016 478 NOTICE of Plaintiff's Notice of Nadia Marcinkova's Failure to Appear at Her
Deposition. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2
Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 10/24/2016)
to Produce Data from Undisclosed Email Account and for an Adverse Inference
Instruction. . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura) (Entered:
10/24/2016)
(Entered: 10/24/2016)
Documents.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2
10/24/2016)
10/24/2016 483 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 449 MOTION to Compel Testimony of Jeffrey
Epstein. . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura) (Entered:
10/24/2016)
10/26/2016 484 ORDER. Non−party Sharon Churcher's request for issuance of the redacted version of
(rjm) (Entered: 10/26/2016)
on 10/27/2016) (kl) (Entered: 10/27/2016)
10/27/2016 486 ORDER: Non−party Sharon Churcher's request for issuance of the redacted version of
heard at noon on Thursday, November 10, 2016 in Courtroom 18C, United States
10/27/2016)
scheduled on November 3, 2016 to November 10, 2016 because counsel for Ms.
Maxwell are unavailable on November 3, 2016. ENDORSEMENT: So ordered.
Case:
4-2,of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399803,
09:56 AMPage49
EDT 47of 86
of 84
Produce Data from Undisclosed Email Account and for an Adverse Inference
(Entered: 10/28/2016)
Based on Defendant's Late Production of New, Key Documents. REDACTED.
one of the defense rebuttal expert opinions by one business day from October 28, 2016
to October 31, 2016. ENDORSEMENT: So ordered. (Signed by Judge Robert W.
of Jeffrey Epstein. filed by Ghislaine Maxwell, 466 MOTION to Reopen Defendant's
Deposition Based on Defendant's Late Production of New, Key Documents filed by
11/16/2016 500 FILING ERROR − NO ORDER SELECTED FOR APPEAL − NOTICE OF
505.00, receipt number 0208−12994142. Form C and Form D are due within 14 days
(Entered: 11/16/2016)
attorney Celli, Andrew to RE−FILE Document No. 500 Notice of Interlocutory
being appealed was not selected. Re−file the appeal using the event type
Corrected Notice of Appeal found under the event list Appeal Documents −
attach the correct signed PDF − select the correct named filer/filers − select the
correct order/judgment being appealed. (tp) (Entered: 11/17/2016)
accordance with Local Civil Rule 6.1. IT IS SO ORDERED., ( Oral Argument set for
Case:
4-2,of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399803,
09:56 AMPage50
EDT 48of 86
of 84
(ama) (Entered: 11/17/2016)
of Portions of Court's November 2, 2016 Order. Document filed by Ghislaine
Sharon Churcher , filed by Sharon Churcher. Upon the conclusions set forth above, the
11/21/2016)
Second Circuit. (tp) (Entered: 11/23/2016)
505.00. Pay.gov receipt number 0208−12994142, paid on 11/16/2016. (tp) (Entered:
11/23/2016)
transmitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals. (tp) (Entered: 11/23/2016)
Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration to
Monday, December 5, 2016. ENDORSEMENT: So ordered. (Responses due by
11/30/2016)
11/30/2016) (rjm) (Entered: 11/30/2016)
Court's November 2, 2016 Order to December 14, 2016. ENDORSEMENT: So
12/8/2016) (cf) (Entered: 12/08/2016)
12/09/2016 509 MOTION for Sanctions Based on Plaintiff's Intentional Destruction of Evidence.
Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit
January 19, 2017 in Courtroom 18C, United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street. All
Case:
4-2,of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399803,
09:56 AMPage51
EDT 49of 86
of 84

Evidence. :( Motion Hearing set for 1/19/2017 at 12:00 PM in Courtroom 18C, 500
Robert W. Sweet on 12/13/2016) (lmb) (Entered: 12/13/2016)
Based on Plaintiff's Intentional Destruction of Evidence.. Document filed by Virginia
Sealed 3, # 4 Exhibit Sealed 4, # 5 Exhibit Sealed 5, # 6 Exhibit Sealed Composite
Intentional Destruction of Evidence. . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit E, # 2 Exhibit F, # 3 Exhibit G)(Menninger,
deadline of Plaintiff's designated expert Dianne Flores from December 29, 2016 to
Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, #
01/05/2017)
(Entered: 01/05/2017)
01/05/2017 524 MOTION in Limine To Exclude Expert Testimony and Opinion of Professor Terry
Coonan, J.D.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.(Menninger, Laura) (Entered:
01/05/2017)
filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Menninger,
01/05/2017 526 MOTION in Limine To Exclude Expert Testimony and Opinion of Dianne C. Flores.
Case:
4-2,of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399803,
09:56 AMPage52
EDT 50of 86
of 84
01/05/2017)
01/05/2017)
01/05/2017)
01/05/2017 530 MOTION in Limine To Exclude Expert Testimony and Opinion of Doctor Gilbert
01/05/2017)
Florida under case number 16−mc−61292−JG has been transferred to this Court.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Redacted 1, # 2 Exhibit Redacted 2, # 3 Exhibit Redacted 3,
01/06/2017)
MOTION for Summary Judgment . Document filed by Ghislaine
01/06/2017 539 FILING ERROR − DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY − DECLARATION of Laura
A. Menninger in Support re: 538 MOTION for Summary Judgment .. Document filed
Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G−KK, # 8 Exhibit LL, # 9 Exhibit
MOTION for Summary Judgment . Use the event type Memorandum in Support
Documents. ***REMINDER*** − Refile the 537 Notice AS THE MOTION for
Case:
4-2,of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399803,
09:56 AMPage53
EDT 51of 86
of 84
Summary Judgment, then file and link any supporting documents. (db) (Entered:
01/09/2017)
RE−FILE Document 539 Declaration in Support of Motion. ERROR(S):
01/09/2017 540 MOTION for Summary Judgment . Document filed by Ghislaine
01/09/2017 541 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 540 MOTION for Summary Judgment . .
Judgment .. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2
Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit
G−KK, # 8 Exhibit LL, # 9 Exhibit MM)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 01/09/2017)
1/11/2017) (cla) (Entered: 01/12/2017)
01/12/2017 545 ORDER: Plaintiff's motions in limine shall be heard at noon on Thursday, February 2,
01/12/2017)
(cla) (Entered: 01/18/2017)
01/19/2017 550 MOTION to Intervene and Unseal. Document filed by Michael Cernovich d/b/a
Cernovich Media.(Wolman, Jay) (Entered: 01/19/2017)
(Entered: 01/19/2017)
01/19/2017 552 DECLARATION of Michael Cernovich in Support re: 550 MOTION to Intervene and
Unseal.. Document filed by Michael Cernovich d/b/a Cernovich Media. (Wolman,
Jay) (Entered: 01/19/2017)
Case:
4-2,of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399803,
09:56 AMPage54
EDT 52of 86
of 84
Spoliation has not been established at the time of the Plaintiff's acts and the motion is
1/20/2017 (kgo). (Entered: 01/20/2017)
held on 1/19/2017 re: 509 MOTION for Sanctions Based on Plaintiff's Intentional
Destruction of Evidence filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Court Reporter Jennifer Thun)
John E. Stephenson, Jr., # 2 Certificate of Good Standing, # 3 Text of Proposed
no deficiencies. (ma) (Entered: 01/20/2017)
Defendant's motions in limine, and Plaintiff's motions in limine, previously scheduled
(kgo) (Entered: 01/20/2017)
1/23/2017) (anc) (Entered: 01/23/2017)
(cla) (Entered: 01/23/2017)
01/25/2017 560 NOTICE of of Withdrawal. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (McCawley,
Alan Dershowitz. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered:
01/27/2017)
Exclude Defendant's Designations of Deposition Excerpts of Alan Dershowitz..
Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3
Case:
4-2,of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399803,
09:56 AMPage55
EDT 53of 86
of 84
Exclude Defendant's Designations of Deposition Excerpts of Virginia Giuffre in an
01/27/2017 565 NOTICE of Filing Plaintiff's Objections to Defendant's Deposition Designations and
Plaintiff's Cross Designations. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (McCawley,
for Use at Trial. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.(Menninger, Laura) (Entered:
01/27/2017)
Testimony and Opinion of Doctor Gilbert Kliman. . Document filed by Virginia L.
(Entered: 01/30/2017)
01/30/2017 571 ORDER: Plaintiff's and Defendant's motions in limine filed January 27, 2017, and all
(cla) (Entered: 01/30/2017)
Testimony and Opinion of Professor Terry Coonan, J.D.. . Document filed by Virginia
# 3 Exhibit Sealed 3, # 4 Exhibit Sealed 4, # 5 Exhibit Sealed 5)(McCawley, Sigrid)
(Entered: 01/30/2017)
Testimony and Opinions of William F. Chandler. . Document filed by Virginia L.
01/30/2017 576 NOTICE of Letter Reply in Support of Plaintiff's Letter Motion to Add New Witness
Testimony and Opinion of Dianne C. Flores. . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
Case:
4-2,of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399803,
09:56 AMPage56
EDT 54of 86
of 84

(Entered: 01/31/2017)
Testimony and Opinion of Chris Anderson. . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
Testimony and Opinion of Dr. Bernard Jansen. . Document filed by Virginia L.
Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed 1, # 2 Exhibit Sealed
Memorandum of Law. Regarding Gregory B. Taylor and Kyle D. Jacobson. Document
Memorandum of Law. Regarding Dr. Phillip Esplin. Document filed by Ghislaine
Incorporated Memorandum of Law.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
01/31/2017 586 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 540 MOTION for Summary Judgment . .
Statement of Facts, # 2 Exhibit Declaration, # 3 Exhibit Redacted 1−50)(McCawley,
Robert W. Sweet. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Jennifer Thun, (212) 805−0300.
02/02/2017 589 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 550 MOTION to Intervene and Unseal. .
and Unseal.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2
(Entered: 02/03/2017)
Case:
4-2,of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399803,
09:56 AMPage57
EDT 55of 86
of 84
Motion,, Discovery re New Witness (original filed 1/19/17) addressed to Judge Robert
02/03/2017 592 NOTICE of Filing Defendant's Counter−Designations to Plaintiff's Deposition
02/03/2017)
02/07/2017 595 FILING ERROR − DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY − MOTION for Ty Gee to
(Entered: 02/07/2017)
02/07/2017 596 FILING ERROR − DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY − DECLARATION of Ty Gee
VICE. Notice to RE−FILE Document No. 595 MOTION for Ty Gee to Appear
Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number 0208−13289811. Motion and
to rule 1.3. please attach and affadavit or Declaration of the Attorney;. Re−file
the motion as a Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice − attach the correct signed PDF −
select the correct named filer/filers − attach valid Certificates of Good Standing
issued within the past 30 days − attach Proposed Order.. (wb) (Entered:
02/08/2017)
No. 597 MOTION for Ty Gee to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Motion and supporting
and there are no deficiencies. (bcu) (Entered: 02/08/2017)
Rule. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered:
02/09/2017)
Case:
4-2,of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399803,
09:56 AMPage58
EDT 56of 86
of 84

02/09/2017 604 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 550 MOTION to Intervene and Unseal. . Document
filed by Michael Cernovich d/b/a Cernovich Media. (Wolman, Jay) (Entered:
02/09/2017)
02/09/2017 605 DECLARATION of Jay M. Wolman in Support re: 550 MOTION to Intervene and
Unseal.. Document filed by Michael Cernovich d/b/a Cernovich Media. (Attachments:
# 1 Exhibit 1 − Daily Mail Article, # 2 Exhibit 2 − Palm Beach Daily News Article, #
3 Exhibit 3 − Silenced Cast)(Wolman, Jay) (Entered: 02/09/2017)
Inference.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed
Testimony and Opinion of Chris Anderson. . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
Testimony and Opinions of William F. Chandler. . Document filed by Ghislaine
filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit C, # 2 Exhibit D, # 3 Exhibit
Testimony and Opinion of Dianne C. Flores. . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
02/10/2017)
Testimony and Opinion of Doctor Gilbert Kliman. . Document filed by Ghislaine
Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit D, # 2 Exhibit E)(Menninger, Laura)
Case:
4-2,of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399803,
09:56 AMPage59
EDT 57of 86
of 84
(Entered: 02/10/2017)
02/10/2017 620 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 540 MOTION for Summary Judgment . . Document
Judgment .. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit NN, # 2
(Entered: 02/10/2017)
(Entered: 02/13/2017)
respond to Plaintiff's Motions. ENDORSEMENT: So ordered. (Signed by Judge
02/14/2017 626 ORDER: Plaintiff's motion in limine filed February 10, 2017 shall be heard at noon on
February 20 2017. ( Oral Argument set for 2/23/2017 at 12:00 PM in Courtroom 18C,
(Entered: 02/14/2017)
Defendant's Designations of Deposition Excerpts of Alan Dershowitz. . Document
Defendant's Designations of Deposition Excerpts of Virginia Giuffre in an Unrelated
Case. . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura) (Entered:
02/15/2017)
Intervene and Unseal filed by Michael Cernovich d/b/a Cernovich Media, 528
02/16/2017)
02/17/2017 630 NOTICE of Plaintiff's Objections to Defendant's Counter Designations. Document
Case:
4-2,of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399803,
09:56 AMPage60
EDT 58of 86
of 84
02/17/2017 633 Objection to Plaintiff's Cross Designation of Deposition Testimony. Document filed by
Robert W. Sweet. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Khristine Sellin, (212) 805−0300.
02/21/2017 636 ORDER: Plaintiff's motion in limine filed February 10, 2017 and previously scheduled
to be heard February 23, 2017 shall instead be heard at noon on Thursday, March 9,
papers shall be due February 24, 2017 and reply papers shall be due by March 2, 2017.
02/21/2017)
(Entered: 02/22/2017)
1, # 2 Exhibit Sealed 2, # 3 Exhibit Sealed 3, # 4 Exhibit Sealed 4, # 5 Exhibit Sealed
2/28/2017 (jwh). (Entered: 02/22/2017)
02/22/2017 640 MOTION for Protective Order for Non−Party Witness. Document filed by John
Protective Order for Non−Party Witness.. Document filed by Sarah Ransome.
02/22/2017)
02/23/2017 642 ORDER: Plaintiff's motion to compel and the non−party witness's motion for a
Opposition papers shall be due March 2, 2017, and reply papers shall be due March 7,
Case:
4-2,of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399803,
09:56 AMPage61
EDT 59of 86
of 84
(cf) (Entered: 02/23/2017)
Testimony From Jeffrey Epstein for Purposes of Obtaining an Adverse Inference. .
Inference.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2
Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 02/24/2017)
02/24/2017 646 RESPONSE re: 601 Notice (Other) Response to Plaintiffs Notice Of Intent To Offer
Statements Under, If Necessary, The Residual Hearsay Rule. Document filed by
02/27/2017 648 AMENDED SECOND DISCOVERY AND CASE MANAGEMENT DEADLINES
AND REQUEST TO MODIFY PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER granting 643
15, 2017 and is anticipated to last four weeks; Motions in Limine/other motions shall
be filed by March 3, 2017; March 9, 2017, hearing on Plaintiff Giuffre's Motion to
Inference, ECF #608, hearing on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel all Work Product and
Southern District of Florida on June 13, 2016 under case number 16−mc−61262, and
and motions in limine. April 6, 2017, hearing on objections to deposition designations.
May 4, 2107, Pre−trial Conference to address any outstanding issues including
(Entered: 02/27/2017)
03/03/2017)
Inference. . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered:
03/02/2017)
Produce All Work Product and Attorney Client Communications . . Document filed by
Case:
4-2,of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399803,
09:56 AMPage62
EDT 60of 86
of 84

03/02/2017 655 MOTION to Compel Non−Party Witness to Produce Documents, Respond to
(Entered: 03/02/2017)
03/03/2017 657 MOTION to Quash . Document filed by Jeffrey Epstein.(Weinberg, Martin) (Entered:
03/03/2017)
Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Composite Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit Sealed 2, # 3
Maxwell, 17−mc−00025. Thursday, March 23: Motions corresponding to ECF Nos.
03/03/2017)
03/03/2017 664 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Late Disclosed Supplemental Report of Dr. James
Jansen and Video Trial Exhibit of Dr. Gilbert Kliman. Document filed by Ghislaine
03/03/2017)
03/03/2017 666 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence Barred as a Result of Plaintiffs Summary
(Entered: 03/03/2017)
03/03/2017 667 MOTION in Limine to Exclude FBI 302 Statement of Plaintiff. Document filed by
Exclude FBI 302 Statement of Plaintiff.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
Case:
4-2,of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399803,
09:56 AMPage63
EDT 61of 86
of 84

03/03/2017)
03/03/2017 671 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Jeffrey Epstein Plea and Non−Prosecution Agreement
Registration.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2
03/03/2017)
03/03/2017)
(Entered: 03/03/2017)
03/03/2017)
03/03/2017)
Case:
4-2,of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399803,
09:56 AMPage64
EDT 62of 86
of 84
TRAFFICKING. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.(Schultz, Meredith) (Entered:
03/03/2017)
(Entered: 03/03/2017)
(Entered: 03/03/2017)
(rjm) (Entered: 03/06/2017)
Protective Order material at trial, shall be held on Thursday, March 16, 2017 at 1:00
3/6/2017) (jwh) (Entered: 03/06/2017)
Barden to To Produce All Work Product and Attorney Client Communications . .
Case:
4-2,of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399803,
09:56 AMPage65
EDT 63of 86
of 84
Motion to Seal Document, . (jwh) REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support
re: 640 MOTION for Protective Order for Non−Party Witness. and Opposition to [DE
655] MOTION to Compel Non−Party Witness to Produce Documents, and Respond to
Order for Non−Party Witness.. Document filed by John Stanley Pottinger.
03/07/2017)
Robert W. Sweet. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Eve Giniger, (212) 805−0300.
the court reporter/transcriber in the above−captioned matter. The parties have seven
(rjm) (Entered: 03/08/2017)
on 3/9/2017 re: 640 MOTION for Protective Order for Non−Party Witness filed by
John Stanley Pottinger, Sarah Ransome, 655 MOTION to Compel Non−Party Witness
to Produce Documents, Respond to Deposition Questions, and Response to Motion for
Reserved.Doc #655 Motion was on for 3−30−17 is now set for 3−16−17 at 12:00
p.m.Motion to quash 17 Mc−00025 will be heard on 3−16−17 (Part).Doc #640 Motion
Protective Order. [RE−FILED W/ ADD'L REDACTION/REPLACE DE 700.
Motion, [Replace DE 700 w/ Redacted DE 707] addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet
Case:
4-2,of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399803,
09:56 AMPage66
EDT 64of 86
of 84
Protective Order. [RE−FILED W/ADD'L REDACTION/REPLACE DE 700].
in Support of Motion, [Replace DE 700 w/ Redacted DE 707] addressed to Judge
03/14/2017)
03/14/2017 712 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 657 MOTION to Quash . . Document filed by
Protective Order. . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 03/14/2017)
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit J, # 2 Exhibit K)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 03/14/2017)
Unauthenticated Hearsay Document from a Suspect Source. . Document filed by
by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed 1, # 2 Exhibit Sealed
03/15/2017 718 ORDER withdrawing 708 Motion to Seal Document ; granting 710 Motion to Seal
(Entered: 03/15/2017)
dated 3/13/2017 re: request a one−week continuance of the hearing on Defendant's
Motion to Compel Non−Party Witness to Produce Documents and Respond to
Depositions Questions (Doc. 655 ) and Motion for Protective Order for Non−Party
Witness (Doc. 640 ). ENDORSEMENT: So ordered. (Signed by Judge Robert W.
03/15/2017 720 ENDORSED LETTER re: 659 SECOND MOTION to Compel Ghislaine Maxwell to
Inference Instruction , addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Laura A. Menninger
dated 3/10/2017 re: a one−week extension of time in which to file a Response to
Plaintiff's Renewed Motion to Compel. ENDORSEMENT: So ordered. (Set
Deadlines/Hearing as to 659 SECOND MOTION to Compel Ghislaine Maxwell to
Case:
4-2,of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399803,
09:56 AMPage67
EDT 65of 86
of 84
Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Transcript (Filed
Amendment Privilege. . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (McCawley, Sigrid)
(Entered: 03/17/2017)
Complaint and Settlement Agreement in Jane Doe 102 v. Jeffrey Epstein. . Document
Proceedings. Document filed by Michael Cernovich d/b/a Cernovich Media.(Wolman,
Jay) (Entered: 03/17/2017)
Disclosed Supplemental Report of Dr. James Jansen and Video Trial Exhibit of Dr.
Gilbert Kliman. . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (McCawley, Sigrid)
(Entered: 03/17/2017)
Exhibit of Dr. Gilbert Kliman.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: #
1 Exhibit Sealed 1, # 2 Exhibit Sealed 2, # 3 Exhibit Sealed 3, # 4 Exhibit Sealed
References to Crime Victims Rights Act Litigation. . Document filed by Virginia L.
Statement of Plaintiff. . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Edwards, Bradley)
(Entered: 03/17/2017)
Exclude FBI 302 Statement of Plaintiff.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
03/17/2017 732 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 681 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Victim
(Entered: 03/17/2017)
03/17/2017 734 FILING ERROR − ELECTRONIC FILING OF NON−ECF DOCUMENT −
TO NON−PARTY NADIA MARCINKOVA. Document filed by Nadia
Case:
4-2,of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399803,
09:56 AMPage68
EDT 66of 86
of 84
to Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (McCawley, Sigrid)
(Entered: 03/17/2017)
Questioning Regarding Plaintiffs Sexual History and Reputation. . Document filed by
# 3 Exhibit Sealed 3, # 4 Exhibit Sealed 4)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 03/17/2017)
Epstein Plea and Non−Prosecution Agreement and Sex Offender Registration. .
MOTION IN LIMINE TO ADMIT THE BLACK BOOK AS EVIDENCE AT TRIAL. .
AT TRIAL.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2
GIUFFRES MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION IN LIMINE
SEXUAL ABUSE AND SEX TRAFFICKING. . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
Testimony for Purpose of Obtaining an Adverse Inference Instruction. . Document
Reports and Other Inadmissible Hearsay. . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
Case:
4-2,of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399803,
09:56 AMPage69
EDT 67of 86
of 84
Sealed 3, # 4 Exhibit Composite Sealed 4, # 5 Exhibit Sealed 5, # 6 Exhibit Sealed 6, #
7 Exhibit Sealed 7, # 8 Exhibit Composite Sealed 8, # 9 Exhibit Sealed 9)(McCawley,
Omnibus.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2
M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P, # 17 Exhibit Q, # 18 Exhibit R, #
03/17/2017 752 MOTION to Strike Document No. 711 Plaintiff's Supplemental Authority. Document
(Entered: 03/17/2017)
counsel, that the Plaintiff's Motion for a Finding of Civil Contempt against Nadia
3/20/2017) (jwh) (Entered: 03/20/2017)
03/20/2017 759 ENDORSED LETTER re: 659 SECOND MOTION to Compel, 685 MOTION in
MOTION to Compel Ghislaine Maxwell to Disclose Data , 685 MOTION in Limine
Case:
4-2,of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399803,
09:56 AMPage70
EDT 68of 86
of 84
666 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence Barred as a Result of Plaintiffs
03/21/2017 761 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 657 MOTION to Quash . . Document filed by
03/22/2017 765 ORDER granting 752 Motion to Strike Document No. 711 : The Defendant's motion to
strike the Plaintiff's Notice of Supplemental Authority, ECF No. 711, is granted. The
Plaintiff's motion seeking financial information from the Defendant. (Signed by Judge
Information in the Liability Phase. . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
Questioning Regarding Defendants Adult Consensual Sexual Activities. . Document
Case:
4-2,of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399803,
09:56 AMPage71
EDT 69of 86
of 84
Resolved in open court, partially granted and partially denied.(Chan, Tsz) (Entered:
03/23/2017)
03/23/2017 771 DECLARATION of Sigrid S. McCawley in Support re: 689 MOTION in Limine to
Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit
AT TRIAL. . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered:
03/24/2017)
her reply by March 31, 2017. ENDORSEMENT: Extension to 3/30 is granted. So
ordered. ( Replies due by 3/30/2017.) (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on
3/24/2017) (mro) (Entered: 03/24/2017)
(mro) (Entered: 03/24/2017)
(Entered: 03/24/2017)
Case:
4-2,of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399803,
09:56 AMPage72
EDT 70of 86
of 84
Statement of Plaintiff. . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 03/24/2017)
03/24/2017 784 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 669 MOTION in Limine to Exclude References to
Crime Victims Rights Act Litigation. . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
(Attachments: # 1 Appendix A, # 2 Appendix B)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered:
03/24/2017)
Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit B, # 2 Exhibit C)(Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 03/24/2017)
Supplemental Report of Dr. James Jansen and Video Trial Exhibit of Dr. Gilbert
Kliman. . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura) (Entered:
03/24/2017)
Exhibit of Dr. Gilbert Kliman.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: #
Plea and Non−Prosecution Agreement and Sex Offender Registration. . Document
Registration.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit C, # 2
Regarding Plaintiffs Sexual History and Reputation. . Document filed by Ghislaine
Notification Letter. . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 03/24/2017)
27, 2017. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.(Schultz, Meredith) (Entered:
03/27/2017)
03/27/2017 795 LETTER MOTION for Oral Argument for March 31st Hearing to Start at 10:00am
03/27/2017)
Sweet from Sigrid McCawley. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.(McCawley,
Case:
4-2,of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399803,
09:56 AMPage73
EDT 71of 86
of 84
Omnibus. . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered:
03/27/2017)
(Entered: 03/27/2017)
Devices to the Courthouse . . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1
Text of Proposed Order STANDING ORDER M10−468, AS REVISED)(McCawley,
Deposition Designations. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (McCawley, Sigrid)
(Entered: 03/28/2017)
Designations for Use at Trial. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (McCawley,
03/28/2017 806 Objection to Production of (Blank) Submitted for in Camera Review. Document filed
re: an extension to file replies to Motions at Dockets 663 , 673 , 677 , and 693 .
Limine to Exclude Police Reports and Other Inadmissible Hearsay: Replies due by
03/29/2017)
725 . . Document filed by Michael Cernovich d/b/a Cernovich Media. (Wolman, Jay)
(Entered: 03/29/2017)
from Movant−Intervenor Michael Cernovich d/b/a Cernovich Media dated March 29,
2017 re: 793 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Portions of February 16, 2017
March 27, 2017. . Document filed by Michael Cernovich d/b/a Cernovich Media.
Case:
4-2,of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399803,
09:56 AMPage74
EDT 72of 86
of 84
Summary Judgment. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit
(Entered: 03/30/2017)
Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit D, # 2 Exhibit E, # 3 Exhibit F, # 4
Amendment Privilege. . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 03/30/2017)
Settlement Agreement in Jane Doe 102 v. Jeffrey Epstein. . Document filed by
Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 03/30/2017)
03/30/2017)
03/30/2017)
Non−Prosecution Agreement and Sex Offender Registration filed by Ghislaine
(Entered: 04/03/2017)
Case:
4-2,of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399803,
09:56 AMPage75
EDT 73of 86
of 84

Invoking Their Fifth Amendment Privilege filed by Ghislaine Maxwell, 662 MOTION
Instruction filed by Virginia L. Giuffre, 666 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence
Barred as a Result of Plaintiffs Summary Judgment Concessions filed by Ghislaine
(Entered: 04/03/2017)
W. Sweet. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Martha Martin, (212) 805−0300. Transcript
04/03/2017 826 Objection to Plaintiff's Deposition Designations (AMENDED). Document filed by
PLAINTIFFS ATTORNEYS AS WITNESSES AT TRIAL. . Document filed by Virginia
L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit Sealed Exhibit 2, #
dated April 3, 2017 re: 793 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Portions of
Meredith Schultz dated March 27, 2017. . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
04/04/2017 830 OPPOSITION BRIEF re: 806 Objection (non−motion) and Second Motion to Compel
W. Sweet. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Lisa Picciano Fellis, (212) 805−0300.
Case:
4-2,of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399803,
09:56 AMPage76
EDT 74of 86
of 84
04/05/2017 833 OPPOSITION BRIEF re: 813 Notice (Other) . Document filed by Michael Cernovich
Tsz) (Entered: 04/07/2017)
motions: The Defendant's motion for the Court to rule on outstanding motions, ECF
04/07/2017 839 NOTICE of Declaration in Support of Plaintiff's Briefing on an Adverse Inference
Sealed 2, # 3 Exhibit Sealed 3, # 4 Exhibit Sealed 4, # 5 Exhibit Sealed 5, # 6 Exhibit
04/11/2017 841 REPLY re: 806 Objection (non−motion) to Production of (Blank) Submitted for in
04/11/2017)
04/11/2017 842 DECLARATION of Jeffrey S. Pagliuca in Support re: 806 Objection (non−motion).
04/11/2017)
04/11/2017 845 MOTION to Appoint Special Master to Preside Over Third Deposition of Defendant.
Case:
4-2,of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399803,
09:56 AMPage77
EDT 75of 86
of 84
Special Master to Preside Over Third Deposition of Defendant.. Document filed by
04/11/2017)
04/12/2017)
04/12/2017)
Sweet. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Ellen Simone, (212) 805−0300. Transcript may be
04/12/2017)
4/27/2017 (jwh). (Entered: 04/12/2017)
Instruction filed by Virginia L. Giuffre, 806 Objection (non−motion) filed by
Case:
4-2,of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399803,
09:56 AMPage78
EDT 76of 86
of 84
Revised Joint Pre−Trial Order addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Sigrid
McCawley dated April 17, 2017. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.(McCawley,
Preside Over Third Deposition of Defendant. . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
04/18/2017)
04/18/2017 858 NOTICE of Filing Response to Proposed Intervenor Michael Cernovich Opposition to
Notice of Plaintiff's Proposed Redactions to This Court's Order Denying Summary
Judgment re: 833 Opposition Brief. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
Dershowitz. USCA Case Number 16−3945. The parties in the above−referenced case
04/20/2017 863 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 845 MOTION to Appoint Special Master to Preside
Over Third Deposition of Defendant. . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
04/20/2017 864 FILING ERROR − DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY − MOTION to Compel
to Complete Search of ESI. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1
Declaration of Laura Menninger, # 2 Exhibits A−F)(Menninger, Laura) Modified on
5/2/2017 (db). (Entered: 04/20/2017)
04/25/2017 867 ORDER: granting 866 Letter Motion for Extension of Time. So ordered. (Signed by
04/26/2017)
04/26/2017 870 ORDER: The motion to compel filed April 20, 2017 shall be heard on Wednesday,
Case:
4-2,of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399803,
09:56 AMPage79
EDT 77of 86
of 84
on 4/24/2017) (mro) (Entered: 04/26/2017)
04/26/2017 871 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 864 MOTION to Compel Non−Party Witness
of ESI. . Document filed by John Stanley Pottinger. (Pottinger, John) (Entered:
04/26/2017)
opinion and because the pre−litigation privilege is inapplicable, the motion for
denying 540 MOTION for Summary Judgment, filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Signed
04/27/2017)
04/28/2017)
04/28/2017)
ESI. . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura) (Entered:
04/28/2017)
to Complete Search of ESI.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1
37(c) . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.(Menninger, Laura) (Entered:
04/28/2017)
(Entered: 04/28/2017)
05/01/2017 883 FILING ERROR − DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY − DECLARATION of Sigrid
(db). (Entered: 05/01/2017)
Case:
4-2,of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399803,
09:56 AMPage80
EDT 78of 86
of 84
DOCKET ENTRY ERROR. Notice to Attorney Sigrid S. McCawley to RE−FILE
linked to filing error. (db) (Entered: 05/02/2017)
05/02/2017 888 REDACTION Declaration of Jack Goldberger by Jeffrey Epstein(Goldberger, Jack)
(Entered: 05/02/2017)
on 5/2/2017) (ap) (Entered: 05/02/2017)
dated 5/1/2017 re: request for a one−day extension of time to submit Ms. Maxwell's
on 5/2/2017) (jwh) (Entered: 05/02/2017)
05/03/2017 892 OPINION re: 793 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Portions of February 16,
dated March 27, 2017 filed by Virginia L. Giuffre, 763 MOTION to Strike Document
Michael Cernovich d/b/a Cernovich Media: This opinion resolves ECF Nos. 550, 763,
and 793. The motion of the Intervenor to intervene is granted. The motion to modify
(Entered: 05/03/2017)
415 of Similar Acts Evidence. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger,
(Entered: 05/03/2017)
Case:
4-2,of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399803,
09:56 AMPage81
EDT 79of 86
of 84
05/04/2017)
W. Sweet. (lb) (Entered: 05/04/2017)
Exhibits Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c) .. Motion Hearing set for 5/10/2017 at 12:00
PM before Judge Robert W. Sweet. (lb) (Entered: 05/04/2017)
05/04/2017 896 MOTION to Compel Non−Party Witness to Produce Documents and Respond to
Deposition Questions and to Complete Search of ESI (Refiled). Document filed by
to Complete Search of ESI (Refiled).. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−F)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 05/04/2017)
by Michael Cernovich d/b/a Cernovich Media.(Wolman, Jay) (Entered: 05/04/2017)
Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed 1)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 05/05/2017)
05/05/2017 902 MOTION Plaintiff's Motion for LEave to Permit Magna Legal Services to Bring
Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered:
05/05/2017)
805−0300. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through
Case:
4-2,of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399803,
09:56 AMPage82
EDT 80of 86
of 84
# 7 Exhibit Sealed 7, # 8 Exhibit Sealed 8, # 9 Exhibit Sealed 9, # 10 Exhibit Sealed
Directing the FBI to Produce Photographs to the Court .. Document filed by Virginia
Sweet from Sigrid McCawley and Jeff Pagliuca dated May 8, 2017. Document filed by
Jury Instruction ; 878 MOTION to Exclude Undisclosed Witnesses and Exhibits
before Judge Robert W. Sweet. (jwh) (Entered: 05/09/2017)
05/19/2017 915 NOTICE OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL from 892 Memorandum & Opinion,,.
6/2/2017. (nd) (Entered: 05/19/2017)
Appeals re: 915 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal. (nd) (Entered: 05/19/2017)
were transmitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals. (nd) (Entered: 05/19/2017)
and between the parties and/or their respective counsel(s) that the above−captioned
Maxwell and without costs to either party pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the
(Entered: 05/24/2017)
05/25/2017 USCA Case Number 17−1625 from the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
(Entered: 05/25/2017)
Case:
4-2,of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399803,
09:56 AMPage83
EDT 81of 86
of 84
25, 2017 re: Request for Leave to File a Letter Under Seal. Document filed by Alan M.
Dershowitz.(Celli, Andrew) (Entered: 05/25/2017)
for Voluntary Dismissal. The document was incorrectly filed in this case. (tn)
(Entered: 05/26/2017)
Michael Cernovich d/b/a Cernovich Media. Filing fee $ 505.00, receipt number
Electronic Files for 920 Notice of Appeal, filed by Michael Cernovich d/b/a Cernovich
Media were transmitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals. (tp) (Entered: 05/31/2017)
Filing fee $ 505.00. Pay.gov receipt number 0208−13685185, paid on 05/19/2017.
[USCA Case Number 17−1625]. (nd) (Entered: 06/06/2017)
21, 2017 re: Confidentiality Designations. Document filed by Alan M. Dershowitz.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, #
10/03/2017)
Wednesday, November 8, 2017 in Courtroom 18C, United States Courthouse, 500
Judge Robert W. Sweet from Michael C. Miller dated October 3, 2017. . Document
from Michael C. Miller dated October 3, 2017. filed by Jeffrey Epstein. (Court
Case:
4-2,of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399803,
09:56 AMPage84
EDT 82of 86
of 84
Robert W. Sweet. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Pamela Utter, (212) 805−0300.
Dershowitz, 920 Notice of Appeal, filed by Michael Cernovich d/b/a Cernovich
Number 16−3945 (L), 17−1625 (Con), 17−1722 (Con). Appellee moves to file her
02/20/2018)
04/06/2018 935 MOTION to Intervene ., MOTION to Unseal Document . Document filed by Julie
Unseal Document . . Document filed by Julie Brown, Miami Herald Media Company.
04/09/2018 937 ORDER: The motion to intervene and unseal brought by proposed intervenors Julie
Herald Media Company.(Walz, Christine) (Entered: 04/10/2018)
Unseal Document . . Document filed by Michael Cernovich d/b/a Cernovich Media.
Intervenors Christine Walz do not oppose this request. ENDORSEMENT: SO
Case:
4-2,of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399803,
09:56 AMPage85
EDT 83of 86
of 84
ORDERED., ( Responses due by 4/27/2018) (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on

4/20/2018) (ama) (Entered: 04/20/2018)
. . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 04/27/2018)
. . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 04/27/2018)
MOTION to Unseal Document . . Document filed by Miami Herald Media Company.
Exhibit A − June 2017 Letter (Redacted))(Celli, Andrew) (Entered: 05/08/2018)
21, 2018 re: status of pending motion. Document filed by Julie Brown, Miami Herald
08/23/2018)
08/27/2018 953 OPINION: re: 935 MOTION to Intervene . MOTION to Unseal Document . filed by
on 8/27/2018) (js) (Entered: 08/27/2018)
09/25/2018)
Case:
4-2,of:
09/28/2018,
09/28/20182399803,
09:56 AMPage86
EDT 84of 86
of 84
Appeals re: 955 Notice of Appeal,. (nd) (Entered: 09/26/2018)
Company were transmitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals. (nd) (Entered: 09/26/2018)
Case 18-2868, Document 10, 10/11/2018, 2408276, Page1 of 2

40 Foley Square
New York, NY 10007

Date: October 11, 2018 DC Docket #: 15-cv-7433

DC Judge: Sweet
NOTICE OF DEFECTIVE FILING
On October 11, 2018 the Form C and D, on behalf of the Appellant Julie Brown and Miami
Herald Media Company, was submitted in the above referenced case. The document does not
comply with the FRAP or the Court's Local Rules for the following reason(s):
______ Failure to submit acknowledgment and notice of appearance (Local Rule 12.3)
______ Failure to file the Record on Appeal (FRAP 10, FRAP 11)
______ Missing motion information statement (T-1080 - Local Rule 27.1)
______ Missing supporting papers for motion (e.g, affidavit/affirmation/declaration) (FRAP 27)
______ Insufficient number of copies (Local Rules: 21.1, 27.1, 30.1, 31.1)
______ Improper proof of service (FRAP 25)
______ Missing proof of service
______ Served to an incorrect address
______ Incomplete service (Anders v. California 386 U.S. 738 (1967))
______ Failure to submit document in digital format (Local Rule 25.1)
______ Not Text-Searchable (Local Rule 25.1, Local Rules 25.2), click here
for instructions on how to make PDFs text searchable
______ Failure to file appendix on CD-ROM (Local Rule 25.1, Local Rules 25.2)
______ Failure to file special appendix (Local Rule 32.1)
______ Defective cover (FRAP 32)
______ Incorrect caption (FRAP 32)
______ Wrong color cover (FRAP 32)
______ Docket number font too small (Local Rule 32.1)
______ Incorrect pagination, click here for instructions on how to paginate PDFs
(Local Rule 32.1)
______ Incorrect font (FRAP 32)
______ Oversized filing (FRAP 27 (motion), FRAP 32 (brief))
______ Missing Amicus Curiae filing or motion (Local Rule 29.1)
______ Untimely filing
______ Incorrect Filing Event

__XX____ Other: __Orders should be attached to Form C and Transcripts should be
attached to Form D. Please attached document and re-filed Forms C and D______
Please cure the defect(s) and resubmit the document, with the required copies if
necessary, no later than October 15, 2018. The resubmitted documents, if compliant with FRAP
and the Local Rules, will be deemed timely filed.
Failure to cure the defect(s) by the date set forth above will result in the document being
stricken. An appellant's failure to cure a defective filing may result in the dismissal of the appeal.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

CIVIL APPEAL PRE-ARGUMENT STATEMENT (FORM C)
1. SEE NOTICE ON REVERSE 2. PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT 3. STAPLE ALL ADDITIONAL PAGES
Case Caption: District Court or Agency: Judge:

Virginia L. Giuffre, Plaintiff-Appellee
V.
Southern Dist. New York Robert W. Sweet
Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant Date the Order or Judgment Appealed District Court Docket No.:
V. from was Entered on the Docket:
Sharon Churcher, Jeffrey Epstein, Respondents 15-CV-7433
August 27, 2018
Julie Brown, Miami Herald Media Company,
Intervenors-Appellants Date the Notice of Appeal was Filed: Is this a Cross Appeal?
September 26, 2018 Yes / No
Attorney(s) for Counsel’s Name: Address: Telephone No.: Fax No.: E-mail:
Appellant(s):
Sanford L. Bohrer, Christine N. Walz, Madelaine J. Harrington
Plaintiff Holland & Knight LLP, 31 West 52nd Street, New York, NY 10019
Defendant Phone: (212) 513-3374; Fax: (212) 385-9010
Emails: Sandy.Bohrer@hklaw.com, Christine.Walz@hklaw.com, Madelaine.Harrington@hklaw.com
Attorney(s) for Counsel’s Name: Address: Telephone No.: Fax No.: E-mail:
Appellee(s): Plaintiff: Sigrid S. McCawley; Bois Schiller & Flexner LLP
401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1200, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, 33301; Email: smccawley@bsfllp.com; Phone: (954) 356-0011
Bradley J. Edwards; Farmers Wessing Edwards Fistos & Lehrman P.L.
✓ Plaintiff
425 North Andrews Ave., Ft. Lauderdale, FL, 33301; Email: brad@epllc.com; Phone: (954) 524-2820
Paul G. Cassel; S.J. Quinney College of Law, University of Utah
/ Defendant 383 University Street, Salt Lake City, UT 84112; Email: cassellp@law.utah.edu; Phone: (801) 585-5202
Defendant: Laura A. Menninger; Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C.
150 East 10th Avenue. Denver. CO 80203: Email: lmenninger@hmflaw.com: Phone: (303) 831-7364
Has Transcript Approx. Number of Number of Has this matter been before this Circuit previously? Yes ✓ No
Been Prepared? Transcript Exhibits
Pages: Appended to If Yes, provide the following:
Transcript:
Yes
31 Case Name:
N/A
2d Cir. Docket No.: Reporter Citation: (i.e., F.3d or Fed. App.)
ADDENDUM “A COUNSEL MUST ATTACH TO THIS FORM: (1) A BRIEF, BUT NOT PERFUNCTORY, DESCRIPTION OF THE
NATURE OF THE ACTION; (2) THE RESULT BELOW; (3) A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL AND A CURRENT COPY OF
THE LOWER COURT DOCKET SHEET; AND (4) A COPY OF ALL RELEVANT OPINIONS/ORDERS FORMING THE BASIS FOR
THIS APPEAL, INCLUDING TRANSCRIPTS OF ORDERS ISSUED FROM THE BENCH OR IN CHAMBERS.
ADDENDUM “B”: COUNSEL MUST ATTACH TO THIS FORM A LIST OF THE ISSUES PROPOSED TO BE RAISED ON APPEAL,
AS WELL AS THE APPLICABLE APPELLATE STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR EACH PROPOSED ISSUE.
PART A: JURISDICTION
1. Federal Jurisdiction 2. Appellate Jurisdiction
U.S. a party / Diversity ✓ Final Decision Order Certified by District Judge (i.e.,
Fed . R. Civ. P. 54(b))
Federal question Other (specify): Interlocutory Decision
(U.S. not a party) Appealable As of Right Other (specify):_________________
IMPORTANT. COMPLETE AND SIGN REVERSE SIDE OF THIS FORM.
FORM C (Rev. October 2016)

PART B: DISTRICT COURT DISPOSITION (Check as many as apply)
1. Stage of Proceedings 2. Type of Judgment/Order Appealed 3. Relief
Pre-trial
During trial
After trial
B Default judgment
Dismissal/FRCP 12(b)(1)
lack of subject matter juris.
__
_
/
Dismissal/other jurisdiction
Dismissal/merit
Judgment / Decision of the Court
□ Damages:
Sought: $
□ Injunctions:
□ Dismissal/FRCP 12(b)(6)
failure to state a claim
L Summary j udgment
Declaratory j udgment
Granted: $
Denied: $
Preliminary
Pennanent
Settled □ Dismissal/28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) _ Jury verdict
Denied
Motion to Unseal
□ frivolous complaint __
Dismissal/28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) _
other dismissal
Judgment NOV
Directed verdict
Other (specify):
Other: Unsealing
PART C: NATURE OF SUIT (Check as many as apply)
1. Federal Statutes 2. Torts 3. Contracts 4. Prisoner Petitions
Antitrust Communications Freedom of Information Act I | Admiralty/ □ Admiralty/ Civil Rights

Bankruptcy Consumer Protection Immigration Maritime l—I Maritime Habeas Corpus
Banks/Banking Copyright n Patent Labor m Assault / Arbitration Mandamus
Civil Rights Trademark OSHA Defamation —1 Commercial Parole
Commerce Election Securities FELA Employment Vacate Sentence
Energy Soc. Security Tax __ I Products Liability Insurance Other
Commodities Environmental Other (Specify): Negotiable
Other (specify): Instruments
I I Other Specify
H ther 6. General 7. Will appeal raise constitutional issuefsl?

Hague tnt’l Child Custody Conv. Arbitration 171 Yes | |No
Forfeiture/Penalty Attorney Disqualification
Real Property Class Action Will appeal raise a matter of first
Treaty (specify): Counsel Fees impression?
Other (specify): Shareholder Derivative
Transfer □ Yes El No
1. Is any matter relative to this appeal still pending below? I lYes. specify: El No
2. To your knowledge, is there any case presently pending or about to be brought before this Court or another court or administrative agency
which: __
(A) Arises from substantially the same case or controversy as this appeal? E]Yes □No
(B) Involves an issue that is substantially similar or related to an issue in this appeal? Syes [□No
If yes, state whether □ “A,” or □ “B,” or □ both are applicable, and provide in the spaces below the following information on the other action(s):
Case Name: Docket No. Citation: Court or Agency:

Giuffre v. Maxwell 16-3945 2d Cir.
Name of Appellant: Alan M. Dershowitz; Michael Cernovich
Date: dobfos to, zotf Signature of Counsel of Record: /

_____________________ IMW Y_________________________________
NOTICE TO COUNSEL
Once you have filed your Notice of Appeal with the District Court or the Tax Court, you have only 14 days in which to complete the following
important steps:
1. Complete this Civil Appeal Pre-Argument Statement (Form C); serve it upon all parties, and file it with the Clerk of the Second Circuit in accordance
with LR 25.1.
2. File the Court of Appeals Transcript Information/Civil Appeal Form (Form D) with the Clerk of the Second Circuit in accordance with LR 25.1.
3. Pay the$505 docketing fee to the United States District Court or the $500 docketing fee to the United States Tax Court unless you are authorized to
prosecute the appeal without payment.
PLEASE NOTE: IF YOU DO NOT COMPLY WITH THESE REQUIREMENTS WITHIN 14 DAYS, YOUR APPEAL WILL BE
DISMISSED. SEE LOCAL RULE 12.1.
FORM C (Rev. December 2016)


Virginia L. Giuffre,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
Addendum A to Form C
-v-
Ghislaine Maxwell, 2CA Docket #: 18-2868
Defendant, Dist. Ct. Docket #: 15 Civ. 7433

-v- (RWS)
Sharon Churcher, Jeffrey Epstein, Notice of Appeal Filed:
Respondents, September 26, 2018
Intervenors-Appellants.
1. Description of the Nature of the Action;
This is an appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, denying Interveners Julie Brown and Miami Herald Media Company,
("Miami Herald," and together with Julie Brown "Intervenors")'s motion to unseal all sealed
records in Giuffre v. Maxwell, 15 Civ. 7433, 2018 WL 4062649 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2018). The
sealed documents are germane to Miami Herald's ongoing coverage of dozens of underage
minors who were victims of Jeffrey Epstein, the South Florida financier who pleaded guilty in
2008 to solicitation of minors. These records are presumptively public under both the common
law and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, but have been sealed pursuant to
an improvidently granted protective order issued by the District Court on March 17, 2016 (the
"Protective Order") and an improvidently granted sealing order issued on August 9, 2016 (the
"Sealing Order").
The underlying action in which Interveners moved to intervene is a defamation action

brought by Virginia Giuffre ("Plaintiff' or "Ms. Giuffre") against Ghislaine Maxwell
("Defendant" or "Ms. Maxwell") on the grounds that Ms. Maxwell, in coordination with Mr.
Epstein, facilitated sexual abuse of Ms. Giuffre, and called Ms. Giuffre a liar in published
statements. During the litigation, on the motion of Ms. Maxwell, the District Court entered the
Protective Order that allowed the parties the autonomy to designate portions of the docket as
1
"confidential" and further allowed those designated portions to remain confidential unless the
non-designating party objected. ECF. No. 62. The Protective Order required the parties to
submit letter motions in order to file documents under seal. Plaintiff and Defendant both
submitted numerous letter motions to file documents under seal, and the court so-ordered each of
these motions. After at least 26 motions on the part of both Plaintiff and Defendant, the District
Court issued a the Sealing Order stating that the parties were no longer required to seek court
approval to designate information as confidential. ECF No. 348. In addition to the wholesale
sealing of certain motions, the entire body of Defendant's motion for summary judgment was
redacted {see ECF No. 538) and over half of the order denying Defendant's motion for summary
judgment was redacted. ECF No. 872.
Two separate parties moved to intervene and unseal selected filings. The first, Alan
Dershowitz, himself implicated in the Epstein scandal, moved to intervene and to unseal three
documents or in the alternative to modify the Protective Order (the "Dershowitz Motion"). The
second individual, podcast host and investigative journalist Michael Cemovich, moved to
intervene and unseal Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (the "Cernovich Motion"). The
District Court denied both motions. The opinion denying the Dershowitz motion is sealed. ECF
No. 496. The Opinion denying the Cernovich Motion reasoned that Cemovich "ha[d] not
established a compelling need for the documents which undergird the summary judgment
motion" and that in light of the impending trial "release for contested confidential discovery
materials could conceivably taint the jury pool." ECF No. 892. Both Mr. Dershowitz and Mr.
Cemovich appealed to this Court.
The underlying defamation action settled on May 24, 2016. (ECF No. 916.) On April 6,
2018, Interveners filed their motion to intervene and unseal. Notably, Ms. Giuffre, the alleged
victim of Mr. Epstein and Plaintiff in Giuffre v. Maxwell, 15 Civ. 7433, 2018 WL 4062649
(S.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2018), did not object to Interveners' motion, but responded that "if anything
is going to be unsealed . . . all filings must be unsealed, including all deposition testimony that
was designated for trial." ECF No. 945. Additionally, Mr. Cemovich filed a memorandum of
law in support of Intervenors' motion (ECF No. 941), and Mr. Dershowitz filed a redacted letter
to the District Court in support of the same. ECF No. 947.
Intervenors argued that the District Court committed serious error in issuing the overly
broad Protective Order and Sealing Order on the grounds that (1) there is a presumption of
access to judicial documents under the common law and the First Amendment to the United
States Constitution, and that therefore (2) the Protective Order and Sealing Order were issued in
error because they reversed the presumption of access to one of closure by allowing the parties to
seal documents without establishing a compelling need for closure that outweighs the public
right of access. Intervenors further argued that the District Court's reasoning for denying the
Cernovich Motion was no longer relevant because the action settled and there was no longer any
risk of tainting a jury pool.
2. The Result Below:
On August 27, 2018, the District Order entered an Opinion and Order denying
Intervenors' motion to unseal all filings on the docket. It found that:
2
1. The "documents sealed in the course of discovery" were not entitled to a presumption of
access and therefore would remain sealed, and
2. The papers submitted in connection with Defendant's summary judgment motion
constituted judicial documents entitled to the presumption of access, but that
3. The privacy interest of the parties, and third-parties that relied on the Protective Order,
outweighed the public's right of access, notwithstanding Ms. Giuffre's support for
Intervenors' motion.
3. Notice of Appeal and Docket Below:
Attached hereto is a copy of the Notice of Appeal filed on September 26, 2018, and the
District Court docket sheet.
4. Opinions/Orders Forming the Basis of the Appeal:
Attached is the District Court's Opinion and Order dated August 24, 2018, and entered
August 27, 2018.
3

Plaintiff-Appellee,
Addendum B to Form C
-v-
Ghislaine Maxwell, 2CA Docket#: 18-2868
Defendant, Dist. Ct. Docket #: 15 Civ. 7433

-v- (RWS)
Sharon Churcher, Jeffrey Epstein, Notice of Appeal Filed:
Respondents, September 26, 2018
ISSUES PROPOSED TO BE RAISED ON APPEAL AND STANDARDS OF REVIEW:
Interveners Julie Brown and Miami Herald Media Company ("Miami Herald," and
together with Julie Brown, "Intervenors")'s appeal of the District Court's Order (ECF No. 953)
denying Interveners' motion to unseal all sealed records in Giuffre v. Maxwell, 325 F. Supp. 3d
428 (S.D.N.Y. 2018), presents the following issues:
1. The District Court issued a protective order on March 17, 2016 (the "Protective
Order"), which allowed the parties in the underlying suit to designate documents as confidential
and protected the so-designated documents from disclosure absent the consent of the producing
party. The District Court also issued a sealing order on August 9, 2016 (the "Sealing Order"),
which removed the requirement that the parties submit letter motions seeking sealing for each
submission. The Protective Order and the Sealing Order therefore reversed the presumption of
public access to judicial documents under the common law and the First Amendment to a
presumption of closure. Did the District Court err in failing to require that that the parties
seeking to seal documents demonstrate a compelling interest to do so as required by the common
law and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution?
2. The District Court characterized the documents sought by Intervenors as either

"discovery documents" or "summary judgment judicial documents." In regards to the former, the
1
District Court held that "the documents sealed in the course of discovery were neither relied
upon by this Court in the rendering of an adjudication, nor 'necessary to or helpful in resolving
[a] motion'" and that therefore the documents were not entitled to a presumption of access. ECF
No. 953, at p. 25. Notwithstanding this finding, the District Court also recognized precedent
holding that documents submitted in support of a motion to compel discovery "presumably will
be necessary to or helpful in resolving that motion" and that "they are, therefore, judicial
documents." ECF No. 953, at p. 28 (quoting Alexander Interactive, Inc. v. Adorama, Inc., No.
12 CIV. 6608 PKC JCF, 2014 WL 4346174, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 2, 2014)). Did the District
Court err in characterizing the documents sought by Intervenors, which include motions to
compel discovery, as "discovery documents" that are not entitled to the presumption of access?
3. Did the District Court err, in violation of the common law and the First
Amendment to the United States Constitution, in concluding that the privacy interests of the
parties in the underlying suit outweighed the public's right of access to the sealed documents
submitted in connection with Defendant's summary judgment motion, notwithstanding Plaintiffs
support for Intervenors' motion to unseal?
4. The Protective Order specified that it "shall have no force and effect on the use of
any CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION at trial" (ECF No. 953, at p. 7) and therefore allowed
that the information disclosed by third parties pursuant to the Protective Order could be
disclosed. Did the District court err, in violation of the common law and the First Amendment to
the United States Constitution, in concluding that the privacy interests of third-parties that relied
on the Protective Order outweighed the public's right of access to the sealed documents
submitted in connection with Defendant's summary judgment motion?
5. Did the District Court err in failing to address Intervenors' argument that the
parties in the underlying action failed to show the good cause required under Rule 26(a) to seal
any of the documents at issue, regardless of the documents' status as "judicial documents" or
otherwise?
Standard of Review. The Second Circuit recently articulated that the determination of
whether a document is a judicial document is reviewed de novo. United States v. HSBC Bank
USA, N.A., 863 F.3d 125, 134 (2d Cir. 2017). This Court examines the District Court's "factual
findings for clear error, its legal determinations de novo, and its ultimate decision to seal or
unseal for abuse of discretion." Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, 814
F.3d 132, 139 (2d Cir. 2016).
2
Case l:15-cv-07433-RWS
Case Document
18-2868, Document 955 Filed
11, 10/11/2018, 09/26/18
2408319, Page
Page8 1 of 43
of 133

X
VIRGINIA GIUFFRE,
Plaintiff, Case No. 15-cv-7433(RWS)
against
GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
Defendant.
X
NOTICE OF APPEAL
Herald"), Interveners in the above-captioned case, hereby appeal to the United States Court of

New York, New York
/s/ Christine N. Walz________

Sanford L. Bohrer
Sandv.Bohrer@hklaw.com
Christine N. Walz
Madelaine.Harrington@.hklaw.com
31 West 52nd Street
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: 212.513.3200
Fax: 212.385.9010

CLOSED,APPEAL,ECF
U.S. District Court
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:15-cv-07433-RWS

Related Case: 1:17-mc-00025-RWS Jury Demand: Both
17-01625 Slander
Cause: 28:1332ct Diversity-(Citizenship) Jurisdiction: Diversity
Plaintiff
Lehrman, P.L.
(954)-524-2820
Fax: (954)-524-2822
PRO HAC VICE
John Pottinger
49 Twin Lakes Road
(917)-446-4641
Meredith L Schultz
Suite 1200
(954)-356-0011
Fax: (954)-356-0022
Email: mschultz@.bsfllp. com
Paul G Cassell
University of Utah
Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0730
(801)-585-5202
Fax: (801)-585-2750
Email: cassellp@1aw.utah.edu
Sigrid S. McCawley
954-356-0011
Fax:954-356-0022
Email: smccaw1ev@bsf11p.com
V.
Defendant
Denver, CO 80203
(303)-831-7364
Fax: (303)-832-2628
Email: ipagliuca@.hmflaw.com
PRO HAC VICE
A TTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laura A. Menninger
Denver, CO 80203
(303)-831-7364
Fax: (303)-832-2628
V.
Respondent
New York, NY 10020
(212) 489-8230
Fax: (212) 489-8340
Email: ericfeder@.dwt.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
Laura R. Handman
Suite 200
Washington, DC 20006-3402
202 508-6600 x6624
Fax: 202 508-6699
LEAD ATTORNEY
Respondent
Poe & Burton PLLC
1030 15th Steet, NW Suite 580 West
(202) 583-2500
Fax: (202) 583-0565
LEAD ATTORNEY
(561)-659-8305
Fax: (561)-835-8691
Email: i goldberger@.agwna.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
PRO MAC VICE
Boston, MA 02116
617-227-3700
Fax: 617-338-9538
Email: owlmgw@.att.net
LEAD ATTORNEY

New York, NY 10036
(212) 506-3900
Fax: (212) 506-3950
Email: mmiller@.steptoe.com
Poe & Burton PLLC
(202)-5 83-2500
Fax: (202)-583-0565
Email: rliwaisuen@.robbinsmssell.com
Applicant
Miscellaneous
Fahringer & Dubno
New York, NY 10017
212-319-5351
Fax:212-319-6657
Email: erica.dubno@.fahringerlaw.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
Interested Party
90 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10016
(212) 210-9400
Fax: (212) 210-9444
Email: alexander.lorenzo@.alston.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
Street
Atlanta, GA 30309
(404)-881-7697
Email: iohn.stephenson@.alstcm.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
Interested Party
NYP Holdings, Inc.,
Interested Party
Daily News, L.P.
V.
Material Witness
LEAD ATTORNEY
John Pottinger
V.
Intervenor
New York, NY 10020
212-763-5000
Fax: 212-763-5001
Email: aceni@ecbalaw.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
David A Lebowitz
New York, NY 10020
(212) 763-5000
Fax: (212) 763-5001
Email: d1ehowitz@ecbalaw.com
Intervenor
Hartford, CT 06103
702-420-2001
Fax: 305-437-7662
Email: imw@.randazza. com
LEAD ATTORNEY
Intervenor
Holland & Knight
31 West 52nd Street
New York, NY 10019
(212)-513-3368
Fax: (212)-385-9010
Email: chnstine.walz@hklaw.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
701 Brickell Avenue
Suite 3000
Miami, FL 33131
(305)-789-7678
Fax: (305)-679-6335
Email: sandv.bohrer@hk1aw.com
LEAD ATTORNEY

31 West 52nd Street
New York, NY 10019
(212)-513-3374
Fax: (212)-385-9010
Email: madelaine.harrington@.hk1 aw.com
Tntervenor
LEAD ATTORNEY
LEAD ATTORNEY


Number 0208-11409928)Document filed by VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE.(McCawley,
09/21/2015 2 FILING ERROR - DEFICIENT PLEADING - SIGNATURE ERROR - CIVIL
09/21/2015)
(Entered: 09/21/2015)
09/21/2015 4 FILING ERROR - DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY - MOTION for Sigrid S.
0208-11410210. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office
09/21/2015)
09/21/2015 ▻▻▻NOTICE REGARDING DEFICIENT MOTION TO APPEAR PRO HAC
VICE. Notice to RE-FILE Document No. 4 MOTION for Sigrid S. McCawley to
Appear Pro Hac Vice. Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number 0208-11410210.
Order;. Re-file the motion as a Corrected Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice -
attach the correct signed PDF - select the correct named filer/filers - attach valid
Certificates of Good Standing issued within the past 30 days - attach Proposed
Order., (sdi) (Entered: 09/21/2015)
name was entered in all caps;, (dgo) (Entered: 09/22/2015)
09/22/2015 CASE OPENING INITIAL ASSIGNMENT NOTICE: The above-entitled action is
htto://nvsd.uscourts.eov/iudees/District. Attomevs are responsible for providing
http://nvsd.uscourts.gov/ecf filing.php. (dgo) (Entered: 09/22/2015)
09/22/2015 Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Ellis is so designated, (dgo) (Entered: 09/22/2015)
09/22/2015 5 ELECTRONIC SUMMONS ISSUED as to Ghislaine Maxwell, (dgo) (Entered:
09/22/2015)
09/25/2015 £ MOTION to Amend/Correct Notice Regarding Deficient Motion to Appear Pro Hac
09/25/2015 £ SUMMONS RETURNED EXECUTED Summons and Complaint served. Ghislaine
(ajs) (Entered: 09/29/2015)
10/08/2015)
dated 10/9/2015 re: I write pursuant to Section l.E. of Your Honor's Individual
otherwise respond to Plaintiffs Complaint from October 13, 2015 up to and including
11/30/2015. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 10/12/2015) (ijm) (Entered:
10/13/2015)
10/30/2015 n ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. All motions are to be made returnable at
10/30/2015)
12/01/2015)
12/01/2015 15 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 14 MOTION to Dismiss .. Document filed
(Entered: 12/01/2015)
Decision on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
noon on January 14,2016 in Courtroom 18C, United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl
Deadlines/Hearing as to JJ MOTION to Stay Discovery Pending Decision on
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. 14 MOTION to Dismiss.: Motion Hearing set for
(spo) (Entered: 12/02/2015)
12/10/2015 m RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 12 MOTION to Stay Discovery Pending
Decision on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giufffe.
Virginia L. Giufffe. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit Composite
Exhibit 2 Part 1, # 2 Exhibit Composite Exhibit 2 Part 2, #1 Exhibit Exhibit 3, #5.
Exhibit Exhibit 4, #6 Exhibit Composite Exhibit 5 Part 1, #2Exhibit Composite
Exhibit 5 Part 2, #£ Exhibit Exhibit 6, #2 Exhibit Exhibit 7, #12 Exhibit Exhibit 8, #
Pending Decision on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.. Document filed by Ghislaine
12/17/2015 23 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 14 MOTION to Dismiss .. Document
filed by Virginia L. Giufffe. (McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 12/17/2015)
Document filed by Virginia L. Giufffe. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3
12/28/2015 21 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 14 MOTION to Dismiss ..
01/08/2016 M NOTICE of Supplemental Authority. Document filed by Virginia L. Giufffe.
Computing Device . Document filed by Virginia L. Giufffe. (Attachments: # 1
01/20/2016 2g OPINION #106149 re: 17 MOTION to Stay Discovery Pending Decision on
respond or object to Plaintiffs First Request for Production within fourteen days of the
as set forth above. (As fhrther set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge Robert W.
01/25/2016 3Q NOTICE of Response to Defendant's Notice of Supplemental Authority re: 29 Notice
(Other). Document filed by Virginia L. Giufffe. (McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered:
01/25/2016)
Robert W. Sweet. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Michael McDaniel, (212) 805-0300.
court reporter/transcriber in the above-captioned matter. The parties have seven (7)
Improper Claim of Privilege . Document filed by Virginia L. Giufffe.(McCawley,
02/26/2016 M DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in Support re: 22 MOTION to Compel
Privilege .. Document filed by Virginia L. Giufffe. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2
Objections . Document filed by Virginia L. Giufffe. (Attachments: # 1.
Document filed by Virginia L. Giufffe. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1, #2
Exhibit Exhibit 2, #2 Exhibit Exhibit 3, #4 Exhibit Exhibit 4 Part 1, # 5 Exhibit
Exhibit 4 Part 2, # £ Exhibit Exhibit 5, #2 Exhibit Exhibit 6, #£ Exhibit Exhibit 7, #2
Exhibit Exhibit 8. # 10 Exhibit Exhibit 9, # H Exhibit Exhibit 10 Part 1, # 12 Exhibit
Exhibit 10 Part 2, #13 Exhibit Exhibit 1 l)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 02/26/2016)
03/02/2016 2S MOTION for Protective Order . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.(Menninger,
Order.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit
03/04/2016 4Q RESPONSE to Motion re: M MOTION for Protective Order .. Document filed by
Order.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit,
Maxwell to Produce Documents Subject To Improper Objections ., 12. MOTION to
Claim of Privilege .. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 03/04/2016)
Claim of Privilege .. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (McCawley, Sigrid)
(Entered: 03/07/2016)
(Entered: 03/07/2016)
Compel Ghislaine Maxwell to Produce Documents Subject To Improper Objections ..
03/07/2016 46 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: B MOTION to
Claim of Privilege .. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 03/07/2016)
03/07/2016 42 DECLARATION of Laura A. Menninger in Opposition re: B MOTION to Compel
Privilege .. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, #2
Exhibit B, #2 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, #5 Exhibit E)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered:
03/07/2016)
03/08/2016 48 ORDER: Plaintiffs motions to compel, filed February 26, and Defendant's motion for
03/09/2016 42 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 28 MOTION for Protective Order.. Document
(vf) (Entered: 03/10/2016)
W. Sweet on 1/13/2016) Copies Sent By Chambers, (spo) Modified on 3/14/2016
(spo). (Entered: 03/14/2016)
number 0208-12065065. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's
03/14/2016 ▻▻▻NOTICE REGARDING PRO HAC VICE MOTION. Regarding Document
200.00, receipt number 0208-12065065. Motion and supporting papers to be
no deficiencies, (bcu) (Entered: 03/14/2016)
Produce Documents Subject To Improper Objections .. Document filed by Virginia L.
Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1 Part 1, #2
Exhibit Exhibit 1 Part 2, #3 Exhibit Exhibit 2 Part 1, #4 Exhibit Exhibit 2 Part 2, #5
Exhibit Exhibit 3 Part 1, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit 3 Part 2, #7 Exhibit Exhibit 3 Part 3, # 8
Exhibit Exhibit 3 Part 4, #9 Exhibit Exhibit 4, #10 Exhibit Exhibit 5, #11 Exhibit
Exhibit 6, #12 Exhibit Exhibit 7 Part 1, #12 Exhibit Exhibit 7 Part 2, #14 Exhibit
Exhibit 7 Part 3, #15 Exhibit Exhibit 8, #16 Exhibit Exhibit 9. # 17 Exhibit Exhibit
10, #18 Exhibit Exhibit 11 Part 1, #19 Exhibit Exhibit 11 Part 2, #2Q Exhibit Exhibit
12, #21 Exhibit Exhibit 13 Part 1, #22 Exhibit Exhibit 13 Part 2, #22 Exhibit Exhibit
Maxwell to Produce Documents Subject to Improper Claim of Privilege .. Document
03/14/2016)
03/15/2016 5£ FILING ERROR - WRONG EVENT TYPE SELECTED FROM MENU -
(Idi). (Entered: 03/15/2016)
03/15/2016 52 FILING ERROR - WRONG EVENT TYPE SELECTED FROM MENU -
(Other) And Incorporated Memorandum ofLaw. Document filed by Virginia L.
Giuffre.(McCawley, Sigrid) Modified on 3/17/2016 (Idi). (Entered: 03/15/2016)
(rjm) (Entered: 03/16/2016)
03/16/2016 61 ORDER: Plaintiffs motions for leave to serve rolling production and privilege log,
03/16/2016)
03/17/2016 ***NOTICE TO ATTORNEY TO RE-FILE DOCUMENT - EVENT TYPE
ERROR. Notice to Attorney Sigrid S. McCawley to RE-FILE Document 58
Motions. (Idi) (Entered: 03/17/2016)
(Other) And Incorporated Memorandum ofLaw. Use the event type Memorandum
Supporting Documents. (Idi) (Entered: 03/17/2016)
(mro) (Entered: 03/18/2016)
03/22/2016 62 MOTION for Protective Order Regarding Deposition ofDefendant. Document filed by
Order Regarding Deposition ofDefendant.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, #2 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit
E, #6 Exhibit F, # 2 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I)(Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 03/22/2016)
W. Sweet. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Vincent Bologna, (212) 805-0300. Transcript
03/23/2016 62 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: M MOTION to Compel Plaintiff to Disclose
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 26.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
03/23/2016 62 DECLARATION of Sigrid S. McCawley in Opposition re: M MOTION to Compel
L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit Exhibit 2, #2 Exhibit
Deposition ofDefendant.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (McCawley, Sigrid)
(Entered: 03/23/2016)
Order Regarding Deposition ofDefendant.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit Exhibit 2, #2 Exhibit Exhibit 3, #4
Exhibit Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit 5, #6 Exhibit Exhibit 6)(McCawley, Sigrid)
(Entered: 03/23/2016)
receipt number 0208-12103899. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by
03/24/2016 »>NOTICE REGARDING PRO HAC VICE MOTION. Regarding Document

no deficiencies, (sdi) (Entered: 03/24/2016)
(Entered: 03/24/2016)
03/24/2016 22 ORDER: Plaintiffs motion to compel Defendant to produce documents subject to
proceedings held March 17, 2016, docket no. 66. With respect to Plaintiffs motion to
(spo) (Entered: 03/24/2016)
(spo) (Entered: 03/28/2016)
03/31/2016 22 MOTION to Compel Responses to Defendant's First Set ofDiscovery Requests to
Plaintiff. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura) (Entered:
03/31/2016)
03/31/2016 76 DECLARATION of Laura A. Menninger in Support re: J5 MOTION to Compel
Responses to Defendant's First Set ofDiscovery Requests to Plaintiff.. Document filed
by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit
Submission in Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion to Compel the Production of
Defendant's First Set ofDiscovery Requests to Plaintiff.. Document filed by Virginia
04/04/2016 22 DECLARATION of Sigrid S. McCawley in Opposition re: J5 MOTION to Compel
by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit Exhibit 2, #2.
Exhibit Exhibit 3, #4 Exhibit Exhibit 4, #5 Exhibit Exhibit 5, #6 Exhibit Exhibit
04/05/2016 MOTION for Paul G. Cassell to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt
04/05/2016)
deficiencies, (wb) (Entered: 04/05/2016)
W. Sweet. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Pamela Utter, (212) 805-0300. Transcript may
for 7/11/2016. (Grant, Patricia) (Entered: 04/07/2016)
04/07/2016 M ORDER: Defendant's letter objection to pro hac vice admission of Paul G. Cassell,
Wednesday April 13, 2016. Plaintiffs reply to Defendant's letter, if any, shall be
4/6/2016) (spo) (Entered: 04/07/2016)
04/07/2016 SI ORDER: Defendant's motion to compel, filed March 31,2016, shall be heard at noon
on April 21,2016 in Courtroom 18C, United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street.
Clerk's Office staff. Document filed by Virginia L. Giufffe. (Attachments: # 1
Certificate Good Standing Edwards, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Edwards, Bradley)
(Entered: 04/07/2016)
No. M MOTION for Bradley James Edwards to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee
$ 200.00, receipt number 0208-12160815. Motion and supporting papers to be
no deficiencies, (wb) (Entered: 04/07/2016)
04/07/2016 S7 MOTION for Adjournment of Hearing on April 13, 2016 . Document filed by
Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Lama) (Entered: 04/07/2016)
04/08/2016 M RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: M MOTION for Bradley James Edwards to
Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number 0208-12160815. Motion
April 21,2016 in Courtroom 18C, United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street.
21,2016. Plaintiffs reply to Defendant's letter with respect to Mr. Cassell, if any,
Plaintiffs reply to Defendant's objection with respect to Mr. Edwards shall be
4/8/2016) (mro) (Entered: 04/11/2016)
York, NY 10007 before Judge Robert W. Sweet, (mro) (Entered: 04/11/2016)
Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number 0208-12149795. Motion and supporting
staff.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Schultz, Meredith) (Entered:

04/10/2016)
04/11/2016 21 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages For Reply In Support OfDefendants Motion
04/11/2016)
First Set ofDiscovery Requests to Plaintiff . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
04/11/2016 93 FILING ERROR - DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY (SEE 24 Declaration) -
to Defendant's First Set ofDiscovery Requests to Plaintiff.. Document filed by
4/12/2016 (db). (Entered: 04/11/2016)
04/11/2016)
(spo) (Entered: 04/12/2016)
(Entered: 04/13/2016)
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 3. Exhibit, # 3
Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # £ Exhibit)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 04/13/2016)
04/15/2016 2£ ORDER denying in part 21 Motion for Clarification of the Court's order and Forensic
examination. Plaintiffs motion for clarification of the Court's March 17, 2016 ruling is
before April 21, 2016. Plaintiffs reply, if any, shall be served on or before April 25,
First Set ofDiscovery Requests to Plaintiff. Resubmitted. Document filed by Ghislaine
Sealed Records Clerk for the sealing or unsealing of document or case, (cf) (Entered:
04/15/2016)
04/18/2016 101 MOTION to Compel Plaintiff to Disclose Alleged "On—going Criminal Investigations
Disclose Alleged "On—going Criminal Investigations by Law Enforcement [sic]" or, In
the Alternative, to Stay Proceedings.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
Plaintiff to Disclose Alleged "On-going Criminal Investigations by Law Enforcement
(Entered: 04/19/2016)
for Admission Pro Hac Vice by Paul G. Cassell, and Bradley JEdwards. Document
04/19/2016)
4/20/2016 (db). (Entered: 04/19/2016)
Plaintiffs motion to compel Defendant to Produce Documents Subject to Improper
motion for a protective order regarding deposition of Defendant, filed March 22,2016,
24,2016. Tr. 4:7-7:16, ECF No. 82. Defendant's motion to compel Plaintiff to
04/20/2016)
ERROR. Notice to Attorney Laura A. Menninger to RE-FILE Document 105
(non-motion) found under the event list Other Answers, (db) (Entered:
04/20/2016)
Opposition and Supporting Documents, then link to 80 and 86 Motions, (db)
(Entered: 04/20/2016)
04/20/2016 108 DECLARATION of Jeffrey S. Pagliuca in Support re: 107 Objection (non-motion),,.
Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit
04/21/2016 HA RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 96 MOTION for Clarification of Court's
Order and For Forensic Examination .. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B)(Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 04/21/2016)
on 4/21/2016 re: [10 MOTION to Compel Plaintiff to Disclose Alleged "On-going
Proceedings, filed by Ghislaine Maxwell, MOTION for Paul G. Cassell to Appear
Pro Hac Vic Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number 0208-12149795.Motion and
leave to renew, and Deftidant's motion to compel ECF No. 101 is granted in part and
200.00, receipt number 0208-12149795 Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed
by Clerk's Office staff filed by Virginia L. Giuffre, 25. MOTION to Compel Responses
receipt number 0208-12160815 and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's
Alleged "On-going Criminal Investigations by Law Enforcement [sic]" or. In the
(Entered: 04/21/2016)
i Exhibit)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 04/21/2016)
04/21/2016 116 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: U2 MOTION for Paul G. Cassell to
(Entered: 04/21/2016)
reviewed and there are no deficiencies, (sdi) (Entered: 04/22/2016)

04/22/2016 »>NOTICE REGARDING PRO MAC VICE MOTION. Regarding Document
reviewed and there are no deficiencies, (bcu) (Entered: 04/22/2016)
04/22/2016 118 ORDER FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE granting Hi Motion for Bradley J.
(mro) (Entered: 04/22/2016)
Sigrid McCawley dated April 25,2016. Document filed by Virginia L.
04/25/2016 122 DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in Support re: MOTION for Clarification of
Exhibit, # £ Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit REDACTED, # £ Exhibit REDACTED)(McCawley,
AFFIDAVIT of Erika Perez in Support re: 2£ MOTION for Clarification of Court's
(McCawley, Sigrid) Modified on 4/27/2016 (Idi). (Entered: 04/26/2016)
04/27/2016 124 MOTION Unopposedfor Adjournment ofHearing on Plaintiffs Motion for Forensic
04/27/2016)
04/27/2016 m ORDER granting 120 Motion to Seal Document. So ordered. (Signed by Judge Robert
case, (spo) (Entered: 04/27/2016)
found under the event list Service of Process. (Idi) (Entered: 04/27/2016)
04/28/2016 126 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE of Plaintiffs Non-Redacted Reply in Support of Motion
Pagliuca on April 26, 2016. Service was made by E-MAIL. Document filed by
Plaintiffs motion for a forensic examination is adjourned and shall instead be heard at
noon on May 12,2016 in Courtroom 18C, United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street.
18C, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Robert W. Sweet, (spo)
(Entered: 04/28/2016)
Document filed by Virginia L. Giufffe. (McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 04/28/2016)
Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Merminger, Laura) (Entered: 04/29/2016)
04/29/2016 130 Objection re: 128 Notice (Other) to Submission ofLaw Enforcement Materials for In
04/29/2016)
05/01/2016 131 RESPONSE re: 130 Objection (non-motion). Document filed by Virginia L. Giufffe.
05/01/2016 132 DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in Opposition re: 130 Objection (non-motion).
Document filed by Virginia L. Giufffe. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(McCawley, Sigrid)
(Entered: 05/01/2016)
05/02/2016 134 ORDER: With respect to Plaintiffs April 28,2016 in camera submissions, the Plaintiff
is directed to submit a log in camera on or before April 4,2016, identifying the
Judge Robert W. Sweet on 5/2/2016) (spo) (Entered: P5/02/2016)
Giufffe. For the foregoing reasons and as set forth above, Plaintiffs motion to compel
on 5/4/2016 (ca). (Entered: 05/02/2016)
W. Sweet. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Steven Greenblum, (212) 805-0300. Transcript
05/04/2016 138 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Brief in Support of the Privilege Claimedfor In
May 4,2016. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered:
05/04/2016)
05/04/2016 139 RESPONSE re: 134 Order,, Redacted. Document filed by Virginia L. Giufffe.
McCawley in Support. Document filed by Virginia L. Giufffe. (Attachments: # 1
Giufffe. (McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 05/04/2016)
05/05/2016 142 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Defendant to
McCawley dated May 5,2016. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.(McCawley,
05/05/2016)
case, (spo) (Entered: 05/06/2016)
sealing or unsealing of document or case, (spo) (Entered: 05/06/2016)
05/06/2016 147 ORDER: Plaintiffs motion to compel, filed May 5, 2016, shall be heard at noon on
Thursday May 12,2016 in Courtroom 18C, United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl
(Entered: 05/10/2016)
05/11/2016)
Exhibit 2 Part 1, #2 Exhibit Exhibit 2 Part 2, #4 Exhibit Exhibit 2 Part 3, #2 Exhibit
Exhibit 3 Part 1, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit 3 Part 2, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 4, #8 Exhibit Exhibit
05/11/2016)
05/12/2016 154 SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault(rz) (Entered: 05/12/2016)
on 5/12/2016 re: 143. MOTION to Compel Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell to Answer
05/20/2016 155 MOTION to Compel Non-Privileged Documents. Document filed by Ghislaine
Non-Privileged Documents.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: #
1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #2 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D, #2 Exhibit E, # £ Exhibit F, #
05/20/2016)
(Entered: 05/23/2016)
05/25/2016 159 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to Serve Three
(Entered: 05/25/2016)
1, #2 Exhibit Exhibit 2 Redacted, # 2 Exhibit Composite Exhibit 3, #4 Exhibit
Exhibit 4, #2 Exhibit Exhibit 5, #6 Exhibit Exhibit 6, #2 Exhibit Exhibit 7, # £
Exhibit Exhibit 8, #2 Exhibit Composite Exhibit 9)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered:
05/25/2016)
no deficiencies, (sdi) (Entered: 05/26/2016)
05/26/2016 164 MOTION to Compel all Attorney-Client Communications and Work Product Put At
Attorney—Client Communications and Work Product Put At Issue by Plaintiff and Her
Attorneys.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, #2
Exhibit B, #2 Exhibit C, #1 Exhibit D, #2 Exhibit E, #6 Exhibit F, #2 Exhibit G, # £
Exhibit H, #2 Exhibit I, #12 Exhibit J, #11 Exhibit K, #12 Exhibit L, #12 Exhibit
M, #14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit Q. # 16 Exhibit P, #12 Exhibit Q)(Menninger, Laura)

(Entered: 05/26/2016)
05/27/2016 166 ORDER: Plaintiffs motion for leave to serve, filed May 25, 2016, shall be heard at
noon on Thursday June 2,2016 in Courtroom 18C, United States Courthouse, 500
05/27/2016)
(kgo) (Entered: 05/27/2016)
05/27/2016 III LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Plaintiff's Motion to Exceed Presumptive Ten
05/27/2016)
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit Exhibit 2, # 2. Exhibit Exhibit 3, # 1
Exhibit Exhibit 4, #5 Exhibit Exhibit 5 Redacted, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit 6 Redacted, # 2
Exhibit Exhibit 7 Part 1, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit 7 Part 2, #9 Exhibit Exhibit 8, #10
05/27/2016 124 ORDER: All pending motions scheduled to be heard at noon on Thursday June 2,2016
05/27/2016 m NOTICE of of Acceptance of Service re: 160 MOTION for Leave to Serve Three
05/27/2016 126 MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to 24—Page Motion on Attorney-Client
05/27/2016)
to Compel Non-Privileged Documents addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from
05/31/2016 178 ORDER granting 171 Motion to Seal Document Plaintiffs Motion to Exceed
5/31/2016) (kko) (Entered: 05/31/2016)
case, (kko) (Entered: 05/31/2016)
05/31/2016 179 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 155 MOTION to Compel Non-Privileged
Documents.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Schultz, Meredith) (Entered:
05/31/2016)
Non-PrivilegedDocuments.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: #
Redacted, # £ Redacted, # 2 Exhibit)(Schultz, Meredith) (Entered: 05/31/2016)
06/01/2016 181 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document 164 MOTION to Compel all Attorney-Client
Communications and Work Product Put At Issue by Plaintiffand Her Attorneys.
Records Clerk for the sealing or unsealing of document or case, (cf) (Entered:
06/01/2016)
06/01/2016 184 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 164 MOTION to Compel all Attorney-Client
Communications and Work Product Put At Issue by Plaintiff and Her Attorneys..
Seal Document 164 MOTION to Compel all Attorney-Client Communications and
Work Product Put At Issue by Plaintiff and Her Attorneys, addressed to Judge Robert
Exhibit 4, #5. Exhibit 5, #6 Exhibit 6, #2 Exhibit 7, #& Exhibit 8, # £ Exhibit 9. # 10
Exhibit 10, # H Exhibit 11 Sealed, # 12 Exhibit 12, #12 Exhibit 13 Sealed, # 14
(Entered: 06/01/2016)
06/02/2016 Minute Entry The motions on June 2,2016 was taken on submission. (Chan, Tsz)
(Entered: 06/07/2016)
case, (kl) (Entered: 06/03/2016)
06/06/2016 187 ORDER: Plaintiffs motion to exceed the ten deposition limit shall be returnable on
submission on June 16,2016. All papers shall be served in accordance with Local
06/06/2016)
5/31/2016) (spo) (Entered: 06/06/2016)
Deposition Limit Redacted.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger,
06/06/2016 191 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 155 MOTION to Compel Non-Privileged
Documents.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura) (Entered:
06/06/2016)
Non-Privileged Documents.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: #
1 Exhibit K, #2 Exhibit L, #3 Exhibit M)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 06/06/2016)
06/06/2016 193 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 164 MOTION to Compel all Attorney-Client
Communications and Work Product Put At Issue by Plaintiff and Her Attorneys..
Attorney-Client Communications and Work Product Put At Issue by Plaintiff and Her
06/08/2016 198 SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault(mps) (Entered: 06/08/2016)
06/10/2016 m DECLARATION of Sigrid S. McCawley in Support re: 199 MOTION for Extension
172 MOTION To Exceed Presumptive Ten Deposition Limit Redacted.. Document
06/13/2016 2M DECLARATION of Sigrid S. McCawley in Support re: 2Q2 LETTER MOTION to
06/13/2016)
06/13/2016 205 MOTION for Protective Order re Subpoena to Apple, Inc. Seeking Production ofAll of
Order re Subpoena to Apple, Inc. Seeking Production ofAll ofMs. Giuffre's Sent and
Production ofAll ofMs. Giuffre's Sent and Received Emails and Related Data.
Order re the Subpoena to Microsoft Corporation Seeking Production ofAll ofMs.
06/13/2016)
(ijm) (Entered: 06/14/2016)
case, (rjm) (Entered: 06/14/2016)
06/14/2016 210 ORDER. Plaintiffs motions for a protective order, to maintain the confidentiality
Sweet on 6/14/2016) (ijm) (Entered: 06/14/2016)
06/15/2016 m MOTION to Quash subpoena of Sharon Churcher . Document filed by Sharon
Churcher. (Handman, Laura) (Entered: 06/15/2016)
1 to Churcher Deck, # 2 Exhibit 2 to Churcher Deck, # 2 Exhibit 3 to Churcher Deck,
# 4 Exhibit 4 to Churcher Deck, # 5 Exhibit 5 to Churcher Deck, # 6 Exhibit 6 to
Churcher Deck, # 2 Exhibit 7 to Churcher Deck, # 2 Exhibit 8 to Churcher
Dech)(Feder, Eric) (Entered: 06/15/2016)
1 Exhibit A to Handman Dech)(Feder, Eric) (Entered: 06/15/2016)
Sharon Churcher.. Document filed by Sharon Churcher. (Feder, Eric) (Entered:
06/15/2016)
Subpoena andfor a Protective Order. Document filed by Jeffrey Epstein. (Li Wai
Jeffrey Epstein or in the Alternative Modify Subpoena andfor a Protective Order..
of Jeffrey Epstein or in the Alternative Modify Subpoena andfor a Protective Order..
document was incorrectly filed in this case, (rj) (Entered: 06/17/2016)
Deposition Limit Redacted. AMENDED. Document filed by Virginia L. Giufffe.
6/20/2016) (ama) (Entered: 06/20/2016)
06/20/2016)
06/20/2016 227 ORDER: Sharon Churcher's motion to quash shall be heard at noon on Thursday June
23,2016 in Courtroom 18C, United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street. IT IS SO
ORDERED., Set Deadlines/Hearing as to (Motion Hearing set for 6/23/2016 at 12:00
06/20/2016)
Complete Depositions.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 06/20/2016)
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, #2 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D, #£ Exhibit
E, # f> Exhibit F, #2 Exhibit G, #2 Exhibit H, # 2 Exhibit I, # 12 Exhibit J. # 11
(Entered: 06/20/2016)
06/20/2016 230 MOTION to Reopen Deposition of Plaintiff Virginia Giufffe . Document filed by
26(a).. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, #2
Exhibit B, #2 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D, #2 Exhibit E, #6 Exhibit F, #2 Exhibit G, #£
Exhibit H, #2 Exhibit I, #1Q Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, #12 Exhibit L, # 12 Exhibit
M, #14 Exhibit N)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 06/20/2016)
Epstein or in the Alternative Modify Subpoena andfor a Protective Order.. Document
filed by Virginia L. Giufffe. (McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 06/20/2016)
Subpoena of Jeffrey Epstein or in the Alternative Modify Subpoena andfor a
Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit Exhibit 2, # 2. Exhibit Exhibit 3, #4 Exhibit Exhibit 4, #2
Exhibit Exhibit 5 Part 1 of 3, #6 Exhibit Exhibit 5 Part 2 of 3, #7 Exhibit Exhibit 5
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit
E, # £ Exhibit F, #2 Exhibit G, #£ Exhibit H, #2 Exhibit I, # IQ Exhibit K. # 11
Exhibit L, #12 Exhibit M, # 13 Exhibit N)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 06/21/2016)
(rjm) (Entered: 06/21/2016)
Sealed Records Clerk for the sealing or unsealing of document or case, (rjm) (Entered:
06/21/2016)
06/21/2016 237 ORDER with respect to 230 Motion to Reopen Plaintiffs deposition; with respect to
231 Motion for Sanctions: Defendant's motion to reopen Plaintiffs deposition and
6/21/2016) (tn) (Entered: 06/21/2016)
of Jeffrey Epstein or in the Alternative Modify Subpoena andfor a Protective Order..
Subpoena andfor a Protective Order.. Document filed by Jeffrey Epstein.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit l)(Li Wai Suen, Rachel) (Entered: 06/21/2016)
Sigrid S. McCawley dated June 22,2016. Document filed by Virginia L.
Churcher .. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura) (Entered:
06/22/2016)
subpoena of Sharon Churcher.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments:
(Entered: 06/22/2016)
# 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 2. Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit REDACTED, # 5 Exhibit, # 6

Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # & Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # IQ Exhibit, #11 Exhibit, #12 Exhibit,
6/23/2016) (rjm) (Entered: 06/24/2016)
06/24/2016)
granted.Microsoft Subpoena: Motion to quash granted, with leave to renew. Churcher
06/24/2016) (mps) (Entered: 06/24/2016)
Quash. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 6/23/2016) (ijm) (Entered: 06/24/2016)
(qm) (Entered: 06/24/2016)
case, (ijm) (Entered: 06/24/2016)
06/28/2016 255 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Plaintiffs Response in Opposition to
Meredith Schultz dated June 28,2016. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.(Schultz,
06/28/2016 256 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Plaintiffs Response in Opposition to
Defendant's Motion to Reopen Plaintiffs Deposition addressed to Judge Robert W.
06/28/2016)
(Entered: 06/28/2016)
REDACTED-CORRECTED. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Schultz,
07/05/2016 262 LETTER MOTION for Leave to File Reply Brief in Further Support ofMotion to
J. Feder dated July 5,2016. Document filed by Sharon Churcher.(Feder, Eric)
(Entered: 07/05/2016)
of Sharon Churcher .. Document filed by Sharon Churcher. (Feder, Eric) (Entered:
07/05/2016)
dated 6/30/2016 re: I write to request a brief 3-day extension of time to file Ms.
Maxwell's Reply in Support of her Motions to Re-open Plaintiffs Deposition and for
Rule 37(b) and (c) Sanctions until July 8,2016. ENDORSEMENT: So ordered.
(Replies due by 7/8/2016.) (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 7/5/2016) (qm)
(Entered: 07/07/2016)
07/07/2016 266 ORDER granting 255 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Plaintiffs Response in
Giuffre. So ordered. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 7/5/2016) (qm) (Entered:
07/07/2016)
case, (qm) (Entered: 07/07/2016)
Virginia Giuffre .. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 07/08/2016)
to Comply with Court Order and Failure to Comply with Rule 26(a).. Document filed
26(a).. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit O, #2
Exhibit P, #3 Exhibit Q, #4 Exhibit R, # 5 Exhibit S, # 6 Exhibit T)(Menninger,

Meredith Schultz dated July 12,2016. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.(Schultz,
07/12/2016 272 LETTER MOTION for Leave to File Sur-Reply addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet
from Sigrid McCawley dated July 12,2016. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit REDACTED Sur-Reply, # 2 Exhibit REDACTED
REDACTED Exhibit 5,#£ Exhibit REDACTED Exhibit 6,#2 Exhibit REDACTED
Exhibit 7, #12 Exhibit REDACTED Exhibit 8)(Schultz, Meredith) (Entered:
07/12/2016)
07/13/2016 273 ORDER granting 256 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Plaintiffs Response in
Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Reopen Plaintiffs Deposition addressed to Judge
(ijm) (Entered: 07/13/2016)
REDACTED OPINION. ENDORSEMENT: So ordered, re: 264 NOTICE of of
Judge Robert W. Sweet on 7/11/2016) (qm) (Entered: 07/13/2016)
07/13/2016)
07/13/2016)
the sealing or unsealing of document or case, (rjm) (Entered: 07/13/2016)
Sweet. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Vincent Bologna, (212) 805-0300. Transcript may
07/13/2016 278 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Plaintiffs Motion for an Adverse Inference
07/13/2016)
W. Sweet on 7/15/2016) (to) (Entered: 07/15/2016)
Court to strike and disregard Plaintiffs Sur-Reply in Response to Defendant's Reply
07/15/2016)
07/15/2016 287 ORDER with respect to 279 Motion for Sanctions: Plaintiffs motion for an adverse
(Entered: 07/15/2016)
Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit
07/18/2016)
from Laura A. Menninger dated June 15,201 REDACTED. Document filed by
Plaintiffs Sur-Reply in Response to Defendant's Reply in Support of Motion for
Sanctions, or in the alternative, permit Ms. Maxwell to file a Sur Sur-Reply
contemporaneously with the Sur-Reply. ENDORSEMENT: Sur sur reply permitted.
07/19/2016)
201. Use the event type Letter found under the event list Other Documents, (db)
(Entered: 07/22/2016)
15,2016 re: Motion to Strike Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Motion for an Adverse
by GhislaineMaxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, #2Exhibit2)(Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 07/22/2016)
07/22/2016 301 ORDER: Defendant's motion to strike Plaintiffs motion for an Adverse Inference
filing of this order. The briefing schedule and submission date for Plaintiffs motion for
(cf) (Entered: 07/22/2016)
to Modify Pretrial Scheduling Order re: U Scheduling Order,. Document filed by
Sur-Reply addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Sigrid McCawley dated July 12,
2016. Defendant's Sur Sur-Reply In Support ofMotion for Rule 37(b) & (c) Sanctions.
Exhibit V, # 3 Exhibit W, #4 Exhibit X)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 07/25/2016)
07/25/2016 305 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Plaintiffs Motion for an Extension of Time to
Meredith Schultz dated July 25,2016. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.(Schultz,
07/25/2016)
5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit REDACTED, # £ Exhibit REDACTED, # 2
07/25/2016 308 MOTION for Sanctions andfinding Civil Contempt against Sarah Kellen for Ignoring
07/25/2016)
07/25/2016 310 MOTION for Sanctions andfor Finding of Civil Contempt Against Nadia Marcinkova
(Entered: 07/25/2016)
Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 2.
Virginia L. Giufffe.(Schultz, Meredith) (Entered: 07/29/2016)
07/29/2016 2M LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Motion to Enforce the Court's Order addressed
to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Meredith Schultz dated July 29,2016. Document filed
07/29/2016 316 FILING ERROR - DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY - DECLARATION of
REDACTED, # 2 Exhibit REDACTED, # 4 Exhibit REDACTED, # £ Exhibit
REDACTED, # 6 Exhibit REDACTED, # 1 Exhibit REDACTED, # £ Exhibit
Modify Pretrial Scheduling Order re: 12. Scheduling Order. Document filed by
Ghislaine Maxwell. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 7/30/2016) (ijm). (Entered:
08/01/2016)
11/21/2016. Pretrial Order due by 11/21/2016. (qm) (Entered: 08/01/2016)
08/01/2016 318 ORDER: Plaintiffs motions for a finding of civil contempt against Sarah Kellen and
(Entered: 08/01/2016)
Records Clerk for the sealing or unsealing of document or case, (cf) (Entered:
08/01/2016)
Compliance With Court Order Concerning Forensic Examination OfDevices.
Concerning Forensic Examination OfDevices.. Document filed by Ghislaine
Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, # 1 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D, #5.
Exhibit E, #6 Exhibit F)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 08/01/2016)
08/01/2016 322 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Plaintiffs Proposed Search Terms addressed to
case, (kl) (Entered: 08/02/2016)
08/02/2016 326 ORDER: Plaintiffs second motion to compel defendant to answer deposition questions
08/02/2016)
08/02/2016 327 ORDER: Plaintiffs motion for an extension of time to serve process upon and depose
08/02/2016 328 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Lama A. Menninger
dated 7/25/2016 re: This is a letter motion to file Ms. Maxwell's Sur Sur-Reply In
08/02/2016 329 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Lama A. Menninger
Examination of Computer Device and supporting exhibits under seal pmsuant to this
# 1 Exhibit 1 (Composite), # 2 Exhibit 2, #2. Exhibit 3, #4 Exhibit 4, # 2 Exhibit 5, #
6 Exhibit 6, #2 Exhibit 7)(Schultz, Meredith) (Entered: 08/03/2016)
Complete Discovery to Serve and Depose Ross Gow.. Document filed by Ghislaine
08/08/2016)
#1 Exhibit REDACTED)(Schultz, Meredith) (Entered: 08/08/2016)
08/08/2016 337 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Plaintiffs Supplement to Motion for Adverse
Questions.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, #2
Exhibit B, #2. Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D, #1 Exhibit E, # Exhibit F, #2 Exhibit G, #&
Exhibit H, #2 Exhibit I)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 08/08/2016)
08/09/2016 343 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 2M MOTION for Extension of
08/09/2016 344 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Plaintiffs Motion to Compel addressed to Judge
and Improper Claim ofPrivilege. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Schultz,
ofPrivilege.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit
08/09/2016 347 ORDER. Plaintiffs motion for a protective order shall be taken on submission
motion. It is so ordered. Granting 222 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Plaintiffs
Giuffre; Granting 337 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Plaintiffs Supplement to
by Virginia L. Giuffre; Granting 344 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Plaintiffs
Sweet on 8/9/2016) (qm) (Entered: 08/10/2016)
case, (qm) (Entered: 08/10/2016)
to Plaintiffs Motion to Enforce the Court's Order and Direct Defendant to Answer
Sealed Records Clerk for the sealing or unsealing of document or case, (qm) (Entered:
08/10/2016)
08/09/2016 350 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: 332 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Plaintiffs
08/10/2016)
ordered. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 8/9/2016) (qm) (Entered: 08/10/2016)
08/10/2016)
08/09/2016 352 ORDER. Defendant will run Plaintiffs Proposed Search Terms as set forth in
Plaintiffs August 1,2016 submission. Defendant will search all text and associated
8/9/2016) (qm) (Entered: 08/10/2016)
ERROR. Notice to Attorney Meredith L Schultz to RE-FILE Document 215
the event list Motions, (db) (Entered: 08/10/2016)
08/10/2016 ***NOTICE TO ATTORNEY TO RE-FILE DOCUMENT - DEFICIENT
DOCKET ENTRY ERROR. Notice to Attorney Meredith L Schultz to RE-FILE
Document 316 Declaration in Support of Motion. ERROR(S): Documents)
08/10/2016 353 MOTION to Strike Document No. [338, and all supporting documents] to Plaintiffs
08/10/2016 354 MOTION to Compel Responses to Defendant's Second Set ofDiscovery Requests to
Plaintiff, andfor Sanctions. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 08/10/2016)
Responses to Defendant's Second Set ofDiscovery Requests to Plaintiff, andfor
Sanctions.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, #2
08/11/2016)
[SCHULTZDECLARATIONISO_DE 356_MOTIONJ. Document filed by Virginia L.
Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2 (Sealed), # 3. Exhibit 3 (Sealed), # 4
Exhibit 4 (Sealed), # 5 Exhibit 5 (Sealed), # £ Exhibit 6 (Sealed), # 2 Exhibit 7
(Entered: 08/11/2016)
a civil proceeding in the above-captioned action which is pending before this Court,
(Entered: 08/11/2016)
Judgments and Orders Clerk, (rjm) (Entered: 08/11/2016)
Robert W. Sweet on 8/11/2016) (ijm) (Entered: 08/11/2016)
08/11/2016 361 ORDER. Plaintiffs motion to compel shall be taken on submission returnable
Thursday, September 1,2016. All papers shall be served pursuant to Local Civil Rule
Sweet on 8/11/20916) (qm) (Entered: 08/11/2016)
Modify Protective Order.{Return Date set for 9/8/2016 at 12:00 PM.) Document filed
Document filed by Alan M. Dershowitz. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #
2 Exhibit C, # £ Exhibit D, #5. Exhibit E, # 5 Exhibit F, # 2 Exhibit G, #& Exhibit H,
# 2 Exhibit I, #10 Exhibit J,#U Exhibit K,#12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14
Unseal Document or in the Alternative to Modify Protective Order.. Document filed
ERROR. Notice to Attorney Meredith L Schultz to RE-FILE Document 357
[SCHULTZDECLARATIONISOJDE 356_MOTIONJ. Use the event type
and Supporting Documents, (db) (Entered: 08/12/2016)
ISOLDE 356 MOTION]., 315 MOTION to Compel and Motion to Enforce the Court's
QUESTIONS [SCHULTZ DECLARATION ISO DE 356 MOTION]., 356 MOTION to
SEAL.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Schultz, Meredith) (Entered:
08/12/2016)
ISO DE 356 MOTION].. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1
REDACTED, # 2 Exhibit REDACTED, # £ Exhibit REDACTED, # 2 Exhibit
REDACTED, # £ Exhibit REDACTED, # 2 Exhibit REDACTED, # IQ Exhibit
REDACTED, # 14 Exhibit REDACTED, # 12 Exhibit REDACTED, # 1£ Exhibit
Exhibit B, #2 Exhibit C)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 08/12/2016)
Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #2 Exhibit
returnable Thursday, September 8,2016. All papers shall be served pursuant to Local
8/15/2016) (cf) (Entered: 08/15/2016)
and unsealing shall be taken on submission returnable Thursday, September 8,2016.
and all supporting documents] to Plaintiffs Supplement to Motion for Adverse
Inference Instruction Based on New Information.. Document filed by Virginia L.
NON-PARTY JEFFREY EPSTEIN: Undersigned counsel and non-party Jeffrey
Beach, Florida 33401, (561) 207-8305, shall enter an appearance on behalf of Mr.
Epstein as a non-party in this action. So ordered. Attorney Jack Alan Goldberger for
terminated. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 8/17/2016) (ijm) (Entered:
08/17/2016)
08/17/2016 377 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Plaintiffs Response In Opposition to
Defendant's Motion to Compel andfor Sanctions. Document filed by Virginia L.
Defendant's Second Set ofDiscovery Requests to Plaintiff, andfor Sanctions..
Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #2
Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D, #2 Exhibit E, #2 Exhibit F, #2 Exhibit G, #£ Exhibit
Produce Documents Subject to Improper Objection and Improper Claim ofPrivilege..
ofPrivilege.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, #2
Exhibit B, #2 Exhibit C)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 08/19/2016)
ofPrivilege.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura) (Entered:
08/19/2016)
08/19/2016 386 DECLARATION of REDACTED in Opposition re: MS MOTION to Compel
08/19/2016)
08/19/2016)
(REDACTED) Regarding Personal Financial Information.. Document filed by
08/22/2016 390 MOTION to Compel Defendant to Produce Financial Information to Plaintiff.
Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Composite Sealed 1, #2 Exhibit Sealed
2, #2 Exhibit Sealed 3, #4 Exhibit Sealed 4)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered:
08/23/2016)
354 MOTION to Compel Responses to Defendant's Second Set ofDiscovery Requests
to Plaintiff, andfor Sanctions: Replies due by 8/25/2016. (Signed by Judge Robert W.
(Entered: 08/23/2016)
08/23/2016 396 ORDER with respect to 390 Motion to Compel: Plaintiffs motion to compel defendant
on 8/23/2016) (tn) (Entered: 08/23/2016)
ofPrivilege.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered:
08/24/2016)
ofPrivilege.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed
Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit Sealed Exhibit 2, #2 Exhibit Sealed Exhibit 3, #4 Exhibit
Sealed Exhibit 4, #2 Exhibit Sealed Exhibit 5)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered:
08/24/2016)
08/25/2016 400 MOTION for Leave to File A Sur-Reply or, Alternatively, to Strike Plaintiffs
Misrepresentations of Fact to the Court. Document filed by Ghislaine
File A Sur-Reply or, Alternatively, to Strike Plaintiffs Misrepresentations of Fact to
the Court.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, #2
Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, #5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F)(Menninger,
Sanctions.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura) (Entered:
08/25/2016)
Responses to Defendant’s Second Set ofDiscovery Requests to Plaintiff, andfor
Sanctions.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, #2
08/26/2016 LETTERS ROGATORY ISSUED on August 26,2016, and picked up by Boies,
Wales Foreign Process Section, (km) (Entered: 08/26/2016)
08/29/2016)
Unseal Document or in the Alternative to Modify Protective Order.. Document filed
Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # £ Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 10
Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit, # 13 Exhibit, # H Exhibit, # 13 Exhibit, # 16
No. 4Q2 MOTION for Jack A. Goldberger to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $
no deficiencies, (wb) (Entered: 08/30/2016)
(kko) (Entered: 08/30/2016)

10-page limit. ENDORSEMENT: So ordered. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on
8/30/2016) (kko) (Entered: 08/30/2016)
Relief,. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.(Edwards, Bradley) (Entered:
08/31/2016)
Information to Plaintiff.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 09/01/2016)
09/06/2016 418 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 22Q MOTION to Compel Defendant to Produce
Financial Information to Plaintiff.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Schultz,
09/06/2016 419 ORDER FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE granting 4Q2 Motion for Jack A.
(qm) (Entered: 09/06/2016)
09/06/2016 421 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: 256 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Plaintiffs
Sealed Records Clerk for the sealing or unsealing of document or case, (kl) (Entered:
09/06/2016)
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #2. Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Menninger,
W. Sweet.) (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 9/7/2016) (qm) (Entered:
09/07/2016)
on 9/7/2016) (qm) (Entered: 09/07/2016)
Order, addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Andrew G. Celli, Jr. and David A.
Dershowitz. (Lebowitz, David) (Entered: 09/07/2016)
deposition (2) that Nadia Marcinkova and Sarah Kellen pay Giufffe's costs and
(Entered: 09/15/2016)
ordered. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 9/15/2016) (qm) (Entered: 09/15/2016)
Document filed by Alan M. Dershowitz. (Attachments: # \ Exhibit O, #2 Exhibit P, #
3 Exhibit Q, #4 Exhibit R, # 5 Exhibit S, # 6 Exhibit T, # 2 Exhibit U, # 8 Exhibit V,
09/15/2016 436 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 2£2 MOTION to Intervene .
9/19/2016) (qm) (Entered: 09/19/2016)
09/20/2016)
09/21/2016 441 MOTION for Discovery for Court Approval ofPlaintiff's Certification ofProduction.
09/21/2016 442 DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in Support re: 441 MOTION for Discoveryfor
Court Approval ofPlaintiff's Certification ofProduction.. Document filed by Virginia
L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, #2Exhibit2 Sealed, #2Exhibit 3 Sealed, #4
09/26/2016 444 LETTER MOTION for Leave to File a less-redacted version of Professor Dershowitzs
09/26/2016)
09/26/2016 445 ORDER: Plaintiffs Motion for Court Approval of Plaintiffs Certification of
on 9/27/2016) (rjm) (Entered: 09/27/2016)
less-redacted version of Professor Dershowitzs Reply Declaration addressed to Judge
Robert W. Sweet from Andrew G. Celli dated 9/26/2016.. Document filed by Virginia
09/29/2016 448 NOTICE of Plaintiffs Notice of English Court's Issuance of Order Commanding Ross
Exhibit Composite Exhibit l)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 09/29/2016)
09/30/2016 449 MOTION to Compel Testimony ofJeffrey Epstein. Document filed by Ghislaine
Testimony ofJeffrey Epstein.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: #
1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D, #5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit
09/30/2016 ill JOINT MOTION re: H Scheduling Order, Amended Proposed Discovery and Case
10/03/2016 452 ORDER re: 144 LETTER MOTION for Leave to File a less-redacted version of
September 26, 2016 letter motion for leave to publicly file a less-redacted version of
10/03/2016)
Leave to File a less-redacted version of Professor Dershowitzs Reply Declaration
10/3/2016) (cf) (Entered: 10/03/2016)
2/10/2017. (cf) (Entered: 10/03/2016)
6, 2016 re: Plaintiffs Proposed Order Granting Leave to File Less Redacted
10/06/2016)
REPLY DECLARATION. Proposed Intervener Alan M. Dershowitz's Motion to
re-file Dershowitz's Reply Declaration with all references to paragraphs 20 and 21 of
Intervenor Alan M. Dershowitz is directed to re-file Dershowitz's Reply Declaration
with all references to paragraphs 20 and 21 of Mr. Cassell's declaration unredacted
less-redacted version of Professor Dershowitzs Reply Declaration addressed to Judge
Dershowitz. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 10/6/2016) (qm) (Entered:
10/11/2016)
or case, (qm) (Entered: 10/11/2016)
to Compel Testimony ofJeffrey Epstein., 459 LETTER MOTION for Extension of
Goldberger dated October 5,2016. addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Sigrid
McCawley dated October 11,2016. Document filed by Virginia L.
449 MOTION to Compel Testimony ofJeffrey Epstein: So ordered. Responses due by
10/11/2016)
Deadlines/Hearing as to 449 MOTION to Compel Testimony ofJeffrey Epstein.:

Robert W. Sweet from Jack Goldberger dated October 5,2016. addressed to Judge
(ijm) (Entered: 10/13/2016)
(Entered: 10/14/2016)
Defendant's Deposition Based on Defendant's Late Production ofNew, Key
(Entered: 10/14/2016)
Account andfor an Adverse Inference Instruction. Document filed by Virginia L.
Ghislaine Maxwell to Produce Data from Undisclosed Email Account andfor an
# 1 Exhibit Sealed Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit Sealed Composite Exhibit 2, #3, Exhibit
10/17/2016 470 RESPONSE to Motion re: 449 MOTION to Compel Testimony ofJeffrey Epstein..
Testimony ofJeffrey Epstein.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: #
10/17/2016 472 ORDER: Plaintiffs motion to reopen Defendant's deposition and motion to compel
shall be heard at noon on Thursday, November 3,2016 in Courtroom 18C, United
Maxwell to Produce Data from Undisclosed Email Account andfor an Adverse
Defendant's Late Production ofNew, Key Documents. : Motion Hearing set for
(cla) (Entered: 10/17/2016)
Jeffrey Epstein.. Document filed by Jeffrey Epstein. (Goldberger, Jack) (Entered:
10/17/2016)
Testimony ofJeffrey Epstein.. Document filed by Jeffrey Epstein. (Goldberger, Jack)
(Entered: 10/17/2016)
(rjm) (Entered: 10/21/2016)
10/24/2016 478 NOTICE of Plaintiffs Notice of Nadia Marcinkova's Failure to Appear at Her
Deposition. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, #2
Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit 3)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 10/24/2016)
to Produce Data from Undisclosed Email Account andfor an Adverse Inference
Instruction.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura) (Entered:
10/24/2016)
# 1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 10/24/2016)
Deposition Based on Defendant's Late Production ofNew, Key Documents. .
Documents.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, #2
10/24/2016)
10/24/2016 483 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 449 MOTION to Compel Testimony ofJeffrey
Epstein.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura) (Entered:
10/24/2016)
10/26/2016 484 ORDER. Non-party Sharon Churcher's request for issuance of the redacted version of
(rjm) (Entered: 10/26/2016)
on 10/27/2016) (kl) (Entered: 10/27/2016)
10/27/2016 486 ORDER: Non-party Sharon Churcher's request for issuance of the redacted version of
heard at noon on Thursday, November 10,2016 in Courtroom 18C, United States
10/27/2016)
scheduled on November 3,2016 to November 10, 2016 because counsel for Ms.
Maxwell are unavailable on November 3,2016. ENDORSEMENT: So ordered.
10/28/2016 489 SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault(iz) (Entered: 10/28/2016)
Produce Data from Undisclosed Email Account andfor an Adverse Inference
(Entered: 10/28/2016)
Based on Defendant's Late Production ofNew, Key Documents. REDACTED.
one of the defense rebuttal expert opinions by one business day from October 28,2016
to October 31,2016. ENDORSEMENT: So ordered. (Signed by Judge Robert W.
Sweet on 10/31/2016) (ijm) (Entered: 10/31/2016)
of Jeffrey Epstein, filed by Ghislaine Maxwell, 466 MOTION to Reopen Defendant's
Deposition Based on Defendant’s Late Production of New, Key Documents filed by
11/16/2016 500 FILING ERROR - NO ORDER SELECTED FOR APPEAL - NOTICE OF
505.00, receipt number 0208-12994142. Form C and Form D are due within 14 days
(Entered: 11/16/2016)
attorney Celli, Andrew to RE-FILE Document No. 500 Notice of Interlocutory
being appealed was not selected. Re-file the appeal using the event type
Corrected Notice of Appeal found under the event list Appeal Documents -
attach the correct signed PDF - select the correct named filer/filers - select the
correct order/judgment being appealed, (tp) (Entered: 11/17/2016)
accordance with Local Civil Rule 6.1. IT IS SO ORDERED., (Oral Argument set for
(ama) (Entered: 11/17/2016)
of Portions of Court's November 2,2016 Order. Document filed by Ghislaine
Sharon Churcher, filed by Sharon Churcher. Upon the conclusions set forth above, the
11/21/2016)
Second Circuit, (tp) (Entered: 11/23/2016)
505.00. Pay.gov receipt number 0208-12994142, paid on 11/16/2016. (tp) (Entered:
11/23/2016)
Appeals re: 504 Notice of Appeal, (tp) (Entered: 11/23/2016)
transmitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals, (tp) (Entered: 11/23/2016)
Plaintiffs Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration to
Monday, December 5,2016. ENDORSEMENT: So ordered. (Responses due by
11/30/2016)
11/30/2016) (ijm) (Entered: 11/30/2016)
Court's November 2,2016 Order to December 14, 2016. ENDORSEMENT: So
12/8/2016) (cf) (Entered: 12/08/2016)
12/09/2016 509 MOTION for Sanctions Based on Plaintiffs Intentional Destruction ofEvidence.
Based on Plaintiffs Intentional Destruction ofEvidence.. Document filed by Ghislaine
Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, # 1 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit
January 19,2017 in Courtroom 18C, United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street. All
Evidence.:(Motion Hearing set for 1/19/2017 at 12:00 PM in Courtroom 18C, 500
Robert W. Sweet on 12/13/2016) (Imb) (Entered: 12/13/2016)
12/16/2016 m RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 502 MOTION for Sanctions Based on
Plaintiff's Intentional Destruction ofEvidence.. Document filed by Virginia L.
Based on Plaintiff's Intentional Destruction ofEvidence.. Document filed by Virginia
L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed 1, #2 Exhibit Sealed 2, #2. Exhibit
Sealed 3, #4 Exhibit Sealed 4, # £ Exhibit Sealed 5, #6 Exhibit Sealed Composite
Intentional Destruction ofEvidence.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
Based on Plaintiffs Intentional Destruction ofEvidence.. Document filed by Ghislaine
Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit E, #2 Exhibit F, # 3 Exhibit G)(Menninger,
deadline of Plaintiffs designated expert Dianne Flores from December 29, 2016 to
(Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 1/4/2016) (ijm) (Entered: 01/05/2017)
Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #2 Exhibit C, # 4
Exhibit D, #5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 2 Exhibit G, #£ Exhibit H, #2 Exhibit I, #
01/05/2017)
Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B)(Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 01/05/2017)
01/05/2017 524 MOTION in Limine To Exclude Expert Testimony and Opinion ofProfessor Terry
Coonan, J.D.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura) (Entered:
01/05/2017)
Exclude Expert Testimony and Opinion ofProfessor Terry Coonan, J.D... Document
filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B)(Menninger,
01/05/2017 526 MOTION in Limine To Exclude Expert Testimony and Opinion ofDianne C. Flores.
Exclude Expert Testimony and Opinion ofDianne C. Flores.. Document filed by
01/05/2017)
01/05/2017 528 MOTION in Limine To Exclude Expert Testimony and Opinion ofDr. Bernard
01/05/2017)
Exclude Expert Testimony and Opinion ofDr. Bernard Jansen.. Document filed by
Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #2 Exhibit C, # 4
01/05/2017)
01/05/2017 530 MOTION in Limine To Exclude Expert Testimony and Opinion ofDoctor Gilbert
01/05/2017)
Exclude Expert Testimony and Opinion ofDoctor Gilbert Kliman.. Document filed by
Florida under case number 16-mc-61292-JG has been transferred to this Court.
Robert W. Sweet on 1/6/2017) (ijm) (Entered: 01/06/2017)
01/06/2017 533 MOTION in Limine and Incorporated Memorandum ofLaw. Document filed by
01/06/2017 5M DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in Support re: 533 MOTION in Limine and
Incorporated Memorandum ofLaw.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed 1, #2 Exhibit Sealed2, #2Exhibit Sealed
01/06/2017 535 MOTION in Limine and Incorporated Memorandum ofLaw. Document filed by
Incorporated Memorandum ofLaw.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Redacted 1, # 2 Exhibit Redacted 2, #2 Exhibit Redacted 3,
01/06/2017)
MOTION for Summary Judgment. Document filed by Ghislaine
01/06/2017 539 FILING ERROR - DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY - DECLARATION of Laura
A. Menninger in Support re: 538 MOTION for Summary Judgment.. Document filed
Exhibit D, # 2 Exhibit E,#£ Exhibit F, # 2 Exhibit G-KK, # 2 Exhibit LL, # 2 Exhibit
MOTION for Summary Judgment. Use the event type Memorandum in Support
Documents. ***REMINDER*** - Reffle the 522 Notice AS THE MOTION for
Summary Judgment, then file and link any supporting documents, (db) (Entered:
01/09/2017)
RE-FILE Document 522 Declaration in Support of Motion. ERROR(S):
Document(s) linked to filing error, (db) (Entered: 01/09/2017)
01/09/2017 540 MOTION for Summary Judgment. Document filed by Ghislaine
01/09/2017 541 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 540 MOTION for Summary Judgment..
Judgment.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, #2
Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, #f> Exhibit F, #2 Exhibit
G-KK, # £ Exhibit LL, # 2 Exhibit MM)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 01/09/2017)
Thursday, February 9,2017 in Courtroom 18C, United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl
1/11/2017) (cla) (Entered: 01/12/2017)
01/12/2017 545 ORDER: Plaintiffs motions in limine shall be heard at noon on Thursday, February %
01/12/2017)
(cla) (Entered: 01/18/2017)
Cemovich d/b/a Cemovich Media. (Wolman, Jay) (Entered: 01/19/2017)
01/19/2017 550 MOTION to Intervene and Unseal. Document filed by Michael Cemovich d/b/a
Cemovich Media.(Wohnan, Jay) (Entered: 01/19/2017)
Document filed by Michael Cemovich d/b/a Cemovich Media. (Wolman, Jay)
(Entered: 01/19/2017)
01/19/2017 552 DECLARATION of Michael Cemovich in Support re: 550 MOTION to Intervene and
Unseal.. Document filed by Michael Cemovich d/b/a Cemovich Media. (Wolman,
Jay) (Entered: 01/19/2017)
Spoliation has not been established at the time of the Plaintiffs acts and the motion is
1/20/2017 (kgo). (Entered: 01/20/2017)
held on 1/19/2017 re: 509 MOTION for Sanctions Based on Plaintiffs Intentional
Destruction ofEvidence filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Court Reporter Jennifer Thun)
John E. Stephenson, Jr., # 2 Certificate of Good Standing, #3 Text of Proposed
no deficiencies, (ma) (Entered: 01/20/2017)
Defendant's motions in limine, and Plaintiffs motions in limine, previously scheduled
(kgo) (Entered: 01/20/2017)
1/23/2017) (anc) (Entered: 01/23/2017)
(cla) (Entered: 01/23/2017)
(Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 1/24/2017) (ijm) (Entered: 01/24/2017)
01/25/2017 560 NOTICE of of Withdrawal. Document filed by Virginia L. Giufffe. (McCawley,
01/27/2017 561 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Defendant's Designations ofDeposition Excerpts of
Alan Dershowitz. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered:
01/27/2017)
Exclude Defendant's Designations ofDeposition Excerpts ofAlan Dershowitz..
Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, # 1
Exhibit Sealed 3, #4 Exhibit Sealed 4)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 01/27/2017)
01/27/2017 563 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Defendant's Designations ofDeposition Excerpts of
Exclude Defendant's Designations ofDeposition Excerpts of Virginia Giuffre in an
Sealed l)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 01/27/2017)
01/27/2017 565 NOTICE of Filing Plaintiffs Objections to Defendant's Deposition Designations and
Plaintiffs Cross Designations. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (McCawley,
01/27/2017 566 Objection to Plaintiffs Deposition Designations. Document filed by Ghislaine
for Use at Trial. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura) (Entered:
01/27/2017)
Exclude In Toto Certain Depositions Designated By Plaintifffor Use at Trial..
Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, # 3
Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 01/27/2017)
Testimony and Opinion ofDoctor Gilbert Kliman.. Document filed by Virginia L.
Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed 1, #2 Exhibit Sealed 2, #3
Exhibit Sealed 3, #4 Exhibit Sealed 4, # 5 Exhibit Sealed 5)(McCawley, Sigrid)
(Entered: 01/30/2017)
01/30/2017 m ORDER: Plaintiffs and Defendant's motions in limine filed January 27, 2017, and all
23,2017 in Courtroom 18C, United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street. All papers
(cla) (Entered: 01/30/2017)
Testimony and Opinion ofProfessor Terry Coonan, J.D... Document filed by Virginia
filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed 1, #2 Exhibit Sealed 2,
# 5 Exhibit Sealed 3, # 4 Exhibit Sealed 4, #5 Exhibit Sealed 5)(McCawley, Sigrid)
(Entered: 01/30/2017)
Testimony and Opinions of William F. Chandler.. Document filed by Virginia L.
Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # I Exhibit Sealed 1, #2 Exhibit Sealed 2, #3
01/30/2017 576 NOTICE of Letter Reply in Support of Plaintiffs Letter Motion to Add New Witness
Testimony and Opinion ofDianne C. Flores.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed 1, #2 Exhibit Sealed 2, #2.
Exhibit Sealed 3, #4 Exhibit Sealed 4, # 5 Exhibit Sealed 5)(McCawley, Sigrid)

(Entered: 01/31/2017)
Testimony and Opinion of Chris Anderson.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed 1, #2 Exhibit Sealed 2, #2
Exhibit Sealed 3, #4 Exhibit Sealed 4)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 01/31/2017)
Testimony and Opinion ofDr. Bernard Jansen. . Document filed by Virginia L.
Exclude Expert Testimony and Opinion ofDr. Bernard Jansen.. Document filed by
Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed 1, #2 Exhibit Sealed
Memorandum ofLaw. Regarding Gregory B. Taylor and Kyle D. Jacobson. Document
Memorandum ofLaw. Regarding Dr. Phillip Esplin. Document filed by Ghislaine
Incorporated Memorandum ofLaw.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
01/31/2017 586 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 540 MOTION for Summary Judgment..
Statement of Facts, # 2 Exhibit Declaration, # 2 Exhibit Redacted l-50)(McCawley,
Robert W. Sweet. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Jennifer Thun, (212) 805-0300.
for 5/3/2017. (McGuirk, Kelly) (Entered: 02/02/2017)
02/02/2017 589 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 550 MOTION to Intervene and Unseal..
and Unseal.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, #2
(Entered: 02/03/2017)
Motion,, Discovery re New Witness (originalfiled 1/19/17) addressed to Judge Robert
02/03/2017 592 NOTICE of Filing Defendant's Counter-Designations to Plaintiffs Deposition
02/03/2017)
02/07/2017 595 FILING ERROR - DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY - MOTION for Ty Gee to
(Entered: 02/07/2017)
02/07/2017 596 FILING ERROR - DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY - DECLARATION of Ty Gee
02/08/2017 »>NOTICE REGARDING DEFICIENT MOTION TO APPEAR PRO HAC
VICE. Notice to RE-FILE Document No. 525 MOTION for Ty Gee to Appear
Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number 0208-13289811. Motion and
to rule 1.3. please attach and affadavit or Declaration of the Attorney;. Re-file
the motion as a Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice - attach the correct signed PDF -
select the correct named filer/filers - attach valid Certificates of Good Standing
issued within the past 30 days - attach Proposed Order., (wb) (Entered:
02/08/2017)
No. 522 MOTION for Ty Gee to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Motion and supporting
and there are no deficiencies, (bcu) (Entered: 02/08/2017)
Incorporated Memorandum ofLaw.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giufffe.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed 1, # 2 Exhibit Composite Sealed 2, #3 Exhibit
Rule. Document filed by Virginia L. Giufffe. (McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered:
02/09/2017)
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed 1, # 2 Exhibit Composite Sealed 2, #2 Exhibit

02/09/2017 604 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 550 MOTION to Intervene and Unseal.. Document
filed by Michael Cemovich d/b/a Cemovich Media. (Wolman, Jay) (Entered:
02/09/2017)
02/09/2017 60S DECLARATION of Jay M. Wolman in Support re: 550 MOTION to Intervene and
Unseal.. Document filed by Michael Cemovich d/b/a Cemovich Media. (Attachments:
# 1 Exhibit 1 - Daily Mail Article, # 2 Exhibit 2 - Palm Beach Daily News Article, #
2 Exhibit 3 - Silenced Cast)(Wolman, Jay) (Entered: 02/09/2017)
Certain Depositions Designated By Plaintifffor Use at Trial.. Document filed by
Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed 1, #2 Exhibit
Inference.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1. Exhibit Sealed
l)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 02/10/2017)
02/10/2017 610 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 550 MOTION to Intervene and Unseal..
02/10/2017 fill REPLY to Response to Motion re: 520 MOTION in Limine To Exclude Expert
Testimony and Opinion of Chris Anderson.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
Testimony and Opinions of William F. Chandler.. Document filed by Ghislaine
Testimony and Opinion ofDr. Bernard Jansen.. Document filed by Ghislaine
Testimony and Opinion ofProfessor Terry Coonan, J.D... Document filed by
filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit C, #2 Exhibit D, # 2 Exhibit
Testimony and Opinion ofDianne C. Flores.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
02/10/2017)
Testimony and Opinion ofDoctor Gilbert Kliman.. Document filed by Ghislaine
Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit D, #2 Exhibit E)(Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 02/10/2017)
02/10/2017 620 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 540 MOTION for Summary Judgment.. Document
Judgment.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit NN, # 2
(Entered: 02/10/2017)
(Entered: 02/13/2017)
respond to Plaintiffs Motions. ENDORSEMENT: So ordered. (Signed by Judge
02/14/2017 626 ORDER: Plaintiffs motion in limine filed February 10,2017 shall be heard at noon on
February 20 2017. (Oral Argument set for 2/23/2017 at 12:00 PM in Courtroom 18C,
(Entered: 02/14/2017)
Defendant's Designations ofDeposition Excerpts ofAlan Dershowitz.. Document
Defendant's Designations ofDeposition Excerpts of Virginia Giujfre in an Unrelated
Case.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura) (Entered:
02/15/2017)
Intervene and Unseal filed by Michael Cemovich d/b/a Cemovich Media, 528
02/16/2017)
02/17/2017 630 NOTICE of Plaintiffs Objections to Defendant's Counter Designations. Document
Certain Depositions Designated By Plaintifffor Use at Trial. . Document filed by
02/17/2017 633 Objection to Plaintiffs Cross Designation ofDeposition Testimony. Document filed by
Robert W. Sweet. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Khristine Sellin, (212) 805-0300.
for 5/18/2017. (McGuirk, Kelly) (Entered: 02/17/2017)
02/21/2017 636 ORDER: Plaintiffs motion in limine filed February 10, 2017 and previously scheduled
to be heard February 23,2017 shall instead be heard at noon on Thursday, March 9,
papers shall be due February 24,2017 and reply papers shall be due by March 2,2017.
02/21/2017)
(Entered: 02/22/2017)
1, #2 Exhibit Sealed2, #2Exhibit Sealed 3, #4Exhibit Sealed 4, #5.Exhibit Sealed
2/28/2017 (jwh). (Entered: 02/22/2017)
02/22/2017 640 MOTION for Protective Orderfor Non-Party Witness. Document filed by John
Protective Orderfor Non-Party Witness.. Document filed by Sarah Ransome.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed 1, #2 Exhibit Sealed2)(Pottinger, John) (Entered:
02/22/2017)
02/23/2017 642 ORDER: Plaintiffs motion to compel and the non-party witness's motion for a
Opposition papers shall be due March 2,2017, and reply papers shall be due March 7,
(cf) (Entered: 02/23/2017)
Testimony From Jeffrey Epstein for Purposes of Obtaining an Adverse Inference..
Inference.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, #2
Exhibit B, # 2. Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 02/24/2017)
02/24/2017 646 RESPONSE re: 601 Notice (Other) Response to Plaintiffs Notice OfIntent To Offer
Statements Under, IfNecessary, The Residual Hearsay Rule. Document filed by
02/27/2017 647 SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault(iz) (Entered: 02/27/2017)
mmnon 648 AMENDED SECOND DISCOVERY AND CASE MANAGEMENT DEADLINES
AND REQUEST TO MODIFY PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER granting M2
15,2017 and is anticipated to last four weeks; Motions in Limine/other motions shall
be filed by March 3,2017; March 9, 2017, hearing on Plaintiff Giuffre's Motion to
Inference, ECF #608, hearing on Plaintiffs Motion to Compel all Work Product and
Southern District of Florida on June 13, 2016 under case number 16-mc-61262, and
and motions in limine. April 6,2017, hearing on objections to deposition designations.
May 4, 2107, Pre-trial Conference to address any outstanding issues including
(Entered: 02/27/2017)
03/03/2017)
Sweet from Sigrid McCawley dated March 2,2017. Document filed by Virginia L.
Inference.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered:
03/02/2017)
Produce All Work Product and Attorney Client Communications .. Document filed by

03/02/2017 655 MOTION to Compel Non-Party Witness to Produce Documents, Respond to
Non-Party Witness to Produce Documents, Respond to Deposition Questions, and
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #2 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D, #5 Exhibit
(Entered: 03/02/2017)
03/03/2017 657 MOTION to Quash . Document filed by Jeffrey Epstein. (Weinberg, Martin) (Entered:
03/03/2017)
Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Composite Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit Sealed 2, #2
Maxwell, 17-mc-00025. Thursday, March 23: Motions corresponding to ECF Nos.
03/03/2017)
03/03/2017 664 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Late Disclosed Supplemental Report ofDr. James
Jansen and Video Trial Exhibit ofDr. Gilbert Kliman. Document filed by Ghislaine
03/03/2017)
03/03/2017 666 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence Barred as a Result ofPlaintiffs Summary
(Entered: 03/03/2017)
03/03/2017 667 MOTION in Limine to Exclude FBI 302 Statement ofPlaintiff. Document filed by
Exclude FBI 302 Statement ofPlaintiff.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
03/03/2017 670 DECLARATION of Laura A. Menninger in Support re: M9 MOTION in Limine to
03/03/2017)
03/03/2017 671 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Jeffrey Epstein Plea and Non-Prosecution Agreement
Exclude Jeffrey Epstein Plea and Non—Prosecution Agreement and Sex Offender
Registration.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, #2
03/03/2017 673 MOTION in Limine Exclude Deposition Testimony ofSarah Kellen and Nadia
Exclude Deposition Testimony ofSarah Kellen and Nadia Marcinkova or Any Witness
03/03/2017)
filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #2 Exhibit C,
03/03/2017)
Exclude Unauthenticated Hearsay Documentfrom a Suspect Source.. Document filed
by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #2 Exhibit
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 03/03/2017)
03/03/2017)
03/03/2017)
TRAFFICKING. Document filed by Virginia L. Ginffire. (Schultz, Meredith) (Entered:
03/03/2017)
PLAINTIFF MS. GIUFFRES MEMORANDUM OF LA WIN SUPPORT OF HER
Sweet from Sigrid McCawley dated March 3,2017. Document filed by Virginia L.
(Entered: 03/03/2017)
# 2 Exhibit Sealed 2, #3 Exhibit Sealed 3, #4 Exhibit Sealed 4, #5. Exhibit Sealed 5,
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #2 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D, #2 Exhibit
E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, #9 Exhibit I)(Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 03/03/2017)
(ijm) (Entered: 03/06/2017)
Protective Order material at trial, shall be held on Thursday, March 16,2017 at 1:00
3/6/2017) (jwh) (Entered: 03/06/2017)
record. The document was stricken from this case pursuant to 71§ Order on
Motion to Seal Document,. (jwh) REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support
re: 640 MOTION for Protective Orderfor Non-Party Witness, and Opposition to [DE
655] MOTION to Compel Non-Party Witness to Produce Documents, and Respond to
Orderfor Non-Party Witness.. Document filed by John Stanley Pottinger.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed 1, #2 Exhibit Sealed 2)(Pottinger, John) (Entered:
03/07/2017)
Robert W. Sweet. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Eve Giniger, (212) 805-0300.
the court reporter/transcriber in the above-captioned matter. The parties have seven
(rjm) (Entered: 03/08/2017)
on 3/9/2017 re: 640 MOTION for Protective Order for Non-Party Witness filed by
John Stanley Pottinger, Sarah Ransome, 655 MOTION to Compel Non-Party Witness
\ to Produce Documents, Respond to Deposition Questions, and Response to Motion for
Reserved.Doc #655 Motion was on for 3-30-17 is now set for 3-16-17 at 12:00
p.m.Motion to quash 17 Mc-00025 will be heard on 3-16-17 (Part).Doc #640 Motion
03/13/2017 2QZ REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: MQ MOTION for Protective
Orderfor Non-Party Witness., 655 MOTION to Compel Non-Party Witness to
Protective Order. [RE-FILED W/ADD'L REDACTION/REPLACE DE 700.
03/13/2017 2Q8 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document 700 Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of
Motion, [Replace DE 700 w/Redacted DE 707] addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet
03/13/2017 709 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: MQ MOTION for Protective
Order for Non-Party Witness., 655 MOTION to Compel Non-Party Witness to
Protective Order. [RE-FILED W/ADDL REDACTION/REPLACE DE 700].
in Support of Motion, [Replace DE 700 w/Redacted DE 707] addressed to Judge
03/14/2017)
03/14/2017 712 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 657 MOTION to Quash .. Document filed by
03/14/2017 714 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 655 MOTION to Compel Non-Party Witness to
Protective Order.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 03/14/2017)
Non-Party Witness to Produce Documents, Respond to Deposition Questions, and
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit J, #2 Exhibit K)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 03/14/2017)
03/15/2017 m RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 679 MOTION in Limine to Exclude
Unauthenticated Hearsay Documentfrom a Suspect Source. . Document filed by
Exclude Unauthenticated Hearsay Documentfrom a Suspect Source.. Document filed
by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed 1, #2 Exhibit Sealed
03/15/2017 718 ORDER withdrawing 708 Motion to Seal Document; granting 710 Motion to Seal
(Entered: 03/15/2017)
dated 3/13/2017 re: request a one-week continuance of the hearing on Defendant's
Motion to Compel Non-Party Witness to Produce Documents and Respond to
Depositions Questions (Doc. 655) and Motion for Protective Order for Non-Party
Witness (Doc. 640). ENDORSEMENT: So ordered. (Signed by Judge Robert W.
03/15/2017 720 ENDORSED LETTER re: M2 SECOND MOTION to Compel Ghislaine Maxwell to
Inference Instruction, addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Laura A. Menninger
dated 3/10/2017 re: a one-week extension of time in which to file a Response to
Plaintiffs Renewed Motion to Compel. ENDORSEMENT: So ordered. (Set
Deadlines/Hearing as to M2 SECOND MOTION to Compel Ghislaine Maxwell to
Sweet on 3/13/2017) Qwh) (Entered: 03/15/2017)
Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # I Exhibit Transcript (Filed
Testimony ofSarah Kellen and Nadia Marcinkova or Any Witness Invoking Their Fifth
Amendment Privilege.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (McCawley, Sigrid)
(Entered: 03/17/2017)
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed l)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 03/17/2017)
03/17/2017 724 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: £63 MOTION in Limine to Exclude
Complaint and Settlement Agreement in Jane Doe 102 v. Jeffrey Epstein.. Document
03/17/2017 725 OPPOSITION BRIEF re: 721 Notice (Other) ofIntent to Redact Transcript of
Proceedings. Document filed by Michael Cemovich d/b/a Cemovich Media.(Wolman,
Jay) (Entered: 03/17/2017)
Disclosed Supplemental Report ofDr. James Jansen and Video Trial Exhibit ofDr.
Gilbert Kliman.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (McCawley, Sigrid)
(Entered: 03/17/2017)
Exclude Late Disclosed Supplemental Report ofDr. James Jansen and Video Trial
Exhibit ofDr. Gilbert Kliman.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: #
1 Exhibit Sealed 1, #2 Exhibit Sealed 2, #2 Exhibit Sealed 3, #4 Exhibit Sealed
References to Crime Victims Rights Act Litigation.. Document filed by Virginia L.
Statement ofPlaintiff.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Edwards, Bradley)
(Entered: 03/17/2017)
Exclude FBI 302 Statement ofPlaintiff. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
03/17/2017 732 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: £21 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Victim
(Entered: 03/17/2017)
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed 1, #2 Exhibit Sealed 2, #2 Exhibit Sealed
03/17/2017 734 FILING ERROR - ELECTRONIC FILING OF NON-ECF DOCUMENT -
TO NON-PARTY NADIA MARCINKOVA. Document filed by Nadia
to Fed. R. Evid. 404(b).. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (McCawley, Sigrid)
(Entered: 03/17/2017)
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed 1, #2 Exhibit Sealed 2, #3 Exhibit Sealed
Questioning Regarding Plaintiffs Sexual History and Reputation.. Document filed by
filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed 1, #2 Exhibit Sealed 2,
# 3 Exhibit Sealed 3, #4 Exhibit Sealed 4)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 03/17/2017)
Epstein Plea and Non—Prosecution Agreement and Sex Offender Registration..
Exclude Jeffrey Epstein Plea and Non-Prosecution Agreement and Sex Offender
MOTION IN LIMINE TO ADMIT THE BLACK BOOK AS EVIDENCE AT TRIAL..
PLAINTIFFS MOTION IN LIMINE TO ADMIT THE BLA CK BOOK AS EVIDENCE
AT TRIAL.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, #2
Exhibit B, # 2. Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D, #5. Exhibit E, # f> Exhibit F)(Menninger,
GIUFFRES MEMORAND UM OF LA WIN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION IN LIMINE
SEXUAL ABUSE AND SEX TRAFFICKING.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, # 3
Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D, #2 Exhibit E)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 03/17/2017)
Testimony for Purpose of Obtaining an Adverse Inference Instruction.. Document
Reports and Other Inadmissible Hearsay.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #2
Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 03/17/2017)
03/17/2017 749 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 691 MOTION in Limine Omnibus..
L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed 1, #2 Exhibit Sealed 2, # 2. Exhibit
Sealed 3,#4 Exhibit Composite Sealed 4, #5 Exhibit Sealed 5, # 6 Exhibit Sealed 6, #
2 Exhibit Sealed 7, #£ Exhibit Composite Sealed 8, #2 Exhibit Sealed 9)(McCawley,
Omnibus.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, #2
Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, #£
Exhibit H, #2 Exhibit I, #1Q Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit
M, # 14 Exhibit N, #12 Exhibit O, # 1£ Exhibit P, # 12 Exhibit Q, # 1£ Exhibit R, #
03/17/2017 752 MOTION to Strike Document No. 711 Plaintiffs Supplemental Authority. Document
(Entered: 03/17/2017)
Robert W. Sweet. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Kelly Surina, (212) 805-0300.
counsel, that the Plaintiffs Motion for a Finding of Civil Contempt against Nadia
3/20/2017) (jwh) (Entered: 03/20/2017)
03/20/2017 759 ENDORSED LETTER re: 252 SECOND MOTION to Compel, 2£5 MOTION in
MOTION to Compel Ghislaine Maxwell to Disclose Data, 685 MOTION in Limine
03/20/2017 2&I ORDER granting 737 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re
666 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence Barred as a Result ofPlaintiffs
03/21/2017 m REPLY to Response to Motion re: 657 MOTION to Quash .. Document filed by
Barred as a Result ofPlaintiffs Summary Judgment Concessions. . Document filed by
03/22/2017 765 ORDER granting 752 Motion to Strike Document No. 711: The Defendant's motion to
strike the Plaintiffs Notice of Supplemental Authority, ECF No. 711, is granted. The
Plaintiffs motion seeking financial information from the Defendant. (Signed by Judge
Information in the Liability Phase.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
03/22/2017 768 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: MOTION in Limine to Prohibit
Questioning Regarding Defendants Adult Consensual Sexual Activities.. Document
03/22/2017 m DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in Opposition re: 665 MOTION in Limine to
Resolved in open court, partially granted and partially denied. (Chan, Tsz) (Entered:
03/23/2017)
03/23/2017 111 DECLARATION of Sigrid S. McCawley in Support re: £82 MOTION in Limine to
Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D, # 5
Exhibit E, # £ Exhibit F, # 2 Exhibit G, # g. Exhibit H, # 2 Exhibit I. # 10 Exhibit
03/24/2017 774 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: £83 MOTION in Limine
AT TRIAL.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered:
03/24/2017)
Composite Sealed l)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 03/24/2017)
her reply by March 31,2017. ENDORSEMENT: Extension to 3/30 is granted. So
3/24/2017) (mro) (Entered: 03/24/2017)
(mro) (Entered: 03/24/2017)
PLAINTIFF MS. GIUFFRES MEMORAND UM OF LA WIN SUPPORT OF HER
Composite Sealed2, #2. Exhibit Sealed 3, #4 Exhibit Sealed4)(McCawley, Sigrid)
(Entered: 03/24/2017)
Statement ofPlaintiff.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninser, Laura)
(Entered: 03/24/2017)
03/24/2017 784 REPLY to Response to Motion re: M2 MOTION in Limine to Exclude References to
Crime Victims Rights Act Litigation.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
(Attachments: # 1 Appendix A, #2 Appendix B)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered:
03/24/2017)
Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit B, #2 Exhibit C)(Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 03/24/2017)
Supplemental Report ofDr. James Jansen and Video Trial Exhibit ofDr. Gilbert
Kliman.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura) (Entered:
03/24/2017)
Exclude Late Disclosed Supplemental Report ofDr. James Jansen and Video Trial
Exhibit ofDr. Gilbert Kliman.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: #
Plea and Non-Prosecution Agreement and Sex Offender Registration.. Document
Exclude Jeffrey Epstein Plea and Non-Prosecution Agreement and Sex Offender
Registration.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit C, #2
Regarding Plaintiffs Sexual History and Reputation.. Document filed by Ghislaine
Notification Letter.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 03/24/2017)
03/27/2017 793 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Portions ofFebruary 16, 2017 Hearing
27,2017. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.(Schultz, Meredith) (Entered:
03/27/2017)
mm12011 795 LETTER MOTION for Oral Argument for March 31st Hearing to Start at 10:00am
03/27/2017)
Sweet from Sigrid McCawley. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (McCawley,
Omnibus.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giufffe. (McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered:
03/27/2017)
Omnibus.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giufffe. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit
(Entered: 03/27/2017)
Devices to the Courthouse .. Document filed by Virginia L. Giufffe. (Attachments: # 1
Text of Proposed Order STANDING ORDER Ml 0-468, AS REVISED)(McCawley,
03/28/2017 802 NOTICE of Filing Plaintiffs Responses to Defendant's Objections to Plaintiffs
Deposition Designations. Document filed by Virginia L. Giufffe. (McCawley, Sigrid)
(Entered: 03/28/2017)
03/28/2017 803 NOTICE of of Filing Typographical Errors Relating to Plaintiffs Deposition
Designations for Use at Trial. Document filed by Virginia L. Giufffe. (McCawley,
03/28/2017 806 Objection to Production of (Blank) Submittedfor in Camera Review. Document filed
Barred as a Result ofPlaintiffs Summary Judgment Concessions. . Document filed by
re: an extension to file replies to Motions at Dockets 663,673,677 , and 693 .
Limine to Exclude Police Reports and Other Inadmissible Hearsay. Replies due by
03/29/2017)
725 .. Document filed by Michael Cemovich d/b/a Cemovich Media. (Wolman, Jay)
(Entered: 03/29/2017)
from Movant-Intervenor Michael Cemovich d/b/a Cemovich Media dated March 29,
2017 re: 793 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Portions ofFebruary 16, 2017
March 27, 2017.. Document filed by Michael Cemovich d/b/a Cemovich Media.
03/29/2017 813 NOTICE of of Plaintiffs Proposed Redactions to This Court's Order Denying
Summary Judgment. Document filed by Virginia L. Giufffe. (Attachments: # 1, Exhibit
Sealed l)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 03/29/2017)
(Entered: 03/30/2017)
Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit D, #2 Exhibit E, #1 Exhibit F, #4
Testimony ofSarah Kellen and Nadia Marcinkova or Any Witness InvoMng Their Fifth
Amendment Privilege.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 03/30/2017)
Settlement Agreement in Jane Doe 102 v. Jeffrey Epstein.. Document filed by
Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit
Fed. R. Evid. 404(b).. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 03/30/2017)
03/30/2017)
Information in the Liability Phase.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
Virginia L. Giufffe. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed l)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered:
03/30/2017)
Non-Prosecution Agreement and Sex Offender Registration filed by Ghislaine
(Entered: 04/03/2017)

Invoking Their Fifth Amendment Privilege filed by Ghislaine Maxwell, M2 MOTION
Instruction filed by Virginia L. Giuffre, M£ MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence
Barred as a Result ofPlaintiffs Summary Judgment Concessions filed by Ghislaine
(Entered: 04/03/2017)
W. Sweet. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Martha Martin, (212) 805-0300. Transcript
04/03/2017 826 Objection to Plaintiffs Deposition Designations (AMENDED). Document filed by
L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit Sealed Exhibit 2, #
dated April 3,2017 re: 793 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Portions of
Meredith Schultz dated March 27, 2017.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
04/04/2017 830 OPPOSITION BRIEF re: 806 Objection (non-motion) and Second Motion to Compel
W. Sweet. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Lisa Picciano Fellis, (212) 805-0300.
04/05/2017 833 OPPOSITION BRIEF re: M2 Notice (Other). Document filed by Michael Cemovich
d/b/a Cemovich Media.(Wolman, Jay) (Entered: 04/05/2017)
Tsz) (Entered: 04/07/2017)
04/06/2017 835 SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault, (mps) (Entered: 04/06/2017)
04/06/2017 836 SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault, (mps) (Entered: 04/06/2017)
motions: The Defendant's motion for the Court to mle on outstanding motions, ECF
04/07/2017 838 NOTICE of Plaintiffs Briefing on an Adverse Inference Instruction Regarding
04/07/2017 839 NOTICE of Declaration in Support of Plaintiffs Briefing on an Adverse Inference
Sealed 2, #2 Exhibit Sealed 3, #4 Exhibit Sealed 4, #5 Exhibit Sealed 5, #6 Exhibit
04/11/2017 841 REPLY re: 806 Objection (non-motion) to Production of (Blank) Submittedfor in
04/11/2017)
04/11/2017 842 DECLARATION of Jeffrey S. Pagliuca in Support re: 806 Objection (non-motion).
04/11/2017 843 NOTICE of Plaintiffs Proposed Redactions to This Court's April 4, 2017 Order
Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed l)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered:
04/11/2017)
04/11/2017 845 MOTION to Appoint Special Master to Preside Over Third Deposition ofDefendant.
Special Master to Preside Over Third Deposition ofDefendant.. Document filed by
04/11/2017)
W. Sweet. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Khristine Sellin, (212) 805-0300. Transcript
for 7/ll/2017.(Siwik, Christine) (Entered: 04/12/2017)
reporter/transcriber in the above-captioned matter. The parties have seven (7) calendar
04/12/2017)
W. Sweet. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Khristine Sellin, (212) 805-0300. Transcript
for 7/ll/2017.(Siwik, Christine) (Entered: 04/12/2017)
04/12/2017)
Sweet. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Ellen Simone, (212) 805-0300. Transcript may be
04/12/2017)
4/27/2017 (jwh). (Entered: 04/12/2017)
Instruction filed by Virginia L. Giuffre, SQ£ Objection (non-motion) filed by
Revised Joint Pre-Trial Order addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Sigrid
McCawley dated April 17,2017. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.(McCawley,
Preside Over Third Deposition ofDefendant.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
04/18/2017)
04/18/2017 858 NOTICE of Filing Response to Proposed Intervenor Michael Cemovich Opposition to
Notice of Plaintiffs Proposed Redactions to This Court's Order Denying Summary
Judgment re: 833, Opposition Brief. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
04/18/2017 860 NOTICE of Plaintiffs Proposed Redactions to This Court's April 4, 2017 Order
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed l)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 04/18/2017)
Dershowitz. USCA Case Number 16-3945. The parties in the above-referenced case
04/20/2017 m REPLY to Response to Motion re: 845 MOTION to Appoint Special Master to Preside
Over Third Deposition ofDefendant.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
04/20/2017 864 FILING ERROR - DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY - MOTION to Compel
Non-Party Witness to Produce Documents and Respond to Deposition Questions and
to Complete Search ofESI. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1
Declaration of Laura Menninger, # 2 Exhibits A-F)(Menninger, Laura) Modified on
5/2/2017 (db). (Entered: 04/20/2017)
04/25/2017 m ORDER: granting 866 Letter Motion for Extension of Time. So ordered. (Signed by
04/26/2017)
04/26/2017 m ORDER: The motion to compel filed April 20, 2017 shall be heard on Wednesday,
on 4/24/2017) (mro) (Entered: 04/26/2017)
04/26/2017 871 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: &M MOTION to Compel Non-Party Witness
ofESI.. Document filed by John Stanley Pottinger. (Pottinger, John) (Entered:
04/26/2017)
opinion and because the pre-litigation privilege is inapplicable, the motion for
denying 54Q MOTION for Summary Judgment, filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Signed
04/27/2017)
04/28/2017)
04/28/2017)
04/28/2017 876 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 864 MOTION to Compel Non-Party Witness to
ESI.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura) (Entered:
04/28/2017)
to Complete Search ofESI. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1
37(c). Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.(Menninger, Laura) (Entered:
04/28/2017)
Undisclosed Witnesses and Exhibits Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c).. Document
filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, # 2. Exhibit C,
# 4 Exhibit D, #2 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G)(Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 04/28/2017)
05/01/2017 883 FILING ERROR - DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY - DECLARATION of Sigrid
(db). (Entered: 05/01/2017)
DOCKET ENTRY ERROR. Notice to Attorney Sigrid S. McCawley to RE-FILE
Document SS2 Declaration in Support of Motion. ERROR(S): Document(s)
linked to filing error, (db) (Entered: 05/02/2017)
05/02/2017 888 REDACTION Declaration ofJack Goldberger by Jeffrey Epstein(Goldberger, Jack)
(Entered: 05/02/2017)
on 5/2/2017) (ap) (Entered: 05/02/2017)
dated 5/1/2017 re: request for a one-day extension of time to submit Ms. Maxwell's
on 5/2/2017) Gwh) (Entered: 05/02/2017)
05/02/2017 891 ORDER: The Plaintiffs motion in limine filed May 1, 2017 shall be heard on
05/03/2017 892 OPINION re: 293 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Portions ofFebruary 16,
dated March 27,2017 filed by Virginia L. Giuffre, 262 MOTION to Strike Document
Michael Cemovich d/b/a Cemovich Media: This opinion resolves ECF Nos. 550, 763,
and 793. The motion of the Intervener to intervene is granted. The motion to modify
(Entered: 05/03/2017)
415 ofSimilar Acts Evidence. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger,
filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C,
# 4 Exhibit D, #5, Exhibit E, #6 Exhibit F, #2 Exhibit G)(Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 05/03/2017)
05/04/2017)
W. Sweet, (lb) (Entered: 05/04/2017)
Exhibits Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c).. Motion Hearing set for 5/10/2017 at 12:00
PM before Judge Robert W. Sweet, (lb) (Entered: 05/04/2017)
05/04/2017 896 MOTION to Compel Non-Party Witness to Produce Documents and Respond to
Deposition Questions and to Complete Search ofESI (Refiled). Document filed by
to Complete Search ofESI (Refiled).. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-F)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 05/04/2017)
by Michael Cemovich d/b/a Cemovich Media.(Wohnan, Jay) (Entered: 05/04/2017)
Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed l)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 05/05/2017)
05/05/2017 902 MOTION Plaintiffs Motion for LEave to Permit Magna Legal Services to Bring
Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit l)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered:
05/05/2017)
805-0300. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through
Undisclosed Witnesses and Exhibits Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c).. Document
filed by Virginia L. Giufffe. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed 1, #2 Exhibit Sealed 2,
# 2 Exhibit Sealed 3, #4 Exhibit Sealed 4, #5. Exhibit Sealed 5, #6 Exhibit Sealed 6,
# 7 Exhibit Sealed 7, #£ Exhibit Sealed 8, #9 Exhibit Sealed 9, #10 Exhibit Sealed
10, #11 Exhibit Sealed 1 l)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 05/05/2017)
05/05/2017 908 MOTION for Order Directing the FBI to Produce Photographs to the Court.
Directing the FBI to Produce Photographs to the Court.. Document filed by Virginia
Sweet from Sigrid McCawley and Jeff Pagliuca dated May 8,2017. Document filed by
05/09/2017 912 ORDER granting 21fi Letter Motion to Adjourn Conference: So ordered. (Oral
Jury Instruction; 878 MOTION to Exclude Undisclosed Witnesses and Exhibits
before Judge Robert W. Sweet, (jwh) (Entered: 05/09/2017)
05/19/2017 m NOTICE OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL from £22 Memorandum & Opinion,,.
6/2/2017. (nd) (Entered: 05/19/2017)
Appeals re: 915 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal, (nd) (Entered: 05/19/2017)
were transmitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals, (nd) (Entered: 05/19/2017)
and between the parties and/or their respective counsel(s) that the above-captioned
Maxwell and without costs to either party pursuant to Rule 41(a)(l)(A)(ii) of the
(Entered: 05/24/2017)
05/25/2017 USCA Case Number 17-1625 from the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
(Entered: 05/25/2017)
25,2017 re: Request for Leave to File a Letter Under Seal. Document filed by Alan M.
Dershowitz. (Celli, Andrew) (Entered: 05/25/2017)
for Voluntary Dismissal. The document was incorrectly filed in this case, (tn)
(Entered: 05/26/2017)
Michael Cemovich d/b/a Cemovich Media. Filing fee $ 505.00, receipt number
0208-13725473. Form C and Form D are due within 14 days to the Court of Appeals,
Appeals re: 920 Notice of Appeal, (tp) (Entered: 05/31/2017)
Electronic Files for 920 Notice of Appeal, filed by Michael Cemovich d/b/a Cemovich
Media were transmitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals, (tp) (Entered: 05/31/2017)
Filing fee $ 505.00. Pay.gov receipt number 0208-13685185, paid on 05/19/2017.
[USCA Case Number 17-1625], (nd) (Entered: 06/06/2017)
21,2017 re: Confidentiality Designations. Document filed by Alan M. Dershowitz.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 2 Exhibit 3, #4 Exhibit 4, # 2 Exhibit 5, #
10/03/2017)
Wednesday, November 8,2017 in Courtroom 18C, United States Courthouse, 500
Judge Robert W. Sweet from Michael C. Miller dated October 3, 2017.. Document
from Michael C. Miller dated October 3,2017. filed by Jeffrey Epstein. (Court
Robert W. Sweet. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Pamela Utter, (212) 805-0300.
Dershowitz, 920 Notice of Appeal, filed by Michael Cemovich d/b/a Cemovich
Number 16-3945 (L), 17-1625 (Con), 17-1722 (Con). Appellee moves to file her
02/20/2018)
04/06/2018 935 MOTION to Intervene ., MOTION to Unseal Document. Document filed by Julie
Unseal Document.. Document filed by Julie Brown, Miami Herald Media Company.
04/09/2018 937 ORDER: The motion to intervene and unseal brought by proposed interveners Julie
Unseal Document.. Document filed by Michael Cemovich d/b/a Cemovich Media.
(Wohnan, Jay) (Entered: 04/20/2018)
Interveners Christine Walz do not oppose this request. ENDORSEMENT: SO
ORDERED., (Responses due by 4/27/2018) (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on

4/20/2018) (ama) (Entered: 04/20/2018)
.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 04/27/2018)
.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 04/27/2018)
MOTION to Unseal Document.. Document filed by Miami Herald Media Company.
Exhibit A - June 2017 Letter (Redacted))(Celli, Andrew) (Entered: 05/08/2018)
Robert W. Sweet. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Kelly Surina, (212) 805-0300.
21,2018 re: status of pending motion. Document filed by Julie Brown, Miami Herald
08/23/2018)
08/27/2018 953 OPINION: re: 935 MOTION to Intervene . MOTION to Unseal Document. filed by
on 8/27/2018) (js) (Entered: 08/27/2018)
09/25/2018)
0208-15620549. Form C and Form D are due within 14 days to the Court of Appeals,
Appeals re: 955 Notice of Appeal,, (nd) (Entered: 09/26/2018)
Company were transmitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals, (nd) (Entered: 09/26/2018)
Case 18-2868, DocumentDocument 953 Filed
11, 10/11/2018, 08/27/18
2408319, Page
Page93 of 1133
of 41

VIRGINIA GIUFFRE,

OPINION
-against-
GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
Defendant.
APPEARANCES:
Counsel for Intervenors Julie Brown


31 West 52nd Street
New York, NY 10019
By: Christine N. Walz, Esq.
Sanford L. Bohrer, Esq.
Counsel for Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre

401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1200
By: Sigrid S. McCawley, Esq.

333 Main Street
Armonk, NY 10504
By: David Boies, Esq.

By: Bradley J. Edwards, Esq.
11, 10/11/2018, 08/27/18
2408319, Page
Page94 of 2133
of 41

UNIVERSITY OF UTAH1
383 University Street
Counsel for Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell

Denver, CO 80203
Ty Gee, Esq.

Hartford, CT 06103
Counsel for Intervenor Alan Dershowitz

600 Fifth Avenue, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10020
By: Andrew G. Celli, Jr., Esq.1
1 This daytime business address is provided for

identification and correspondence purposes only and is not
intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of
Utah for this private representation.
Case 1:15-CV-07433-RWS
11, 10/11/2018, 08/27/18
2408319, Page
Page95 of 3133
of 41
Table of ContentsI. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII.
I. Prior Proceedings .......................................... 2

II.The Motion to Intervene is Granted ........................ 11
III. The Issues and the Applicable Standards.................. 13
IV. The Motion to Unseal the Discovery Documents is Denied.... 24
V. The Summary Judgment Judicial Documents..... ............. 26
is Denied...... 30
VII. Conclusion............................................... 38
Case
Case 18-2868, DocumentDocument
l:15-cv-07433-RWS 11, 10/11/2018, 2408319,
953 Filed Page96
08/27/18 of 4133
Page of 41
Sweet, D.J.
Third-party proposed interveners The Miami Herald
Media Company (the "Miami Herald") and investigative journalist
for the Miami Herald Julie Brown ("Brown") (collectively, the
"Interveners"), have moved pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
plaintiff Virginia Giuffre ("Giuffre" or the "Plaintiff")
against defendant Ghislaine Maxwell ("Maxwell" or the
"Defendant") and to unseal all of the documents previously
sealed in this action.
Resolution, clarity and certainty, sometimes delayed,
are hallmarks of the judicial process. The present motions
challenge certain resolutions of this settled and closed action
and raise significant issues, the conduct of the discovery
process, the enforceability of confidentiality agreements and
protective orders, the privacy rights of parties and witnesses,
the public interest and the role of the media, and the
transparency of the judicial process.
This defamation action from its inception in September
2015 to its settlement in May 2017 has been bitterly contested
and difficult to administer because of the truth or falsity of
1
11, 10/11/2018, 08/27/18
2408319, Page
Page97 of 5133
of 41
the allegations concerning the intimate, sexual, and private
conduct of the parties and of third persons, some prominent,
some private. The instant motions renew that pattern and require
a reexamination of the effort to provide an appropriate
resolution of the issues presented by the litigation.
Upon this reexamination and the conclusions set forth
below, the motion to intervene is granted, and the motion to
unseal is denied as to the documents produced in the discovery
process and as to the summary judgment judicial documents based
on the difficult balancing of the conflicting principles
described below.
In early 2011 Giuffre, in an interview with journalist
Sharon Churcher ("Churcher") which was published in two British
tabloids, described Maxwell's alleged role as someone who
recruited or facilitated the recruitment of young females for
sexual activity with Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), that she,
Giuffre, had been interviewed by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation ("FBI") in 2011, and that she had discussed
Maxwell's involvement in the described sexual abuse. Maxwell
issued a statement denying this account on March 9, 2011.
2
11, 10/11/2018, 08/27/18
2408319, Page
Page98 of 6133
of 41
On January 1, 2015, Giuffre moved to join two alleged
Victims' Rights Act against the United States, purporting to
challenge Epstein's plea agreement. Giuffre's joinder motion
(the "Joinder Motion") included numerous details about Giuffre's
repeatedly named Maxwell in the Joinder Motion as being
personally involved in the sexual abuse and sex trafficking
scheme created by Epstein.
On January 3, 2015, Maxwell again issued a statement,
responding to the allegations made in connection with Giuffre's
Joinder Motion. Maxwell stated that Giuffre's allegations
"against Ghislaine Maxwell are untrue" and that Giuffre's
"claims are obvious lies" (the "January 3 Statement").
Giuffre filed her complaint in this action on
September 21, 2015 (the "Complaint") , setting forth her claim of
defamation by Maxwell arising out of the Maxwell January 3
Statement. Giuffre alleged she was the "victim of sexual
trafficking and abuse while she was a minor child" and that
Maxwell "facilitated" Giuffre's sexual abuse and "wrongfully"
subjected Giuffre to "public ridicule, contempt and disgrace" by
denying Giuffre's allegations. Giuffre further alleged that over
3
11, 10/11/2018, 08/27/18
2408319, Page
Page99 of 7133
of 41
locations" around the world with prominent and politically
powerful men.
Vigorous litigation was undertaken by the parties, as
demonstrated by the 950 docket entries as of August 27, 2018,
primary issue presented was the truth or falsity of the January
3 statement issued by Maxwell, which in turn challenged all the
previous statements made to the press by Giuffre and in
Giuffre's Joinder Motion. This resulted, understandably, in a
lengthy and tumultuous discovery process resulting in 18
hearings and 15 decisions.
After hearing counsel, it was determined that fact
discovery would be completed on July 29, 2016,2 see Proposed
Discovery and Case Management Plan, Aug. 1, 2016, ECF No. 317.
Both parties early on recognized the extreme sensitivities and
privacy interests arising out of an effective discovery process
involving the truth or falsity of the allegations at issue. The
2 The parties reserved the right to extend this deadline

where the parties so agreed, or for good cause shown. See
Proposed Discovery and Case Management Plan, Aug. 1, 2016, ECF
No. 317.
4
Case
l:15-cv-07433-RWS 11, 10/11/2018, 2408319,
953 Filed Page100
08/27/18 Pageof8133
of 41
agreement, and endorsed by the Court on March 17, 2016 (the
"Protective Order"), and the sealing order was ordered by the
Court on August 9, 2016 (the "Sealing Order") , for the purpose
of protecting the discovery and dissemination of confidential
information to be exchanged in this action. See Protective
Order, ECF No. 62. This Protective Order allowed the parties to
provide discovery on highly private and sensitive subjects
without it being disclosed to the public, absent an additional
order of this Court. The Protective Order served "to protect the
discovery and dissemination of confidential information or
information which will properly annoy, embarrass, or oppress any
party, witness, or person providing discovery in this case." ECF
Dkt. 62. The Protective Order applied broadly "to all documents,
materials, and information, including without limitation,
documents produced, answers to interrogatories, responses to
requests for admission, deposition testimony, and other
information disclosed pursuant to the disclosure or discovery
duties created by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." Id. 1
1.
The Protective Order also provided the procedures to
designate any such material as confidential, and to challenge
such designations. Id. M 8-10. Upon review by an attorney
5
Case
l:15-cv-07433-RWS 11, 10/11/2018, 2408319,
953 Filed Page101
08/27/18 Pageof9133
of 41
acting in good faith, the designating party was to designate
certain confidential information as "CONFIDENTIAL," triggering a
action. Id. f 8. When a party filed material designated as
confidential with the Court, it was to additionally file a
York. Id. I 10. Absent consent of the producing party,
designated documents "shall not ... be disclosed."3 Id. S 5.
party or destroy the documents. Id. SI 12. The Protective Order
[S]uch information may be disclosed to: a) attorneys

actively working on this case; b) persons regularly
employed or associated with the attorneys actively
working on this case whose assistance is required by
connection with this proceeding, to the extent such
employees ... in this case; f) stenographic
reporters who are engaged in proceedings necessarily
incident to the conduct of this action; g) deponents,
witnesses, or potential witnesses; and h) other
persons by written agreement of the parties.
Id. 1 5.
6
11, 10/11/2018, 08/27/18
2408319, Pageof10
Page102 of 41
133
specified that it "shall have no force and effect on the use of
From March 17, 2016 to August 9, 2016, 26 motions to
seal were filed with the Court pursuant to the Protective Order,
.each of which were granted. On August 9, 2016, an order amended
the Protective Order as follows:

ordered that letter motions to file submissions under
seal pursuant to the Court's Protective Order, ECF No.
62, are granted. The Protective Order is amended
accordingly such that filing a letter motion seeking
sealing for each submission is no longer necessary. A
party wishing to challenge the sealing of any
particular submission may do so by motion.
Sealing Order, ECF No. 348. One hundred sixty-seven documents
were sealed pursuant to the Sealing Order.
On August 11, 2016, Intervener Alan Dershowitz
("Dershowitz" or "Intervener Dershowitz") moved to unseal three
documents: (1) portions of a Reply Brief submitted by Churcher
in support of her motion to quash the subpoena served on her;
(2) emails between Churcher and Giuffre submitted in connection
with the same motion; and (3) a draft of a manuscript prepared
by Giuffre submitted in connection with a motion to extend a
time deadline. See Dershowitz Motion to Intervene, Aug. 11,
2016, ECF Nos. 362-64. Other than the requested documents which
7
Case
1:15-CV-07433-RWS 11, 10/11/2018, 2408319,
953 Filed Page103
08/27/18 Pageof11133
of 41
he sought in order to make a public statement, Dershowitz agreed
to be bound by the Protective Order. See Dershowitz Deal., EOF
No. 363 1 30. On November 2, 2016, the motion was denied on the
basis that these documents "were submitted with respect to the
discovery process rather than in connection with the disposition
documents" such that no presumption of access exists. Giuffre v.
Maxwell, No. 15 Civ. 7433 (RWS) (S.D.N.Y, Nov. 2, 2016), ECFNo.
496. Appeal has been filed on that decision.
Pursuant to several amendments, a trial date of May
25, 2017 was determined. See Order, Oct. 30, 2015, EOF No. 13;
Amended Proposed Discovery and Case Management Plan, Sept. 30,
2016, ECF No. 451; Amended Second Discovery and Case Management
Plan, Feb. 27, 2017, ECF No. 648; Joint Letter, May 8, 2017, ECF
No. 912.
Expert discovery was completed on November 30, .2016.
See id.
Twenty-nine motions in limine were filed by the
parties between January 5, 2017 and May 1, 2017, on which
decision was reserved. See ECF Nos. 520, 522, 524, 526, 528,
8
Case
l:15-cv-07433-RWS 11, 10/11/2018, 2408319,
953 Filed Page104
08/27/18 Pageof12133
of 41
530, 533, 535, 561, 563, 567, 608, 663-667, 669, 671, 673, 675,
677, 679, 681, 683, 685-86, 689, 691.
Maxwell filed a motion for summary judgment on January
6, 2017, which was heard on February 16, 2017 and denied by an
opinion filed on March 22, 2017. See Sealed Document, March 24,
2017, ECF No. 779 (the "Summary Judgment Opinion"). The parties,
in accordance with the agreed upon procedures, were directed to
jointly file a proposed redacted version of the Summary Judgment
Opinion consistent with the Protective Order. The agreed upon
redacted opinion was filed with the Court and made public on the
docket on April 27, 2017 (the "Redacted Opinion"). See Redacted
Opinion, April 27, 2017, ECF No. 872.
On January 19, 2017, Intervener Michael Cernovich
("Cernovich" or "Intervener Cernovich") made a motion to unseal
the materials submitted in connection with Maxwell'' s motion for
summary judgment, which the Court denied on May 3, 2017 (the
"May 3 Opinion") on the basis that Cernovich "ha[d] not
established a compelling need for the documents obtained in
discovery which undergird the summary judgment decision."
Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 15 Civ. 7433 (RWS) (S.D.N.Y. May 3,
2017), ECF No. 892. "This action is currently scheduled for
9
11, 10/11/2018, 08/27/18
2408319, Pageof13133
Page105 of 41
trial in mid-May and a release of contested confidential
discovery materials could conceivably taint the jury pool." Id.
The parties arrived at a settlement and jointly
stipulated to dismiss this action on May 24, 2017. See
Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal, ECF No. 916; Joint
Stipulation for Dismissal, ECF No. 919. The settlement
confidential with terms known only to the parties. This case was
closed on May 25, 2017.
On April 9, 2018, the Miami Herald filed the instant
motion, contending that all sealed documents in this action are
presumptively public under both common law principles and the
First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and were sealed
pursuant to an improvidently granted protective order, which
allowed the parties to designate information as confidential
without the particularized judicial scrutiny required by the law
prior to sealing. See ECF No. 62. The motion was joined by
Intervener Dershowitz, who requested that he be advised of any
documents unsealed in order to request unsealing of additional
documents to protect his interests, and by Intervenor Cernovich.
Argument was heard on May 9, 2018, at which time this motion was
considered fully submitted.
10
11, 10/11/2018, 08/27/18
2408319, Pageof14133
Page106 of 41
II. The Motion to Intervene is Granted
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 provides
intervention of right under Rule 24(a) to anyone who "claims an
interest relating to the property or transaction that is the
subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the
action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant' s
ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties
adequately represent that interest." Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a).
Permissive intervention may be granted to anyone "who has a
claim or defense that shares with the main action a common
question of law or fact." Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b).
Because courts, including this one, "have repeatedly
recognized that members of the press (and other non-parties) may
seek to pursue modification of confidentiality orders that have
led to sealing of documents filed with the court," and since
"the appropriate procedural mechanism to do so is a motion to
intervene," the motion of Brown and the Miami Herald to
intervene is granted. See In re Pineapple Antitrust Litig., No.
04 Md. 1628 (RMB) (MHD), 2015 WL 5439090, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug.
Nov. 2, 2016), ECF No. 496 (Opinion Granting Dershowitz Motion
to Intervene); Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 15 Civ. 7433 (RWS)
11
11, 10/11/2018, 08/27/18
2408319, Pageof15133
Page107 of 41
(S.D.N..Y. May 3, 2017), ECF No. 892 (Opinion Granting Cernovich
Motion to Intervene).
May 25, 2017 pursuant to the settlement agreement, "intervention
for the purpose of challenging confidentiality orders is
permissible even years after a case is closed.^ United States v.
Erie Cnty., N.Y., No. 09 Civ. 849S, 2013 WL 4679070, at *6
(W.D.N.Y, Aug. 30, 2013), rev'd on other gds., 763 F.3d 235 (2d
Cir. 2014); see also In re Pineapple Antitrust Litig., 2015 WL
5439090, at *2 ("[T]here is no implication in the caselaw or in
disable a journalist from seeking unsealing."). Moreover,
"[w]hether deemed an intervention as of right under Rule 24(a)
or a permissive intervention under Rule 24(b), intervention by
the press-a step preliminary to determining whether any sealed
documents should be disclosed-should be granted absent some
compelling justification for a contrary result." In re Pineapple
Antitrust Litig., 2015 WL 5439090, at *2 (footnote omitted).
Accordingly, the motion to intervene is granted, and
it is appropriate to reopen the case for the disposition of the
instant motion.
12
11, 10/11/2018, 08/27/18
2408319, Pageof16133
Page108 of 41
III, The Issues and the Applicable Standards
The issues presented by the parties engage vital
societal concepts, the privacy rights of individuals, the
judicial process to establish truth or falsity, the transparency
of that process, and freedom of information and of the press. On
these concepts our Circuit has rendered helpful guidance.4
4 See United States v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 863 F.3d 125
(2d Cir. 2017) (noting discovery documents lie beyond the
presumption of public access); Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz
Berger & Grossmann LLP, 814 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2016) (weighing
interests in favor of access); Newsday LLC v. Cnty. of Nassau,
730 F.3d 156 (2d Cir. 2013) (finding First Amendment right of
access to contempt proceeding); N. Y. Civil Liberties Union v.
N.Y.C. Transit Auth., 684 F.3d 286 (2d Cir. 2012) (qualified
First Amendment right of public access attached to TAB hearings
conducted by New York City Transit Authority); United States v.
Aref, 533 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2008) (finding that where classified
information presented at trial, if disclosed, would jeopardize
national security weighed against public access); Lugosch v.
Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) (existence
of confidentiality order alone did not defeat presumption of
public access); Hartford Courant Co. v. Pellegrino, 380 F.3d 83
(2d Cir. 2004) (establishing qualified First Amendment right of
access to sealed docket sheets); Sec. Exch. Comm'n v.
TheStreet.com, 273 F.3d 222 (2d Cir. 2001) (holding pretrial
deposition testimony were not "judicial documents"); DiRussa v.
Dean Witter Reynolds Inc., 121 F.3d 818 (2d Cir. 1997) (sealing
file pursuant to confidentiality agreement between parties was
not abuse of discretion); United States v. Amodeo, 44 F.3d 141
court to edit and redact judicial document to allow access to
appropriate portions after weighing competing interests); United
States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044 (2d Cir. 1995) ("Amodeo II")
(presumption of access afforded to particular document filed
with court varies with document's relevance to exercise of
Article III functions); Gardner v. Newsday, 895 F.2d 74, 79 (2d
Cir. 1990) (balancing newspaper's common law right of access
13
11, 10/11/2018, 08/27/18
2408319, Pageof17133
Page109 of 41
Because of the nature of this defamation action, the particular
allegations at issue involving sexual conduct, and the need to
be able to rely on court determinations, this motion presents a
unique pattern for decision.
the boundaries of privacy, or "the right to be let alone," but
the result remains a mosaic, the development of which can be
traced more to the unraveling of case law than the priority of
certain rights over others. See Louis Menand, i¥hy Do We Care So
Much About Privacy?, The New Yorker, June 18, 2018.
The legal implications of privacy have been considered
in relation to "telegraphy, telephony, instantaneous photography
(snapshots), dactyloscopy (fingerprinting), Social Security
numbers, suburbanization, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
Inventory, Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, abortion rights, gay
liberation, human-subject research, the Family Educational
Rights and Privacy Act, '60 Minutes,' Betty Ford, the 1973 PBS
documentary 'An American Family,' the Starr Report, the memoir
craze, blogging, and social media." Id. at 6; see e.g.. Smith v.
with defendant's privacy rights); Joy v. North, 692 F.2d 880 (2d
Cir. 1982) (distinguishing between documents obtained in
discovery from those filed pursuant to an adjudication for
purposes of the "judicial document" determination).
14
Case
l:15-cv-07433-RWS 11, 10/11/2018, 2408319,
953 Filed Page110
08/27/18 Pageof18133
of 41
Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979) (holding no reasonable expectation
of privacy in phone numbers dialed); Assoc. Press v. U.S. Dep't
of Defense, 554 F.3d 274 (2009) (finding Guantanamo detainees
enjoy a privacy interest in the nondisclosure of their names and
identifying information in records containing allegations of
abuse by military personnel and by other detainees); Nat'l
Archives & Records Admin, v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157 (2004)
surviving family members' right to personal privacy with respect
to their close relative's death-scene images).
(private roads and private sales)," see United States v. Knotts,
460 U.S. 276, 282 (1983) (holding that defendant enjoyed a
thoroughfares), "with confidentiality (private conversations),"
see Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351 (1967) (holding
that defendant did not shed his reasonable expectation of
privacy in holding a private conversation in a public phone
booth), "with noncomformity and dissent," see Warden v. Hayden,
387 U.S. 295, 323 (1967) (Douglas, J., dissenting) ("Those who
wrote the Bill of Rights believed that every individual needs
both to communicate with others and to keep his affairs to
15
Case
l:15-cv-07433-RWS 11, 10/11/2018, 2408319,
953 Filed Page111
08/27/18 Pageof19133
of 41
himself. That dual aspect of privacy means that the individual
should have the freedom to select for himself the time and
circumstances when he will share his secrets with others and
decide the extent of that sharing.")f "with shame and
embarrassment," see Perlman v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 312 F.3d
100, 106 (2d Cir. 2002), vacated and remanded, 541 U.S. 970
(2004), aff'd, 380 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2004) (per curiam)
because being identified as part of a law enforcement
investigation could subject them to 'embarrassments and
harassment'"), "with the deviant and the taboo . . .," see
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 573 (2003) (holding that
persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy in their
consensual sexual conduct in the home just as heterosexual
persons do), "and with subterfuge and concealment," see U.S.
Dep't of Justice v. Reporters Comm. For Freedom of Press, 489
U.S. 749, 763 (1989) (holding that an individual's interest in
nondisclosure of an FBI rap sheet was the sort of personal
privacy interest that Congress intended FOIA law enforcement
exemption to protect); see Menand, supra at 6,
In the law, "privacy functions as a kind of default
right when an injury has been inflicted and no other right seems
to suit the case." Menand, supra at 6. The right to privacy
16
Case
l:15-cv-07433-RWS 11, 10/11/2018, 2408319,
953 Filed Page112
08/27/18 Pageof20133
of 41
might emanate from one or many Amendments to the Constitution.
For example, the right prohibiting the government from obtaining
heat wave information from within one's home by way of sense
notions of privacy rooted in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, see
Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 34 (2001), while the right
of a woman, with certain exceptions, to pursue an abortion
beyond the state's police powers exists in the zones of privacy
arising from the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth
Amendments, see Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, (1973) (holding that
constitutional right of privacy is broad enough to encompass
woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy, but
that this right is not absolute in that the state may properly
assert important interests in safeguarding health, in
these disparate concepts does not lend itself to easy
determinations of privacy rights. Nevertheless, certain things
enjoy an undisputed right to privacy: trade secrets, see Ketvanee
Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp., 416 U.S. 470, 475-76 (1974) (the holder
of a trade secret is protected against the disclosure or
unauthorized use'of the trade secret); sexual activity (although
of what kind it remains to be determined), compare Lawrence, 539
17
Case
l:15-cv-07433-RWS 11, 10/11/2018, 2408319,
953 Filed Page113
08/27/18 Pageof21133
of 41
U.S. 558 (making it unconstitutional to criminalize homosexual
relations) with Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972)
(holding unconstitutional Massachusetts statute permitting
married persons to obtain contraceptives but prohibiting
distribution of contraceptives to single persons); and personal
characteristics—such as the radiation of heat from one's home,
Kyllo, 533 U.S. 27, and the unamplified sound of one's voice,
Katz, 389 U.S. 347—which make up Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.
balanced against the public's right to access rooted in First
Amendment and common law jurisprudence.
There are two "related but distinct presumptions in
favor of public access to court . . . records: a strong form
rooted in the First Amendment and a slightly weaker form based
in federal common law." Newsday LLC v. Cnty. of Nassau, 730 F.3d
156, 163 (2d Cir. 2013). Generally, the public holds an
affirmative, enforceable right of access to judicial records
under both the common law and the First Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution, "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." United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 (2d Cir.
18
Case Document
11, 10/11/2018, 08/27/18
2408319, Pageof22133
Page114 of 41
1995) ("Amodeo II"). However, "the right to inspect , . .
judicial records is not absolute. Every court has supervisory
power over its own records and files, and access has been denied
where court files might have become a vehicle for improper
purposes" such as using records "to gratify spite or promote
scandals" or where files might serve "as reservoirs of libelous
statements for press consumption." Nixon v. Warner Comma'nsr
Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978); see also Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at
1051 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) ("Courts
have long declined to allow public access simply to cater to a
morbid craving for that which is sensational and impure.").
Pretrial discovery is intended to aid the parties in
their search for truth. See Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 501
(1947) (celebrating that " [t]he deposition-discovery regime set
out by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is an extremely
permissive one to which courts have long 'accorded a broad and
liberal treatment to effectuate their purpose that civil trials
in the federal courts [need not] be carried on in the dark,'"
and that discovery is a powerful tool for "the parties to obtain
the fullest possible knowledge of the issues and facts before
trial."). It is presumed that the trial itself will make the
final determination of truth or falsity. The boundary between
19
Case
l:15-cv-07433-RWS 11, 10/11/2018, 2408319,
953 Filed Page115
08/27/18 Pageof23133
of 41
discovery and trial is sometimes, as here, blurred. The effort
is assisted by the definition of "judicial documents."
Whether discovery or trial, "a court must first
conclude that the documents at issue are indeed 'judicial
documents.’" Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110,
119 (2d Cir. 2006); see also id. (noting that "only judicial
whether on common law or Fist Amendment grounds."). If the
document is a judicial document, courts next ask whether the
presumption of access is a product of the common law right of
access, or of the more robust First Amendment right to access
certain judicial documents. Id. at 119-20. It is a given
accepted by the Protective Order that the trial and all trial
documents are accessible and public absent special
circumstances.
Under the common law approach, once a document is
classified as a judicial document, the presumption of access
attaches. Id. at 119. The court must then determine the weight
of the presumption of access, which is a function of "the role
power" and "the resultant value of such information to those
monitoring the federal courts." See id.; Stern v. Cosby, 529 F.
20
11, 10/11/2018, 08/27/18
2408319, Pageof24133
Page116 of 41
Supp. 2d 417, 420 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (internal citations omitted)
is, whether the presumption is an especially strong one that can
whether the presumption is somewhere in between."). Documents
traditionally fall somewhere on a continuum "from matters that
court's purview solely to ensure their irrelevance," Amodeo II,
71 F.3d at 1049. Such a presumption under the common law may be
privacy interests, the public's safety, or preservation of
attorney-client privilege." Under Seal v. Under Seal, 273 F.
Supp. 3d 460, 467 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (collecting cases).
criminal or civil." Id. at 468 (citing Richmond Newspapers, Inc.
v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 580 (1980)) (internal citation
omitted). This right applies specifically to "related
government's arbitrary interference with access to important
21
Case
l:15-cv-07433-RWS 11, 10/11/2018, 2408319,
953 Filed Page117
08/27/18 Pageof25133
of 41
information."' N.Y. Civil Liberties Union v. N.Y.C. Transit
Auth., 684 F.3d 286, 298 (2d Cir. 2012} (citations omitted). As
noted above, the Protective Order specified that confidential
material would not be protected with respect to any document
proffered at trial.
The Second Circuit has recognized two approaches for
determining whether the First Amendment right of access extends
to particular judicial records. Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 120. In the
evaluates whether the documents are those that "have
functioning of the particular process in question." Id. Courts
Hartford Courant Co. v. Pellegrino, 380 F.3d 83, 92 (2d Cir.
2004) .
attaches to judicial documents "derived from or a necessary
corollary of the capacity to attend the relevant proceedings."
Id. at 93. Accordingly, the Second Circuit has found "the right
22
11, 10/11/2018, 08/27/18
2408319, Pageof26133
Page118 of 41
of particular tribunals." Id.; see also id. (observing that
"[o]ther circuits that have addressed [the] question have
construed the constitutional right of access to apply to written
documents submitted in connection with judicial proceedings that
To be clear, the First Amendment creates only a
presumptive right of access. Newsday, 730 F.3d at 164-65. "What
offends the First Amendment is the attempt to do so without
sufficient justification." N.Y. Civil Liberties Union, 684 F.3d
at 296. Under either approach, a presumptive right of access may
be overcome by "specific, on-the-record findings that sealing is
necessary to preserve higher values and only if the sealing
F.3d at 124. The party seeking to keep the judicial documents
under seal carries the burden of demonstrating that higher
values overcome the presumption of public access, DiRussa v.
Dean Witter Reynolds Inc., 121 F.3d 818, 826 (2d Cir. 1997), and
such a showing must be supported by "findings specific enough
that a reviewing court can determine whether the closure order
was properly entered." Press-Enter. Co. v. Superior Court of
Cal., Riverside Cnty., 464 U.S. 501, 510 (1984).
23
11, 10/11/2018, 08/27/18
2408319, Pageof27133
Page119 of 41
The parties early on agreed that the release of
expose the parties to annoyance, embarrassment, and oppression
given the highly sensitive nature of the underlying allegations.
The parties mutually assented to entering into the Protective
confidential included a range of allegations of sexual acts
involving Plaintiff and non-parties to this litigation, some
famous, some not; the identities of non-parties who either
allegedly engaged in sexual acts with Plaintiff or who allegedly
facilitated such acts; Plaintiff's sexual history and prior
The Protective Order has maintained the confidentiality of these
sensitive materials. One hundred sixty-seven discovery documents
Order.
Further, upon the issuance of an opinion by this
Court, the parties were directed to jointly file a proposed
forth above. The parties submitted the Redacted Opinion to
24
11, 10/11/2018, 08/27/18
2408319, Pageof28133
Page120 of 41
Order.
Except as discussed below, the documents sealed in the
course of discovery were neither relied upon by this Court in
the rendering of an adjudication, nor "necessary to or helpful
in resolving [a] motion." See Alexander Interactive, Inc. v.
Adorama, Inc., No. 12 Civ. 6608 (PKC) (JCF), 2014 WL 4346174, at
*2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 2, 2014). Moreover, our Circuit has "long
recognized that documents 'passed between the parties in
discovery[] lie entirely beyond the . . . reach' of the
presumption of public access." United States v. HSBC Bank USA,
N.A., 863 F.3d 125, 139 (2d Cir. 2017); see also Sec. Exch.
Comm'n v. Am. Int'l Grp., 712 F.3d 1, 24 (D.C. Cir. 2013)
("[T]hough filing a document with the court is not sufficient to
render the document a judicial record, it is very much a
prerequisite."). To provide "unthinkable access to every item
turned up in the course of litigation would be unthinkable."
Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1048. Accordingly, the motion to unseal
25
11, 10/11/2018, 08/27/18
2408319, Pageof29133
Page121 of 41
Under the common law and First Amendment, the primary
inquiry is whether the documents at issue are "judicial
documents." To be a judicial document, "the item filed must be
relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful
in the judicial process." Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 119/ see HSBC
Bank USAf N.A., 863 F.3d at 134 ("The threshold merits question
in this case is whether the [sealed document] is a judicial
document, as only judicial documents are subject to a
presumptive right of public access, whether on common law or
contents to the nature of the proceeding" and the degree to
in understanding the issues before the . . . court, and in
evaluating the fairness and integrity of the court's
proceedings." Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann
LLP, 814 F.3d 132, 139 (2d Cir. 2016) (citing Newsday LLC, 730
F.3d at 166-67) (alteration omitted).
Documents filed with the court vary in their status as
'judicial documents.' At one end of the continuum, "[t]he mere
filing of a paper or document with the court is insufficient to
26
11, 10/11/2018, 08/27/18
2408319, Pageof30133
Page122 of 41
public access." United States v. Amodeo, 44 F.3d 141, 145 {2d
Cir. 1995) ("Amodeo I"). Likewise, the filing of "deposition
transcripts, interrogatories, and documents exchanged in
discovery" with a court is not sufficient to reach the status of
judicial document, and to consider them as such "would
constitute a radical expansion of the 'public access' doctrine."
HSBC Bank USA/ N.A., 863 F,3d at 139 (citing Amedeo II, 71 F.3d
at 1048); accord 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. Private matters which are discoverable may, upon a
showing of cause, be put under seal under Rule 26(c), in the
first instance."). At the other end, the "case law is clear that
pleadings and summary judgment papers . . . are judicial
documents upon filing." Id. at 141-42. The Second Circuit has
repeatedly held that all documents submitted in support of a
motion for summary judgment, whether or not relied upon, "are
unquestionably judicial documents under the common law."
Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 123. The same applies for complaints. See
Bernstein, 814 F.3d at 140 (internal citation omitted) ("A
complaint, which initiates judicial proceedings, is the
cornerstone of every case, the very architecture of the lawsuit,
27
11, 10/11/2018, 08/27/18
2408319, Pageof31133
Page123 of 41
and access to the complaint is almost always necessary if the
public is to understand a court's decision.").
Somewhere in the middle lie documents "submitted . .
. in support of a motion to compel discovery [which] . . .
presumably will be necessary to or helpful in resolving that
motion. They are, therefore, judicial documents." Alexander
Interactive,- Inc., 2014 WL 4346174, at *2; see also In re
Omnicom Grp., Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 02 Civ. 4483 (RCC) (MHD),
2006 WL 3016311, at *2 (S.D.N.Y, Oct. 23, 2006) (internal
citation omitted) (finding that a "series of letter briefs with
accompanying exhibits . . . certainly qualify as judicial
documents" because they are "relevant to the performance of the
judicial function and useful in the judicial process.").
The Summary Judgment Opinion refers to facts drawn
from Maxwell's Memorandum of Law in Support of Maxwell's Motion
for Summary Judgment; Maxwell's Rule 56.1 Statement of Material
Facts; Giuffre's Statement of Contested Facts and Giuffre's
Undisputed Facts; and Maxwell's Reply to Giuffre's Statement of
Contested Facts and Giuffre's Undisputed Facts pursuant to Local
Civil Rule 56.1 (the "Factual Statements").
28
11, 10/11/2018, 08/27/18
2408319, Pageof32133
Page124 of 41
they rely, formed the basis of or the recital of both
Judgment Opinion. The recital and the Factual Statements
Complaint. That recital described the issues to be resolved at
trial, if, as was the case, the summary judgment was denied.
the substance of the evidence jointly deemed confidential by the
summary judgment motion are "judicial documents" triggering a
presumption of access subject to balancing under the First
Amendment and common law if they "directly affect an
adjudication." Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 123 ("As a matter of law, we
hold that the contested documents—by virtue of having been
a motion for summary judgment—are unquestionably judicial
29
11, 10/11/2018, 08/27/18
2408319, Pageof33133
Page125 of 41
VI. The Motion to Unseal the Summary Judgment Judicial
Documents is Denied
Intervenors contend that the Summary Judgment Judicial
Documents should be unsealed because they carry a strong
presumption of access under both the First Amendment and common
law, and there are no compelling reasons to keep them sealed.
Because it has been determined that the Summary
Judgment Opinion and the materials submitted in connection with
it are judicial documents, the weight of the presumption under
the common law must be determined, in addition to any
countervailing factors. See Bernstein, 814 F.3d at 143 (citing
Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 119-20) (internal quotation marks omitted)
(noting that the final step of the inquiry as to the summary
judgment papers is the "weight-of-the-presumption analysis:
balancing the value of public disclosure and countervailing
factors.").
Intervenors assert that because Defendant's motion for
summary judgment fits squarely into the definition of a judicial
document, those materials are entitled to the strongest
presumption of access. Maxwell contends that the Intervenors are
not in a position to determine the weight of the presumption
30
Case Document
11, 10/11/2018, 08/27/18
2408319, Pageof
Page126 34133
of 41
afforded each summary judgment document because they have not
seen each document.
While the Summary Judgment Judicial Documents are
entitled to a presumption of access, this presumption is less
"where a district court denied the summary judgment motion,
essentially postponing a final determination of substantive
legal rights, [because] the public interest in access is not as
pressing," See Miodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1049 (quoting In re
Reporters Comm, for Freedom of the Press, 773 F.2d 1325, 1342
n.3 (D.C, Cir. 1985) (internal quotation marks omitted)
(emphasis in original) (alteration added)). Because the motion
for summary judgment was denied by the Court on March 22, 2017,
the Summary Judgment Judicial Documents are entitled to a lesser
presumption of access,
"Notwithstanding the presumption of access under both
kept under seal if 'countervailing factors' in the common law
framework or 'higher values' in the First Amendment framework so
demand." Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 125. At common law, the
presumption of access may be overcome by demonstrating that
"sealing will further other substantial interests such as a
third party's personal privacy interests, the public's safety.
31
Case
l:15-cv-07433-RWS 11, 10/11/2018, 2408319,
953 Filed Page127
08/27/18 Pageof35133
of 41
F. Supp. 3d at 467/ see Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1050 (describing
factors that weigh against the presumption of access); United
States v. Aref, 533 F.3d 72, 83 (2d Cir. 2008) (affirming a
sealing order "[g]iven the legitimate national-security concerns
client privilege "might well be ... a compelling reason" to
order, "a strong presumption against public access" applies if a
establishes "reasonabl[e] reli[ance] on the protective order.").
Here, the primary countervailing factor is "the
privacy interests of those resisting disclosure." Amodeo II, 71
F.3d at 1050/ see also Gardner v. Newsday, 895 F.2d 74, 79 (2d
Cir. 1990) ("[T]he common law right of access is qualified by
recognition of the privacy rights of the persons whose intimate
relations may thereby be disclosed."). The Second Circuit has
parties . . . should weigh heavily in a court's balancing
32
11, 10/11/2018, 08/27/18
2408319, Pageof36133
Page128 of 41
equation." Id. at 79-80; see also Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1051
("Such interests, while not always fitting comfortably under the
presumption of access.").
In assessing the weight to be accorded an assertion of
a right of privacy, "courts should first consider the degree to
which the subject matter is traditionally considered private
rather than public." Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1051. For example,
"[f]inancial records of a wholly owned business, family affairs,
illnesses, embarrassing conduct with no public ramifications,
conduct affecting a substantial portion of the public." Id.; but
see United States v. Silver, No. 15 Cr. 93 (VEC), 2016 WL
1572993, at *6 n.5 (S.D.N.Y. April 14, 2016) (emphasizing that
between wholly private citizens or between a private citizen and
a government official where there is no intersection with state
business. In the case of the former, there is the ever-present
risk of public scrutiny and a legitimate public interest in
ensuring that government officials are acting in the public's
33
Case
l:15-cv-07433-RWS 11, 10/11/2018, 2408319,
953 Filed Page129
08/27/18 Pageof37133
of 41
falsity of the underlying allegations of the sexual assault and
The "nature and degree of injury must also be
weighed," which means that consideration must also be given to
"the sensitivity of the information and the subject but also of
as well as dozens of third persons, all of whom relied upon the
interests to the underlying confidential information by
supporting this motion, as Maxwell has not agreed to such a
waiver.
More importantly, the dozens of non-parties who
provided highly confidential information relating to their own
34
Case
l:15-cv-07433-RWS 11, 10/11/2018, 2408319,
953 Filed Page130
08/27/18 Pageof38133
of 41
stories provided that information in reliance on the Protective
Order and the understanding that it would continue to protect
everything it claimed it would. This interest is amplified
where, as here, the Summary Judgment Judicial Documents "contain
sensitive and personal information about the sexual abuse of []
minor[s]." Kavanagh v. Zwilling, 997 F. Supp. 2d 241, 256
(S.D.N.Y. 2014). To disregard this protection now would be to
implicate the rights of dozens of individuals who shared private
information under the trusted understanding that it would remain
sealed. See Gardner, 895 F.2d at 79 ("[T]he privacy interests of
innocent third parties as well as those of defendants that may
be harmed by disclosure of the Title III material should weigh
heavily in a court's balancing equation .... The job of
protecting such interests rests heavily with the trial judge,
typically not before the court.").
The same considerations apply under the First
Amendment, where the "presumption is rebuttable upon
demonstration that suppression 'is essential to preserve higher
values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.'"
Hartford Courant Co., 380 F.3d at 96 (quoting Press-Enterprise
Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., Riverside Cnty., 464 U.S. 501,
510 (1984) ) (internal citation omitted). What must be determined
35
11, 10/11/2018, 08/27/18
2408319, Pageof39133
Page131 of 41
is the "harm to a compelling interest," Under Seal, 273 F. Supp.
3d at 469, balanced against, in this case, a generalized public
interest. So long as "specific, on the record findings are made
demonstrating that 'closure is essential to preserve higher
values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest,," the
documents may be sealed. In re N.Y. Times Co., 828 F.2d 110, 116
(2d Cir. 1987) (citing Press-Enterprise Co., 464 U.S. 510) .
discussed above. It is also the integrity of the judicial
process.
reliance on the Protective Order and its provisions. It is not
allegations was a significant, if not determinative, factor in
the confidential settlement arrived at. That one of the parties
to that settlement, Giuffre, no longer opposes unsealing does
not vitiate the strength of the agreement. Indeed given the
entire context of the litigation it may demonstrate the need to
compel the parties to stick to their bargain. See id. (noting
that this Circuit is instructed to "give added weight to fair
36
11, 10/11/2018, 08/27/18
2408319, Pageof40133
Page132 of 41
a potential chilling effect on future movants.").
While the Interveners cite to the public interest,
there are no particulars identified that point to the need for
evidence gathered from the period from 2015 to 2016 concerning
events that took place over 15 years ago. See Lugosch, 435 F.3d
at 125 ("Notwithstanding the presumption of public access . . .,
the documents may be kept under seal if . . . 'higher values'- in
the First Amendment framework so demand.").
Communications, Inc., 435 CJ.S. at 589, "courts have the power to
insure that their records are not used to gratify private spite
or promote public scandal, and have refused to permit their
files to serve as reservoirs of libelous statements for press
consumption." (internal quotation marks omitted).
Documents would both promote scandal arising out of unproven
potentially libelous statements—particularly in light of the
allegations relating to the sexual abuse of minors by public
figures, and defeat the compelling privacy interests of the
parties and non-parties who relied on the Protective Order.
37
Case
Case 18-2868, Document
l:15-cv-07433-RWS 11, 10/11/2018,
Document 2408319,
953 Filed Page133
08/27/18 Pageof
41133
of 41
VII. Conclusion
Based on the facts and conclusions set forth above
the Interveners' motion to intervene is granted, and this motion
to unseal is denied and the action is closed.
It is so ordered.
New York, NY
2018
38
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
CIVIL APPEAL TRANSCRIPT INFORMATION (FORM D)
NOTICE TO COUNSEL: COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT MUST FILE THIS FORM WITH THE CLERK OF THE SECOND
CIRCUIT IN ALL CIVIL APPEALS WITHIN 14 CALENDAR DAYS AFTER FILING A NOTICE OF APPEAL.
THIS SECTION MUST BE COMPLETED BY COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT

CASE TITLE DISTRICT DOCKET NUMBER
Virginia L. Giuffre, Plaintiff-Appellee Southern Dist. New York 15-CV-7433
V.
Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant JUDGE APPELLANT
V.
Sharon Churcher, Jeffrey Epstein, Respondents Robert W. Sweet Julie Brown, Miami Herald Media Company
Intervenors-Appellants COURT REPORTER COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT
Southern District Reporters, P.C. Holland & Knight LLP
Check the applicable provision: PROVIDE A DESCRIPTION, INCLUDING DATES, OF THE PROCEEDINGS FOR
WHICH A TRANSCRIPT IS REQUIRED (i.e., oral argument, order from the bench,
I | I am ordering a transcript. etc.)
[✓] I am not ordering a transcript.
Re as on for not ordering a transcript:

| | Copy is already available
| | No transcribed proceedings
I I Other(Specify in the space below):
METHOD OF PAYMENT □ Funds D CJA Voucher (CJA 21)

INSTRUCTIONS TO COURT REPORTER: DELIVER TRANSCRIPT TO: (COUNSEL’S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE)
□ PREPARE TRANSCRIPT OF PRE-TRIAL
PROCEEDINGS
D PREPARE TRANSCRIPT OF TRIAL
□ PREPARE TRANSCRIPT OF OTHER
POST- TRIAL PROCEEDINGS
| | OTHER (Specify in the space below):
If a transcript is ordered, I certify that I have sent this form to the court reporter and have made satisfactory arrangements with
the court reporter for payment ofthe cost ofthe transcript See FRAP 10(b). I understand that unless I have al ready ordered the
transcript,Ishall order its preparation at the time required by FRAP and the Local Rules.
COUNSEL’S SIGNATURE/ DATE /

Octokw tOj
COURT REPORTER ACKNOWLEDGMENT: This section is to be completed by the court reporter. Return one copy to the Clerk of the Second Circuit
DATE ORDER RECEIVED ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE ESTIMATED NUMBER OF PAGES
SIGNATURE OF COURT REPORTER DATE
Revised June, 2017

1 ^§eI£$5-cv-07433-RWS Document 949 Filed 06/01/18 Page 1 of 31 1
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 ----------------------- .-------x
3 VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE,
4 Plaintiff,
5 v. 15 CV 7433 (RWS)
6 GHISLAINE MAXWELL, e.t al. ,
7 Defendants.
8 --------------------------- j-- x
New York, N.Y.
9 May 9, 2018
12:10 p.m.
10
Before:
11
HON. ROBERT W. SWEET,
12
District Judge
13
APPEARANCES
14
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
15 Attorneys for Plaintiff
BY: SIGRID S. McCAWLEY
16
HOLLAND & KNIGHT
17 Attorneys for Movant MIAMI HERALD MEDIA CO.
BY: SANFORD L. BOHRER
18 MADELAINE J. HARRINGTON
19 HADDON MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C.

Attorneys for Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell
20 BY: JEFFREY S. PAGEIUCA
LAURA A. MENNINGER
21
EMERY CELLI BRINCKERHOFF & ABADY LLP
22 Attorneys for Intervener Alan M. Dershowitz
BY: ANDREW G. CELLI
23
RANDAZZA LEGAL GROUP PLLC
24 Attorneys for Invervenor Julie Brown
BY: JAY MARSHALL WOLMAN
25
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300
1 ^geI£$5-cv-07433-RWS Document 949 Filed 06/01/18 Page 2 of 31 2
1 THE COURT: I'll hear the movant in Giuffre.
2 MR. BOHRER: Your Honor, may I deal with one
3 preliminary thing first?
4 THE COURT: Sure.
5 MR. BOHRER: My assistant working with me,
6 Ms. Harrington — she's done everything to get admitted. She
7 has an admission date in July, but she's not actually admitted
8 to the court.
9 Is it okay if she sits here with me?
10 THE COURT: Of course. Delighted to have you.
11 MR. BOHRER: Are you allowed to admit her?
12 THE COURT: Certainly I'll admit her pro hac vice.
13 MR. BOHRER: Thank you, your Honor.
14 Your Honor, my name is Sandy Bohrer with the law firm
15 of Holland & Knight. We represent the Miami Herald. We're
16 seeking to intervene. We're the third party that's sought to
17 intervene.
18 The Miami Herald does investigative reporting. My
19 reporter is an award-winning investigative reporter. We're
20 seeking access to the entire file. I realize that before us,
21 two people came in and sought access to different portions of
22 the file. But I think the circumstances have changed now and
23 the situation has changed now such that the Court should be in
24 a position where it should look favorably on our motion.
25 First, your Honor, one of the things that's changed is

(212) 805-0300
1 êI£$5-cv-07433-RWS Document 949 Filed 06/01/18 Page 3 of 31 3
1 there is no impending trial. If the Court recalls, in your
2 order —
3 THE COURT: I do recall.
4 MR. BOHRER: The case has been settled.
5 The second one is the Court was concerned about the
6 revelation of embarrassing information or, worse perhaps I
7 suppose, private information, about the plaintiff. But the
8 plaintiff now, with regard to my motion — and obviously her
9 counsel can speak for herself — has agreed to our motion if it
10 results in opening the whole file. So I think that the
11 underpinnings for the last order are not there anymore and we
12 have to find another way, if this motion to unseal is to be
13 denied.
14 My clients aren't here for prurient interest, and of
15 course we would agree to things like redacting names and
16 substituting initials and things like that. They don't
17 identify the names of victims of sexual assaults.
18 But the law is such that we have to decide what
19 standard applies. But in any event, a standard applies. In
20 the Court's original order, the confidentiality order, it gave
21 the parties a lot of latitude to determine something to be
22 confidential, and then it could be challenged later.
23 And then subsequently after, it looked to us from an
24 incomplete view of the record, 35 motions, the Court said that
25 basically the parties no longer have to send a letter to the

(212) 805-0300
1 êIfi$5-cv-07433-RWS Document 949 Filed 06/01/18 Page 4 of 31 4
1 Court, and that left to the parties the discretion to
2 determine —
3 THE COURT: No. I don't think that's quite right. I
4 think the order said you could proceed by letter rather than my
5 motion. That's all.
6 MR. BOHRER: Yes.
7 THE COURT: But the same provisions applied. It was,
8 in effect, a you-had-to-be-there. The motions, to say the
9 least, were multitudinous.
10 MR. BOHRER: We got a taste of that, your Honor.
11 There are two ways of looking at judicial access in our federal
12 court system. One is the common law right of access to
13 documents, and the other is the First Amendment.
14 I'll go into it in a minute. Either way, there was to
15 be a showing by the party seeking to seal that a particular
16 test has been met with regard to the document at issue.
17 The courts have held pretty strictly, according to our
18 appellate courts, that it's a document-by-document basis. I
19 understand from what the Court just said that a
20 document-by-document basis is kind of a problem in this file,
21 but that is the law.
22 So if it is a judicial document, then the common law
23 right applies and we have a certain standard. If it's a
24 document recognized by the First Amendment as a judicial
25 document, then we have a different test. So, if it's not a

(212) 805-0300
1 êI£$5-cv-07433-RWS Document 949 Filed 06/01/18 Page 5 of 31 5
1 judicial document, for example, you still have to show a good
2 cause, "you" being the party seeking to seal, not the party in
3 my position.
4 And in the Fournier case which we cite in our
5 papers — that case says you can't just simply do it. You're
6 going to have to show on a case-by-case, document-by-document
7 basis to the trial court that there is a basis for it. So
8 what's a judicial document, and everybody seems to have their
9 idea about what it is.
10 In Lugosch, if I'm pronouncing that correctly, the
11 Second Circuit says it's "a document relevant to performance of
12 judicial function and useful in judicial process." I want to
13 stress, your Honor, that I understand that documents can be
14 filed for purposes that lawyers shouldn't file them.
15 Someone could file a complaint making a bunch of
16 allegations just to get it in a newspaper and the allegations
17 aren't true and they take a dismissal after the newspaper
18 humiliates a defendant. But that's not where we are, and
19 that's not what we're looking for.
20 We're looking for papers, for example, relating to
21 summary judgment, after we've gotten past the what's
22 frivolous/what's meritless basis, what is an issue of fact for
23 trial or not. So relevant to performance judicial function and
24 useful in judicial process is a good standard, and it's a
25 Second Circuit standard.

(212) 805-0300
1 The Second Circuit's decision in the Under Seal
2 case — these are all cases cited in our papers — says there
3 is a presumption of access to all filed documents, and I
4 understand that lawyers, although not necessarily in this case,
5 can file documents for inappropriate purposes, not to be
6 judicially resolved. But clearly dispositive motions have a
7 presumption of access and are judicial documents.
8 There's Logosch and a bunch of other cases we cited,
9 including the Second Circuit's decision Joy. The Lytle case we
10 cite makes it a point that there is no question that those are
11 judicial documents.
12 We've also asked for, because we don't know exactly
13 what else is in the record, for things like motions to compel
14 or motions for a protective order, the other side of that. Not
15 knowing what's in them, we can't be sure that there is not a
16 basis in a particular paper for sealing or redacting a portion
17 of that paper. We don't know because none of it is public.
18 But there are cased that cited — Alexander
19 Interactive is one of them — that say there is a presumption
20 of access to those papers too because there is a judicial
21 function associated with every one of those motions, every
22 single one of them.
23 Again, we assume — and Logosch made a point of
24 this — that lawyers, when they file papers, know that Rule 11
25 means you don't file papers that are irrelevant to the issue

(212) 805-0300
1 before the court for some improper purpose.
2 So we're assuming everything in this file was filed —
3 THE COURT: My mentor in this business was J. Edward
4 Lumbard. When I was an assistant United States attorney,
5 Lumbard would have meetings of the office and try to educate us
6 on appropriate conduct and rules and whatever. One of J.
7 Edward's rules was never assume a God damn thing. I make that
8 comment because of your assumptions.
9 MR. BOHRER: Well, I'm trying to —
10 THE COURT: I understand your problem. Because of the
11 record here, clearly I do understand. But I couldn't resist.
12 I apologize.
13 MR. BOHRER: I accept, your Honor.
14 The only opposition at this point at this stage is by
15 Defendant Maxwell. Defendant Maxwell has a slim set of papers
16 in opposition, and they don't really dispute any of the basic
17 principles I've just gone over.
18 If you find that a document is a judicial record,
19 according to Logosch, you can only seal those records based on
20 findings made in the public record demonstrating that closure
21 is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored
22 to that interest. That comes from Supreme Court decisions.
23 So we're at a point where, had my client been looking
24 at this issue earlier, it would be easier to do. But the fact
25 is all of the records that were sealed in this file were sealed

(212) 805-0300
I£MF£fe-cv-07433-RWS Document 949 Filed 06/01/18 Page 8 of 31 8
1 without a determination by the Court that met the standard in
2 Logosch or met the standard I noted in Fournier, the good-cause
3 standard where the Court has to make a finding.
4 Ms. Maxwell's lawyers do point out that there are
5 documents in the file that won't qualify for access or won't
6 require redaction. For example, it could be an attorney-client
7 privilege document. It could be something that's embarrassing
8 that's irrelevant to the proceedings.
9 Again, I can't assume whether that's right or wrong,
10 but I noted that of the two examples she gave, one of them had
11 to do with plaintiff and plaintiff's passport information, and
12 plaintiff has agreed to open the whole file up.
13 Now, maybe they'll have some things they'll want to
14 redact — we don't have a problem with those — Social Security
15 numbers, that sort of thing. My client and my reporter write
16 about those things all the time. She writes about children.
17 She writes about public officials whose information needs to be
18 redacted for safety purposes.
19 But the bottom line, your Honor, is without
20 on-the-record findings meeting one test or the other, good
21 cause if it's not a judicial document or the higher standard if
22 it is, the record must be open. The and truth is that
23 Ms. Maxwell has not asserted that there is anything in the
24 record to support that.
25 The truth also is that something, for example, the

(212) 805-0300
1 $5-cv-07433-RWS Document 949 Filed 06/01/18 Page 9 of 31 9
1 motion for summary judgment — and I have read the redacted
2 order granting the motion for summary judgment — without such
3 a showing all has to be opened up. The motions to compel would
4 have to be opened up. Yes, there might be redactions, and my
5 client is willing to cooperate in all regards to that. We do
6 this all the time. I do other public records and judicial
7 records access. But the bottom line is that this has to be
8 done, or the records have to be open entirely.
9 Now, there are a couple little points, whether our
10 motion is timely. The law is pretty clear that it was timely.
11 We cited a whole series of decisions. One of them is the
12 Pineapple Antitrust case. There is no deadline for filing a
13 motion such as my client's.
14 The second one is there is the argument that, well,
15 there may be some people who relied on the order, provided
16 information with a confidentiality notation of some kind, and
17 what about them.
18 I think there are a few things to say about that:
19 First, if the confidentiality order was not entered and the
20 confidentiality determination not made in accordance with the
21 law, the order is not valid. And it's unfortunate, but it
22 still gets opened up.
23 The second thing is — and Logosch makes this point —
24 with even the confidentiality the Court entered, which seemed
25 to me, the initial one, the standard one that lawyers use all

(212) 805-0300
I6lîHfe-cv-07433-RWS Document 949 Filed 06/01/18 Page 10 of 31 10
1 over the United States, it provides for people coming back in
2 and saying, I challenge it. I want to open it up. I want to
3 unseal it.
4 So no one, as the Second Circuit said, should assume
5 it's closed forever once it gets in a court record. We're not
6 seeking things that were never filed. We're not seeking
7 records that could have been filed but weren't filed. We're
8 just seeking access to this court file.
9 My client is doing a report, which unfortunately is
10 all too timely today, about a sexual predator and a sexual
11 trafficking scheme, and this case relates very much to it.
12 We have a lot of information in Florida where
13 Mr. Epstein committed his crimes, but when she learned about
14 this case, we realized that there is more there.
15 Our purpose is not prurient. It is to inform the
16 public. It is to prevent things like this from happening and
17 to prevent such abuses. This is the purpose of the press in
18 America.
19 We're the watchdogs. We make sure things don't slip
20 by. We make sure things are done right. We make sure that
21 people like Mr. Epstein and people associated with him,
22 allegedly including Ms. Maxwell, are held up to public scrutiny
23 such that other people won't do it in the future and the right
24 gets done.
25 So, your Honor, we ask that the motion be granted;

(212) 805-0300
I§MîHfe-cv-07433-RWS Document 949 Filed 06/01/18 Page 11 of 31 11
1 that the file be unsealed. Thank you.
2 MS. McCAWLEY: Your Honor, may I be heard on behalf of
3 the plaintiff? Just briefly. Our position is very simple here
4 with respect to Virginia.
5 Our position is if one docket entry is opened, all
6 must be opened. There can be nothing in between because what
7 would happen is if, for example, as what was presented to the
8 Court previously, only a few documents were unsealed, only a
9 partial piece of testimony was unsealed, that would create an
10 incomplete record.
11 Virginia is prepared to stand up to her abusers, but
12 she can't do so with her hands tied behind her back. She has
13 to have the entire record available. It's either all or
14 nothing. Anything less than that would be inherently unfair to
15 her because obviously we have operated under the confines of
16 this protective order throughout the case. So while we do
17 oppose a selective disclosure, we don't contest, as long as
18 there is an entire disclosure.
19 What that means, your Honor, is with respect to all of
20 the record entries — so, for example, the summary judgment,
21 while that had certain information that was presented to the
22 Court, it didn't have everything.
23 So after the summary judgment, your Honor will
24 remember there was other witness testimony that was presented
25 and put in the court record. There were designations for trial

(212) 805-0300
I6BîHfe-cv-07433-RWS Document 949 Filed 06/01/18 Page 12 of 31
1 that were put in the court record that tell the story of the
2 abuse.
3 So in order for her to be able to respond to public
4 attacks on her, she has to have the information available to
5 her. If it's sealed, she has to abide by that seal. So she
6 would be in a terrible position if she wasn't able to defend
7 and support her own position with the testimony of those others
8 who echoed her position.
9 So, your Honor, that's where we stand on this. We
10 firmly believe that in order for the complete story to be told
11 and to be public, if that's what's going to happen, it has to
12 be the entire record. Anything less than that would be
13 inherently unfair to the plaintiff. Thank you.
14 MR. PAGLIUCA: Good afternoon, your Honor.
15 THE COURT: Welcome back.
16 MR. PAGLIUCA: Thank you. It's good to see you again.
17 Your Honor, as unpleasant as this may be, I think it's
18 important to go back over the history of the protective order
19 in this case and some of the many squabbles and disputes — and
20 I emphasize the word "many" — that the parties had in
21 connection with the discovery in this case.
22 The Court may recall that about two years ago,
23 March 17, 2016, Ms. McCawley, Ms. Menninger, and I were in the
24 courtroom. At that point in time, Ms. McCawley was very
25 anxious to depose my client in a very short period of time.

(212) 805-0300
i6I^3.W5-cv-07433-RWS Document 949 Filed 06/01/18 Page 13 of 31 13
1 The position of the parties then was we'll sit for a
2 deposition, but we need a protection order in place before we
3 do that, and it has to be agreed upon and ordered by the Court.
4 I mention this, your Honor, because throughout the
5 history of this case, the protection order has played a central
6 part and has been relied on by the parties, the Court, and the
7 witnesses and relied on in a way that I believe, frankly, that
8 Ms. McCawley's position is not well-founded here because indeed
9 there are many judicial admissions by the parties to this case
10 during the course of the case where they relied on and asked
11 the Court to endorse and protect the parties and the witnesses
12 under the protection order.
13 So the first example of this, your Honor, which I
14 think is important with regard to the reliance issue is that
15 March 17, 2016, hearing before your Honor.
16 Ms. McCawley was pressing hard for a deposition date,
17 and we hadn't gotten all of the documents, and we hadn't had a
18 protective order. And Ms. McCawley says — and this is at page
19 9 of that transcript, your Honor, dated March 17, 2016 —
20 "Your Honor, if I can have the deposition of the defendant in
21 this case and move this case forward, I will agree to their
22 protective order. I just want that deposition."
23 And the Court says: "Yes."
24 Then Ms. McCawley says: "It is that important to me."
25 Then she says: "Your Honor, you can today enter the protective

(212) 805-0300
I§83giUfe_cv-07433-RWS Document 949 Filed 06/01/18 Page 14 of 31
1 order that they submit. I will disregard my objections if I
2 get the deposition."
3 The Court: "You will agree now to the protective
4 order?"
5 Ms. McCawley: "Yes. If it means I can get her
6 deposition, yes, I will do that."
7 The Court: "oh, okay. Good. Well, that's solved
8 then."
9 Well, that solved it for the course of this case,
10 your Honor, and it should solve it now.
11 The Court may then recall that we sat for that
12 deposition, and we disagreed about many of the questions that
13 were asked to our client because of her privacy concerns.
14 Ms. Maxwell has and had a constitutional right of
15 privacy and, on my advice, refused to answer a number of
16 questions related to what I will loosely characterize as her
17 "adult sexual conduct."
18 We were back in front of the Court on a plaintiff's
19 motion to compel answers to those questions where we asserted
20 Ms. Maxwell's privacy interest in not responding to those
21 questions.
22 We cited to the Court a number of cases, including Doe
23 v. Bolton, a U.S. Supreme Court case, which holds: "Personal
24 sexual conduct is a fundamental right protected by the right to
25 privacy."

(212) 805-0300
I6lî^5-cv-07433-RWS Document 949 Filed 06/01/18 Page 15 of 31 15
1 In response to that, the plaintiffs said to the Court:
2 "well, your Honor, we have a protective order in place, and
3 that assures Ms. Maxwell's right to privacy in answering those
4 kinds of questions." And that was their response in docket
5 number 152 which was filed with the Court on May 11, 2016.
6 And the Court accepted that response and held, in
7 compelling Ms. Maxwell to answer those questions, her private
8 questions about her own life — the Court ruled that: "The
9 privacy concerns are alleviated by the protection order in this
10 case drafted by the defendant."
11 So we lived with the protection order, and we answered
12 those questions. And that order was entered by the Court on
13 June 20, 2016.
14 I don't agree with the movant's counsel, and I don't
15 assume, your Honor, that the documents in this case were filed
16 for a good purpose. I complained early and often to this Court
17 about statements made by opposing counsel and documents filed
18 with the Court which I viewed to be not judicial documents, not
19 necessary for the determination of any issue in this case, but
20 simply filed in some effort to try to get the story that they
21 were promoting out to the Court.
22 There is virtually no document that was presented to
23 this Court that, in my view, throughout the majority of this
24 case, had a legitimate function other than to advance the
25 agenda of the plaintiff in this case.

(212) 805-0300
I6M^lHfe-cv-07433-RWS Document 949 Filed 06/01/18 Page 16 of 31 16
1 I move on to the witnesses in this case who relied on
2 this protection order, your Honor. There were 29 depositions
3 taken in connection with this case. Many of these witnesses
4 were represented by lawyers. Many of these witnesses did not
5 want to be deposed, and the Court may recall that the Court had
6 to issue a number of orders compelling the deposition testimony
7 of many of the witnesses.
8 The Court's protection order was a significant factor
9 in securing the testimony of these witnesses. Counsel for both
10 parties would get contacted by either the deponent or the
11 lawyer for the deponent. And they would raise concerns about
12 what's going to happen to my testimony? Who is going to get
13 access to it? You are asking me about many private issues.
14 And this would include alleged victims of Mr. Epstein
15 who did not want to testify in deposition who were represented
16 by lawyers. It would include other people who were accused by
17 plaintiff's counsel as participants with Mr. Epstein.
18 I will give one example to the Court. I will refer to
19 this witness only as Nadia. She was deposed, compelled to be
20 deposed, after much litigation. She was represented by a
21 lawyer here, Erica Dubno.
22 We start the record in that deposition with Ms. Dubno
23 saying: "We believe this deposition is pursuant to a
24 protective order. We want to ensure the confidentiality of
25 everything that occurs during this deposition and that all

(212) 805-0300
i6I^1HB-cv-07433-RWS Document 949 Filed 06/01/18 Page 17 of 31 17
1 parties agree to a protective order for confidentiality of this
2 deposition." That's at page 6 of Nadia's transcript.
3 Mr. Edwards was in attendance at that deposition,
4 your Honor, and assured the witness and her lawyer: "This and
5 the other depositions that are designated as confidential are
6 being treated as confidential by the Court." That's what
7 Mr. Edwards, plaintiff's counsel, tells the witness and her
8 lawyer.
9 I indicated: "I have no objection to this deposition
10 being deemed confidential and subject to the protection order,"
11 And Mr. Edwards agree, "No objection." That occurred a number
12 of times during the course of this case.
13 So we have these third parties who, through no fault
14 of their own, are being questioned about extremely sensitive
15 personal matters and are doing so under compulsion and with the
16 understanding that they are protected by this Court's
17 protective order.
18 So the fact that the plaintiff is somewhat
19 flip-flopping here on this issue I think is really of no
20 consequence because it is the Court's order. It is not
21 Ms. McCawley's order. It's not my order. It's the Court's
22 order.
23 It was stipulated to by the plaintiff, and the
24 plaintiff relied on it. And in my view, these are judicial
25 admissions that can't be taken back at this point because they

(212) 805-0300
I5M^lHfe-cv-07433-RWS Document 949 Filed 06/01/18 Page 18 of 31 18
1 were relied on to advance their position during the course of
2 the litigation, and you can't change that now because there is
3 some other agenda here.
4 The other thing that I think is interesting, if you
5 read carefully the plaintiff's papers, is they're not really
6 agreeing to really anything. What they're agreeing to is maybe
7 it's okay if the entire record gets unsealed, but, gee. There
8 are things in there that we think probably shouldn't be
9 unsealed anyway, and we're going to need to talk about that
10 down the road, which I think leads to then a discussion of kind
11 of what we're talking about in the universe of documents here
12 that the Court has to consider.
13 The Court is well aware that there are over 900
14 filings in this case, and I would group those into largely two
15 categories. The first would be discovery squabbles by the
16 parties, and then the second would be the flurry of pretrial
17 motions that the Court was deluged with shortly before trial a
18 year ago and then the summary judgment motion.
19 The Court did not rule on, I would say, the vast
20 majority of the pretrial motions that were pending when the
21 parties settled the case. I don't recall, frankly, how many of
22 those that there were, but I know that there were banker's
23 boxes of papers that the Court had that were under
24 consideration for those motions.
25 I break these categories out because indeed the

(212) 805-0300
I§Bî^5-cv-07433-RWS Document 949 Filed 06/01/18 Page 19 of 31 19
1 overwhelming record in this case is that these are not judicial
2 documents, and in fact, the Court didn't rule on a huge number
3 of the filings that were before the Court. So I don't see how
4 anyone could consider these to be judicial documents because I
5 don't believe that they were considered by the Court, given the
6 settlement of the parties. So that's the universe of what
7 we're talking about here.
8 The Lugosch case — the subject matter of that is a
9 motion to intervene with regard to a summary judgment motion.
10 Here we have a different situation. The intervenor, late to
11 the party by three years at this point, asks to unseal 900
12 filings with this Court.
13 So I don't understand how you can sit on your hands
14 for three years and then come in and say, well, there's this
15 enormous public interest in this case which, by the way, the
16 Miami Herald has not published one article about this case,
17 your Honor. Not one. So there is no interest in this case.
18 They may be interested in Mr. Epstein, but I'm not here
19 representing Mr. Epstein.
20 We know — and the Court knows this — that just
21 because something gets filed, it's not a judicial document, and
22 it's not entitled to any sort of access presumptively.
23 So let's assume for a moment that there is something
24 that the Court considers a judicial document in this pile. We
25 first to have to look at has the movant established that this

(212) 805-0300
I6M^Mfe-cv-07433-RWS Document 949 Filed 06/01/18 Page 20 of 31 20
1 is a judicial document.
2 I don't have the burden of establishing whether these
3 are judicial documents or not, and the Court is in a position
4 of determining whether these are judicial documents, not me and
5 not the movant.
6 Then we talk about the weight of presumption of
7 access. And, again, the vast majority of all of the papers
8 before the Court were not germane, in my view, to any of the
9 Court's determinations here. They were, in my view, simply
10 added for effect and had really no purpose in connection with
11 the pleadings.
12 The Court has to do a balancing test. This is a
13 nonexclusive list of factors, but two of the factors that are
14 discussed in Lugosch are the privacy interests of those
15 resisting discovery, judicial efficiency, and then there is a
16 discussion about reliance on the protection order. The Court
17 can use any of those factors to find that any of these
18 documents should not be disclosed or not accessible by the
19 public or the media.
20 Judicial economy was in fact advanced, your Honor, by
21 the way that these documents were handled and should be
22 handled. The Court addressed this issue in its opinion I think
23 issued on June 20 — let me find the date. Sorry. November 2,
24 2016, your Honor.
25 I think sort of presaging some of these issues, I

(212) 805-0300
I6l^lHfe-cv-07433-RWS Document 949 Filed 06/01/18 Page 21 of 31 21
1 quote the Court to the Court: "By the very nature of this
2 action, issues of credibility and reputation abound concerning
3 sensitive personal conduct."
4 The parties and the Court recognized early on the good
5 cause for the protective order which was entered "to protect
6 the discovery and dissemination of confidential information or
7 information which improperly annoy, embarrass, or oppress any
8 party, witness, or person providing discovery in this case."
9 The Court went on to say that there is no dispute that
10 the documents, at least with regard to this order, were
11 confidential and that they were, the Court found, properly
12 designated as such.
13 All of the documents that have been submitted in
14 connection with this case are highly sensitive confidential
15 documents that relate to very private matters of many
16 individuals.
17 Everyone associated with this case relied heavily on
18 this protection order throughout the conduct of this case, and
19 that includes the Court, the witnesses, and the parties.
20 I think that the Court has, at least twice now, found
21 that this protection order should remain in effect. And it
22 should continue the protection order because the privacy
23 interests and the reliance, certainly of Ms. Maxwell, on the
24 protection order outweigh any need or presumption of
25 disclosure.

(212) 805-0300
I<§MîHfe-cv-07433-RWS Document 949 Filed 06/01/18 Page 22 of 31 22
1 Thank you, your Honor.
2 MR. WOLMAN: Your Honor, my name is Jay Wolman. I
3 represent Intervener Michael Cernovich.
4 May I be heard for a minute?
5 THE COURT: Sure.
6 MR. WOLMAN: My brother at the bar mentioned the
7 changing positions of plaintiff in this matter, but let's first
8 focus on the changing position of the defendant.
9 We moved for unsealing the summary judgment motion,
10 all the attachments, all the opposition, the order that would
11 be forthcoming. At that time Ms. Maxwell did not oppose, but
12 now, only after settlement, only after a year, do we have her
13 finally coming in to say, well, now it should be remaining
14 sealed.
15 Similarly, as your Honor is probably aware, we have
16 appealed your Honor's order to the Second Circuit. Ms. Giuffre
17 has appeared to argue against it, but Ms. Maxwell hasn't.
18 So right now with Ms. Giuffre's position, if she's
19 saying you can release summary judgment materials but we want
20 other things released as well, then really there is no barrier
21 to the Second Circuit reversing your Honor's order at this
22 point and at least, at a minimum, releasing the summary
23 judgment materials because Ms. Maxwell certainly hasn't argued
24 that that should be prohibited. Only now has she changed her
25 position.

(212) 805-0300
I6BîHfe-cv-07433-RWS Document 949 Filed 06/01/18 Page 23 of 31 23
1 As to Ms. Giuffre, when we were here previously.
2 your Honor, the plaintiff was arguing that there were privacy
3 interests and reasons why it should not be released. She's not
4 arguing that anymore. All she's saying now is that there is
5 secondary gain. She wants a secondary use to be able to
6 release the rest. And certainly we don't object to releasing
7 the rest of the materials.
8 But at least as to the summary judgment materials,
9 there is no basis to keep X under seal because Y is also kept
10 under seal. That is not a rule. That's not a thing under the
11 law. There is not a single precedence cited for that
12 proposition because every document is considered in its
13 individuality.
14 I want to address one other point here that seems to
15 get conflated. It was conflated in the prior arguments. It's
16 conflated here. It was conflated, unfortunately, I believe in
17 your Honor's prior order.
18 There is the protective order issued under Rule 26(c)
19 that provided for confidentiality designations. We're not here
20 about that. We are here about the sealing order under
21 Rule 5.2, and that has its own separate standard for sealing,
22 documents that may or may not have been designated confidential
23 under a Rule 26(c) order, but findings as to 5.2 individually
24 need to be made, and they were not made here.
25 There may be grounds why something that's designated

(212) 805-0300
I6lîHfe-cv-07433-RWS Document 949 Filed 06/01/18 Page 24 of 31 24
1 confidential may need to be sealed under 5.2, but it's not
2 automatic. And in fact, your Honor started out by saying that
3 the parties still had to submit letters at one point.
4 Your Honor changed that requirement and allowed the
5 parties to just submit filings under seal. They had to publish
6 redacted versions, but they were able to submit unredacted
7 under seal with public redactions, which is why even last night
8 Professor Dershowitz's counsel was still filing something
9 automatically with redactions, because that order is still in
10 place.
11 So we need to bifurcate the issues of what is proper
12 to be sealed under 5.2, and certainly the summary judgment
13 materials should not have been sealed and should be unsealed
14 right now.
15 It is not too late for the news to be interested. It
16 was not late a year ago when we were interested, and certainly
17 we would have that access, should the Second Circuit grant it
18 to us anyhow.
19 So now under 5.2, we need to look at it. And even to
20 the summary judgment materials Ms. Maxwell argued in her papers
21 that there are some documents that may need certain redactions
22 or were irrelevant.
23 If they were irrelevant in her motion for summary
24 judgment, why was she attaching them to her summary judgment
25 motion. They certainly need to be relevant to the judicial

(212) 805-0300
I6M^1^5-cv-07433-RWS Document 949 Filed 06/01/18 Page 25 of 31 25
1 function of this Court.
2 The Court may consider Alexander Interactive for why
3 everything else are judicial documents and should be unsealed.
4 Thank you, your Honor.
5 MR. CELLI: Your Honor, may I be heard? I'm Andrew
6 Celli for Alan Dershowitz. Good afternoon.
7 Very briefly, your Honor, as your Honor is aware, Alan
8 Dershowitz is an intervener in this case. We have been
9 litigating for nearly two years to unseal portions of this
10 record. And our appeal, along with Mr. Cernovich's appeal, is
11 pending in the Second Circuit as we speak.
12 We just want to say that we generally support the
13 application of the Miami Herald. We filed a letter along these
14 lines last night, and that letter directs the Court's attention
15 to document number 902 on the docket which was a letter that we
16 wrote to your Honor in June of 2017 more or less predicting
17 this exact turn of events and calling for — this may be the
18 only time we agree with Ms. Giuffre's counsel on virtually
19 anything — a fulsome release of information if there is going
20 to be any release at all.
21 So I just wanted to make that point orally. It's in
22 our letter, and we appreciate the Court's consideration.
23 THE COURT: I've read it.
24 MR. CELLI: Thank you, sir.
25 MR. BOHRER: Your Honor, might I be heard briefly in

(212) 805-0300
^MSiHfe-cv-OYASS-RWS Document 949 Filed 06/01/18 Page 26 of 31 26
1 reply?
2 THE COURT: Of course.
3 MR. BOHRER: Thank you.
4 Your Honor, I don't think I need to add anything to
5 what the plaintiff said.
6 Defendants' counsel — they filed a response, but
7 nothing he said today was in the response. Basically he's
8 saying, take my word for it. Everything should stay sealed,
9 and that's exactly what the courts say you cannot do.
10 So he talks about reliance on the order and reliance
11 by witnesses. We don't have anything in the record to indicate
12 what witnesses relied on what, but I will say this:
13 Depositions are not judicial records. Filed depositions, if
14 filed for a proper purpose, are.
15 I don't know what was told to these witnesses or not
16 told to them. I do know that we can protect them by
17 eliminating their names and substituting some kind of
18 initialing system that doesn't identify them. This is just the
19 point. They need to come in and show you.
20 It struck me that when they talk about reliance on the
21 order, your order, it says: "This protective order may be
22 modified by the Court at any time for good cause."
23 So everyone looking at it knows just what the Court in
24 Lugosch was saying. You can't rely on a confidentiality order
25 to be forever. Once a document gets filed, it's at risk of

(212) 805-0300
I6MîHfe-cv-07433-RWS Document 949 Filed 06/01/18 Page 27 of 31 27
1 being disclosed, even if it was filed under seal and even if
2 the sealing was appropriate in the circumstances but later
3 becomes inappropriate.
4 So the Lugosch case again at 126 makes it quite clear
5 that you can't just rely on a confidentiality order which
6 actually isn't designed for this purpose.
7 The Court will recall your initial order said if you
8 want to seal something, confidential is one category. If you
9 want to seal something, as counsel just said, you have to file
10 a motion under seal. There is a local rule on sealing.
11 Counsel for Ms. Maxwell suggested that there are
12 documents that were filed that were relevant. I won't assume
13 what he said was correct because I can't assume one way or the
14 other, but basically he said over and over again, take my word
15 for it. Everything should stay sealed.
16 And I say over and over again that's not what the
17 Second Circuit and, indeed, the Supreme Court of the
18 United States will permit. It has to be done on a
19 document-by-document basis.
20 Whatever he said, there is a way to do that on the
21 record. Whatever he said should be sealed. There is a way to
22 handle that on the record. I'm not asking this Court to do
23 that, but in Florida where I practice more, most of the time,
24 judges routinely allow me to participate in in-camera
25 examinations — videos, documents, hearings, testimony — to

(212) 805-0300
I§MîHfe-cv-07433-RWS Document 949 Filed 06/01/18 Page 28 of 31 28
1 help the Court determine whether something should be kept out
2 of the public eye.
3 I do that with an agreement to never reveal to my
4 client anything that I saw, observed, heard, learned during
5 that process. The reason for that is it speeds it up. It
6 speeds it up because it helps keep the lawyers honest.
7 Counsel said there are 900 filings. Okay. We aren't
8 even able to see what a bunch of these documents are by name.
9 More importantly, Ms. Maxwell does not say anything about how
10 the law actually applies here.
11 And I want to just stress that on judicial documents,
12 recognizing that this case is settled and it's not pending for
13 a jury trial anymore. In Lugosch they talk about how access
14 should be generally speaking, always permitted when it's a
15 case-dispositive motion.
16 When I get to the conclusion — I don't know how there
17 is any way to read Lugosch as anything but supporting our
18 position — the court says, the Second Circuit, the
19 United States Court of Appeals says: "We hold that documents
20 submitted to a court in support of or in opposition to a motion
21 for a summary judgment are judicial documents to which a
22 presumption of immediate public access attaches under both the
23 common law and the First Amendment."
24 And they talk about the higher burden. If it's a
25 First Amendment covered document, it can only be overcome by a

(212) 805-0300
I6MîHB-cv-07433-RWS Document 949 Filed 06/01/18 Page 29 of 31 29
1 specific on-the-record finding that higher values necessitate a
2 narrowly tailored sealing. None of that was done here, and
3 they're not urging it.
4 They're continuing to urge wholesale sealing. That's
5 wrong. The Second Circuit actually said it could go back to
6 the district court, and if these folks want to push the issue
7 on what should be sealed and what shouldn't, they should do it.
8 But then the Second Circuit said: "We take this
9 opportunity to emphasize that the district court must make its
10 findings quickly."
11 And they go into, word after word and sentence after
12 sentence, about how important it is that public access, if it's
13 to be there, not be delayed any further. The decision in the
14 case is inescapable. Their ruling, at least as it goes to
15 anything that's case dispositive, is inescapable.
16 The authorities we cited for other acts of the
17 judiciary, judicial acts that relate to documents, are
18 unrebutted. Ms. Maxwell's lawyers, neither here today orally
19 nor in their papers, said anything that we said about that is
20 wrong. So where we are is very clear.
21 To determine whether docket entry 781 is a judicial
22 record, I can't do that. I'm happy to participate in an
23 in-camera process. I'm happy to participate if a magistrate
24 judge or a special master is appointed in a way where I have to
25 maintain the secrecy until the Court orders it.

(212) 805-0300
I§lîHfe-cv-07433-RWS Document 949 Filed 06/01/18 Page 30 of 31 30
1 But the fact is if 781 is a judicial document or not
2 has never been determined. Is 684. I don't know what's in
3 these documents. So, your Honor, we're left with what the
4 Second Circuit said we need to do.
5 We need to go, if Ms. Maxwell's lawyers really want to
6 do it, document-by-document. But first I think the Second
7 Circuit is quite clear. All of the papers relating to summary
8 judgment have to be opened. I don't think there is a way of
9 escaping that.
10 We are always open, on behalf of my client, in this
11 proceeding or others, to talking about what might be private
12 and needs to be protected or redacted. But Ms. Maxwell has
13 turned everything on its head. The rule is we have access
14 unless they can show it shouldn't be done, and they haven't
15 done it.
16 And talking about things that I have no knowledge
17 about and suggesting to the Court that you should make a
18 ruling, again, based on something where no showing is made, is
19 just wrong.
20 I should have the opportunity — everyone in the
21 public should have the opportunity if they want to — to come
22 in and say, no. No. We think that should be public.
23 And the burden is on the party, in this case,
24 Ms. Maxwell, to show you why it shouldn't be public, and they
25 haven't done that. And just saying it doesn't make it true.

(212) 805-0300
î^ffi-cv-OyASS-RWS Document 949 Filed 06/01/18 Page 31 of 31 31
1 We believe the motion should be granted and the file opened to
2 the public. Thank you.
3 THE COURT: Thank you very much. I will reserve
4 decision.
5 (Adjourned)
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

(212) 805-0300

FOR THE
SECOND CIRCUIT
____________________________________________
At a Stated Term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at
the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on
the 15th day of October, two thousand and eighteen,
____________________________________
Virginia L. Giuffre, ORDER

Docket Number: 18-2868
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
Intervenors - Appellants.
_______________________________________
A notice of appeal was filed on September 26, 2018. The Appellant's Acknowledgment
and Notice of Appearance Form due October 12, 2018 has not been filed. The case is deemed in
default of FRAP 12(b), and LR 12.3.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the appeal will be dismissed effective October 29, 2018
if the Acknowledgment and Notice of Appearance Form is not filed by that date.
For The Court:

Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe,
Clerk of Court

40 Foley Square
New York, NY 10007


DC Judge: Sweet
ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND NOTICE OF APPEARANCE DEFAULT NOTICE
Pursuant to Second Circuit Local Rule 12.3, the appellee counsel Acknowledgment and Notice
of Appearance was due on October 12, 2018. The Court has not received the Acknowledgment
and Notice of Appearance on behalf of appellee counsel.
If appellee counsel does not file an Acknowledgment and Notice of Appearance within 14 days
of the date of this notice, when the appeal is placed on the calendar, appellee counsel will not be
heard at oral argument except by permission of the Court.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND NOTICE OF APPEARANCE
Short Title: Giuffre v. Maxwell Docket No.: 18-2868
Lead Counsel of Record (name/firm) or Pro se Party (name): Christine N. Walz, Holland & Knight LLP
Appearance for (party/designation): Intervenors Julie Brown and Miami Herald Media Company
DOCKET SSHEET AC
DOC ACKNOWLEDGMENT/AMENDMENTS
OW DG /A D S
Caption as indicated is:

( ✔ ) Correct
( ) Incorrect. See attached caption page with corrections.
Appellate Designation is:

( ✔ ) Correct
( ) Incorrect. The following parties do not wish to participate in this appeal:
Parties:
( ) Incorrect. Please change the following parties= designations:
Party Correct Designation
Contact Information for Lead Counsel/Pro Se Party is:

( ✔ ) Correct
( ) Incorrect or Incomplete. As an e-filer, I have updated my contact information in the PACER AManage My Account@ screen.
Name: Christine N. Walz

Firm: Holland & Knight LLP
Address: 31 Wet 52nd Street, New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 513-3367 Fax: (212) 385-9010
Email: Christine.Walz@hklaw.com
RELATED CASES
( ✔ ) This case has not been before this Court previously.

( ) This case has been before this Court previously. The short title, docket number, and citation are:
( ✔ ) Matters related to this appeal or involving the same issue have been or presently are before this Court. The short titles,
docket numbers, and citations are: Giuffre v. Maxwell, Docket No. 16-3945
CERTIFICATION
I certify that ( ✔ ) I am admitted to practice in this Court and, if required by LR 46.1(a)(2), have renewed my admission on
OR that ( ✔ ) I applied for admission on 2018-09-26 or renewal on
. If the Court has not yet admitted me or approved my renewal, I have completed Addendum A.
Signature of Lead Counsel of Record: /s Christine N. Walz
Type or Print Name: Christine N. Walz
OR
Signature of pro se litigant:
Type or Print Name:
( ) I am a pro se litigant who is not an attorney.
( ) I am an incarcerated pro se litigant.
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE FOR SUBSTITUTE, ADDITIONAL, OR AMICUS COUNSEL
Short Title: Giuffre v. Maxwell _____ Docket No.: 18-2868 ________
Substitute, Additional, or Amicus Counsel’s Contact Information is as follows:
Name: Madelaine J. Harrington
Address: 31 West 52nd Street, New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 513-3374

___________________________ Fax: (212) 385-9010
E-mail: Madelaine.Harrington@hklaw.com
Appearance for: Intervenors Julie Brown and Miami Herald Media Company
(party/designation)
Select One:
G Substitute counsel (replacing lead counsel: )
(name/firm)
G Substitute counsel (replacing other counsel: _______ )

(name/firm)
✔
G Additional counsel (co-counsel with: Christine N. Walz, Holland & Knight LLP )
(name/firm)
G Amicus (in support of: )

(party/designation)
CERTIFICATION
I certify that:
✔
G I am admitted to practice in this Court and, if required by Interim Local Rule 46.1(a)(2), have renewed
my admission on OR
G I applied for admission on 2018-09-26

✔ .
Signature of Counsel: /s Madelaine J. Harrington
Type or Print Name: Madelaine J. Harrington


40 Foley Square
New York, NY 10007


Docket #: 18-2868cv DC Court: SDNY (NEW YORK
DC Judge: Sweet
On October 16, 2018 the Notice of Appearance as Additional Counsel, Notice of Appearance as
Substitute Counsel, on behalf of the Appellee Virginia L. Giuffre, was submitted in the above
referenced case. The document does not comply with the FRAP or the Court's Local Rules for
the following reason(s):
__XX____ Not Text-Searchable (Local Rule 25.1, Local Rules 25.2), click here
______ Incorrect pagination, click here for instructions on how to paginate PDFs
(Local Rule 32.1)

______ Other: ___________________________________________________
necessary, no later than October 19, 2018. The resubmitted documents, if compliant with FRAP
and the Local Rules, will be deemed timely filed.

Short Title: Giuffre v. Maxwell Docket No.:

18-2868
Substitute, Additional, or Amicus Counsel's Contact Information is as follows:
Name: Paul G. Cassell
Finn: S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah
Address: 383 S. University St., Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0730
Telephone: (801) 585-5202 Fax: (801) 585-2750
E-mail: cassellp@law.utah.edu
Appearance for: Virginia :. Giuffre/ Plaintiff-Appellee

(party/designation)
ri
Select One:
Substitute counsel (replacing lead counsel: )
(name/firm)
FI Substitute counsel (replacing other counsel:

(name/firm)
)
Sigrid S. McCawley/ Boies Schiller Flexner LLP )

W Additional counsel (co-counsel with:
(name/firm)
Fl Amicus (in support of:

(party/designation)
)
CERTIFICATION
I certify that:
FI T am admitted to practice in this Court and, if required by Interim Local Rule 46.1(a)(2), have renewed
my admission on June 9, 2015 OR
FI I applied for admission on
Signature of Counsel:
/s/ Paul G. Cassell
Type or Print Name: Paul G. Cassell

18-2868
Short Title: Giuffre v. Maxwell Docket No.:
Name: Sigrid McCawley
Firm: Boies Schiller Flexner LLP
Address:401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Ste 1200, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 356-0011 Fax: (954) 356-0022
E-mail: smccawley@bsfllp.com
Appearance for: Virginai L. Giuffre/ Plaintiff-Appellee

(party/designation)
ri
Select One:
Substitute counsel (replacing lead counsel: )
(name/firm)
FISubstitute counsel (replacing other counsel: Bradley James Edwards/ Farmer, Jaffee, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman P.L
(name/firm)
)
PAdditional counsel (co-counsel with: (name/firm)

)
FlAmicus (in support of: (party/designation)

)
CERTIFICATION
I certify that:
FIT am admitted to practice in this Court and, if required by Interim Local Rule 46.1(a)(2), have renewed
my admission on OR
FII applied for admission on

Signature of Counsel:
/s/ Sigrid S. McCawley
Type or Print Name: Sigrid S. McCawley

ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND NOTICE OF APPEARANCE
Lead Counsel of Record (name/firm) or Pro se Party (name): Sigrid S. McCawley/ Boies Schiller Flexner LLP
Appearance for (party/designation): Virginia L. Giuffre/ Plaintiff-Appellee
DOCKET SHEET ACKNOWLEDGMENT/AMENDMENTS
Caption as indicated is:

CI) Correct
(D Incorrect. See attached caption page with corrections.
Appellate Designation is:

Eb Correct
Cb Incorrect. The following parties do not wish to participate in this appeal:
Parties:
(111) Incorrect. Please change the following parties' designations:
Party Correct Designation
Contact Information for Lead Counsel/Pro Se Party is:

0 Correct
(ED Incorrect or Incomplete. As an e-filer, I have updated my contact information in the PACER "Manage My Account" screer
Name:Sigrid S. McCawley
Firm: Boies Schiller Flexner LLP
Address: 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Ste 1200, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: 954-356-0011 Fax: 954-356-0022
Email: smccawley@bsfflp.com
RELATED CASES
CI) This case has not been before this Court previously.
(Li This case has been before this Court previously. The short title, docket number, and citation are:
CI) Matters related to this appeal or involving the same issue have been or presently are before this Court. The short titles,
docket numbers, and citations are: Giuffre v. Maxwell/ 16-3945/17-1625
CERTIFICATION
I certify that (D I am admitted to practice in this Court and, if required by LR 46.1(a)(2), have renewed my admission on
OR that Lb I applied for admission on or renewal on
. If the Court has not yet admitted me or approved my renewal, I have completed Addendum A.
Signature of Lead Counsel of Record:/S/ Sigrid S. McCawley
Type or Print Name: Sigrid S. McCawley
OR
Signature of pro se litigant:
Type or Print Name:
CI) I am a pro se litigant who is not an attorney.
0 I am an incarcerated pro se litigant.

40 Foley Square
New York, NY 10007


DC Judge: Sweet
NOTICE OF CASE MANAGER CHANGE
The case manager assigned to this matter has been changed.

31 West 52nd Street | New York, NY 10019 | T 212.513.3200 | F 212.385.9010

Holland & Knight LLP | www.hklaw.com
Christine N. Walz
+1 212-513-3368
October 19, 2018
Via ECF
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

Office of the Clerk of the Court
The Daniel Patrick Moynihan Courthouse
500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10007
Re: Giuffre v. Maxwell, U.S.C.A. 2d Cir Doc. No. 18-2868;

S.D.N.Y. Doc. No. 1:15-cv-7433
Dear Sir/Madame:
We represent Intervenors-Appellants Julie Brown and Miami Herald Media Company in

the above-referenced appeal. Pursuant to Local Rule 31.2(1)(A), Intervenors-Appellants request
the Court set January 9, 2019 as the deadline for filing the appellants’ brief, a date within 91
days of the ready date.
Christine N. Walz .
Christine N. Walz
CNW:slk
Anchorage | Atlanta | Austin | Boston | Charlotte | Chicago | Dallas | Denver | Fort Lauderdale | Houston | Jacksonville | Lakeland
Los Angeles | Miami | New York | Orlando | Philadelphia | Portland | San Francisco | Stamford | Tallahassee | Tampa | Tysons
Washington, D.C. | West Palm Beach
#61326888_v1
for the
SECOND CIRCUIT
____________________________________________
At a Stated Term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood
Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 22nd day of October, two
thousand and eighteen,
____________________________________

Docket No: 18-2868
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee,
v.
Ghislaine Maxwell,
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant,
v.
Sharon Churcher, Jeffrey Epstein,
lllllllllllllllllllllRespondents,
lllllllllllllllllllllIntervenors - Appellants.
_______________________________________
Counsel for APPELLANTS Julie Brown and Miami Herald Media Company, has filed a scheduling
notification pursuant to the Court's Local Rule 31.2, setting January 9, 2019 as the brief filing date.
It is HEREBY ORDERED that Appellants’ brief must be filed on or before January 9, 2019. The appeal
is dismissed effective January 9, 2019 if the brief is not filed by that date. A motion to extend the time to file the
brief or to seek other relief will not toll the filing date. See Local Rule 27.1(f)(1); cf. RLI Insurance Co. v. JDJ
Marine, Inc., 716 F.3d 41, 43-45 (2d Cir. 2013).
For The Court:

Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe,
Clerk of Court
Short Title: Giuffre v. Maxwell _____ Docket No.: 18-2868 ________
Name: Sanford L. Bohrer
Address: 31 West 52nd Street, New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 513-3200

___________________________ Fax: (212) 385-9010
E-mail: Sandy.Bohrer@hklaw.com
Appearance for: Intervenors Julie Brown and Miami Herald Media Company
(party/designation)
Select One:
(name/firm)

(name/firm)
✔
G Additional counsel (co-counsel with: Christine N. Walz, Holland & Knight LLP )
(name/firm)

(party/designation)
CERTIFICATION
I certify that:
my admission on OR
G I applied for admission on 2018-10-10

✔ .
Signature of Counsel: /s Sanford L. Bohrer
Type or Print Name: Sanford L. Bohrer

Short Title: Giuffre v. Maxwell _____ Docket No.:

18-2868________
Name: Ty Gee
Firm: Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C.
Address: 150 E. 10th Avenue , Denver, CO 80203
Telephone: 303-831-7364
___________________________ Fax: 303-832-4521
E-mail: tgee@hmflaw.com
Appearance for: Ghislaine Maxwell/ Defendant- Appellee

(party/designation)
Select One:
(name/firm)

(name/firm)
G Additional counsel (co-counsel with: )

(name/firm)

(party/designation)
CERTIFICATION
I certify that:
✔
my admission on OR
G I applied for admission on .
Signature of Counsel: s/ Ty Gee
Type or Print Name: Ty Gee

Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse 40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007 Telephone: 212-857-8500
MOTION INFORMATION STATEMENT
Docket Number(s): 18-2868 Caption [use short title]
Motion for: to be Added as Appellee Giuffre v. Maxwell
Set forth below precise, complete statement of relief sought:
Add Defendant Ghislane Maxwell as Appellee

in this appeal.
MOVING PARTY: Defendant Ghislane Maxwell OPPOSING PARTY: Julie Brown, Miami Herald Media Co.
9 Plaintiff ✔
9 Defendant
9 Appellant/Petitioner 9 Appellee/Respondent
MOVING ATTORNEY: Ty Gee OPPOSING ATTORNEY: Christine Walz

[name of attorney, with firm, address, phone number and e-mail]
Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C. Holland & Knight LLP

150 East Tenth Avenue, Denver, CO 80203 31 West 52d Street, New York, NY 10019
303.831.7364 212.513.3367
Court-Judge/Agency appealed from: Hon. Robert W. Sweet, District Judge (S.D.N.Y.)
Please check appropriate boxes: FOR EMERGENCY MOTIONS, MOTIONS FOR STAYS AND
INJUNCTIONS PENDING APPEAL:
Has movant notified opposing counsel (required by Local Rule 27.1): Has request for relief been made below? 9 Yes 9 No
✔9 Yes 9 No (explain): Has this relief been previously sought in this Court? 9 Yes 9 No
Requested return date and explanation of emergency:
Opposing counsel’s position on motion:
✔
9 Unopposed 9 Opposed 9 Don’t Know
Does opposing counsel intend to file a response:
9 Yes ✔ 9 No 9 Don’t Know
Is oral argument on motion requested? 9 Yes ✔

9 No (requests for oral argument will not necessarily be granted)
Has argument date of appeal been set? 9 Yes ✔

9 No If yes, enter date:__________________________________________________________
Signature of Moving Attorney:

s/ Ty Gee
___________________________________Date: 7 Nov 2018
___________________ Service by: ✔
9 CM/ECF 9 Other [Attach proof of service]
Form T-1080 (rev. 12-13)

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
Defendant,
v. No. 18-2868
SHARON CHURCHER, JEFFREY EPSTEIN,

Respondents,
JULIE BROWN, MIAMI HERALD MEDIA
COMPANY,
Defendant Maxwell’s Motion to be Added as Appellee

Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, through her attorneys Haddon, Morgan and
Foreman, P.C., moves to be added as an appellee.
This appeal arises from the district court’s denial of Intervenors-Appellants’
(collectively “the Miami Herald”) motion to unseal all sealed and redacted court
submissions in the underlying action. In that action Plaintiff-Appellee Virginia
Giuffre alleged Ms. Maxwell defamed her by denying plaintiff’s public allegations
that Ms. Maxwell had “forced” her to be a “child” “sex slave” for a long list of
prominent men. While the lawsuit was for defamation Ms. Giuffre sought to
prosecute the action as a sexual abuse lawsuit. Ms. Giuffre in her complaint made
numerous salacious sexual allegations against Ms. Maxwell and a multitude of
public and private figures, and using the discovery rules and subpoenas she sought
and obtained extensive discovery from and about them on a wide range of private
and sexual matters, which were among the matters sealed or redacted when
attached to or referenced in court submissions.
The underlying action was settled and the court in May 2017 dismissed and
closed the case. A year later the Miami Herald moved to unseal the dozens of
sealed and redacted court submissions. In response Ms. Giuffre said she did not
oppose the motion. Intervenor Alan Dershowitz, whose own 2017 motion to the
district court to unseal discrete submissions by the parties was denied, requested
that the district court grant the Miami Herald’s motion. Ms. Maxwell opposed the
motion, asserting among other things her right to privacy. Denying the motion, the
district court concluded:
The privacy interests of Maxwell, Giuffre, Dershowitz, as well as

dozens of third persons, all of whom relied upon the promise of
secrecy outlined in the Protective Order and enforced by the Court,
have been implicated. It makes no difference that Giuffre and
Dershowitz have chosen to waive their privacy interests to the
underlying confidential information by supporting this motion, as
Maxwell has not agreed to such a waiver.
District Court Op., Doc.2 (emphasis supplied).
2
On commencing this appeal the Miami Herald inexplicably listed
Ms. Giuffre as the appellee, even though she had consented to the relief requested in
their motion to unseal. Doc.11. It did not list as an appellee Ms. Maxwell, who had
opposed the relief it had requested.
The right to defend a trial court decision on appeal flows from a litigant’s
having “a direct stake in the outcome,” Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona,
520 U.S. 43, 64 (1997) (internal quotations omitted). Such a personal stake in the
outcome “ensures the presence of ‘that concrete adverseness which sharpens the
presentation of issues upon which a court so largely depends.’” Cortlandt
St. Recovery Corp. v. Hellas Telecommunications, S.À.R.L., 790 F.3d 411, 417 (2d Cir.
2015) (brackets omitted; quoting Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 204 (1962)). In
contrast to Ms. Giuffre, Ms. Maxwell opposed the Miami Herald’s motion, has a
direct stake in the affirmance of the district court’s order denying the motion, and
can ensure the adverseness that will sharpen the presentation of the issues on
appeal.
WHEREFORE, Ms. Maxwell respectfully requests that the Court enter an
order listing her as appellee.
3
November 8, 2018
s/ Ty Gee
Ty Gee
Denver, CO 80203
Tel 303.831.7364
tgee@hmflaw.com; amueller@hmflaw.com
Certificate of Service
I certify that on November 8, 2018, I served via CM/ECF a copy of this
Defendant Maxwell’s Motion to be Added as Appellee on the following persons:
The Hon. Robert W. Sweet Paul G. Cassell (cassellp@law.utah.edu)

District Judge Sigrid S. McCawley
United States District Court for the (smccawley@bsfllp.com)
(via United States mail)
Christine N. Walz
(christine.walz@hklaw.com)
(madelaine.harrington@hklaw.com)
Sanford L. Bohrer
(sandy.bohrer@hklaw.com)
s/ Nicole Simmons
4
5

FOR THE
SECOND CIRCUIT
At a Stated Term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the
Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the
14th day of November two thousand and eighteen.
Before: Rosemary S. Pooler,

Circuit Judge.
________________________________
ORDER
Plaintiff - Appellee,
Docket No. 18-2868
v.
Ghislaine Maxwell,
Defendant,
v.
Respondents,
Intervenors - Appellants.
________________________________
Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell moves to be added as an appellee.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED.
For the Court:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,

Clerk of Court

40 Foley Square
New York, NY 10007

Date: November 14, 2018 DC Docket #: 15-cv-7433

DC Judge: Sweet
AMENDED CAPTION NOTICE
As noted on the docket sheet, the caption has been changed. If the brief has been filed, six copies
of a revised brief cover accurately reflecting the change in official caption must be submitted
within 14 days of this notice.

S.D.N.Y.
15-cv-7433
Sweet, J.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE
SECOND CIRCUIT
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the
Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the
14th day of November, two thousand eighteen.
________________________________
Plaintiff-Appellee, 16-3945
v.
Ghislaine Maxwell,
Defendant,
v.
Respondents,
Alan M. Dershowitz, Michael Cernovich DBA

Cernovich Media,
________________________________
18-2868
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Ghislaine Maxwell,
Defendant-Appellee,
v.
Respondents,
Julia Brown, Miami Herald Company,
________________________________
It is hereby ORDERED that the above-captioned appeals be heard in tandem.
To allow for the expeditious resolution of both appeals, argument in both cases is
rescheduled for Wednesday, February 6, 2019 at 2 p.m. The Court notes that briefing in the
appeal captioned no. 16-3945 is already complete, and sets the following expedited briefing
schedule for the appeal captioned no. 18-2868: APPELLANTS’ brief shall be filed no later than
December 10, 2018; APPELLEES’ brief shall be filed no later than January 10, 2019; and
APPELLANTS’ reply brief shall be filed no later than January 28, 2019.
Argument in both cases will be heard by a single panel.
For the Court:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,

Clerk of Court
2

40 Foley Square
New York, NY 10007

Date: November 15, 2018 DC Docket #: 15-cv-7433

DC Judge: Sweet
NOTICE OF CASE MANAGER CHANGE
The case manager assigned to this matter has been changed.

18-2868
d
IN THE

Plaintiff-Appellee,
—against—
GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
Defendant-Appellee,
(Caption continued on inside cover)
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
BRIEF AND SPECIAL APPENDIX

FOR INTERVENORS-APPELLANTS
SANFORD L. BOHRER
701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3300
Miami, Florida 33131
(305) 374-8500
CHRISTINE N. WALZ
MADELAINE J. HARRINGTON
31 West 52nd Street
New York, New York 10019
(212) 513-3200
Attorneys for Intervenors-Appellants
—against—

Respondents,
JULIE BROWN, MIAMI HERALD MEDIA COMPANY,
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Pursuant to Rule 26.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Intervenor
Miami Herald Media Company, by and through its attorneys, Holland & Knight
LLP, states that it is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the McClatchy Company, which
is publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................ iii
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ............................................ 1
JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW . . . . . . . . . 3
STATEMENT OF THE CASE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
I. INTERVENORS-APPELLANTS’ COVERAGE OF
ALLEGATIONS AGAINST JEFFREY EPSTEIN
AND GHISLAINE MAXWELL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
II. THE PROTECTIVE ORDER AND SEALING ORDER . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
III. PRIOR ATTEMPTS TO UNSEAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

IV. THE ORDER DENYING INTERVENORS-APPELLANTS’
MOTION TO UNSEAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
I. LEGAL STANDARDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
A. Standard of Review ................................................. 9
B. Applicable Legal Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
i. Judicial Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
ii. The Presumption of Access Under the Common Law . . . . . . . 10
iii. The Presumption of Access Under the First Amendment . . . 11

II. THE DOCUMENTS SOUGHT BY INTERVENERS-
APPELLANTS ARE JUDICIAL DOCUMENTS
SUBJECT TO THE PRESUMPTION OF ACCESS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
i
PAGE
A. The Documents are Judicial Documents Because They

Were Submitted to the District Court to Influence
an Adjudication. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
B. At Minimum, the “Judicial Document” Determination Should

Have Been Made on a Case-by-Case Basis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
C. The District Court Erred in Characterizing the Documents as

“Discovery Documents” Passed Amongst the Parties. . . . . . . . . . . . 18
III. THE DISTRICT COURT SHOULD UNSEAL THE DOCKET

IN ITS ENTIRETY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
A. The Press and Public Have a Right to The Documents at Issue

Under the Common Law and the First Amendment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
B. The District Court Miscalculated the Presumption of Access

with Regard to the Summary Judgment Documents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
C. The District Court Failed to Articulate A Compelling Reason
to Seal the Summary Judgment Documents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
D. The District Court Failed to Justify Sealing the Remainder

of the Docket. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
PAGE(S)
Cases
Aioi Nissay Dowa Ins. Co. v. ProSight Specialty Mgmt. Co.,
No. 12-cv-3274, 2012 WL 3583176 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2012) . . . . . 25
Alexander Interactive, Inc. v. Adorama, Inc.,
No. 12 CIV. 6608 PKC JCF, 2014 WL 4346174
(S.D.N.Y. Sept. 2, 2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3, 17
Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP,
814 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2016) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9, 25
No. 14-CV-6867 (VEC), 2016 WL 1071107
(S.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2016), aff’d, 814 F.3d 132
(2d Cir. 2016) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Bernsten v. O’Reilly,
307 F. Supp. 3d 161 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) ................................. 25
Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,
337 U.S. 541 (1949) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Gambale v. Deutsche Bank AG,
377 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Hartford Courant Co. v. Pellegrino,
380 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11, 12
Joy v. North,
692 F.2d 880 (2d Cir. 1982) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Kavanagh v. Zwilling,
997 F. Supp. 2d 241 (S.D.N.Y.), aff’d,
578 F. App’x 24 (2d Cir. 2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga,
435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passim
In re New York Times Co.,
828 F.2d 110 (2d Cir. 1987) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12, 26
iii
PAGE(S)
In re Omicom Grp., Inc. Sec. Litig.,
No. 02 CIV. 4483, 2006 WL 3016311
(S.D.N.Y. Oct. 23, 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9, 10, 11, 17
People v. Macedonio,
51 Misc. 3d 1219(A), 2016 WL 2616995
(N.Y. Sup Ct, Suffolk County, May 4, 2016) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Press–Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court,
478 U.S. 1 (1986) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12, 26
The Diversified Group, Inc. v. Daugerdas,
217 F.R.D. 152 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Under Seal v. Under Seal,
273 F. Supp. 3d 460 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) ......................... 9, 11, 13, 27
United States v. Amodeo,
44 F.3d 141 (2d Cir.1995) (Amodeo I ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
United States v. Amodeo,
71 F.3d 1044 (2d Cir. 1995) (Amodeo II) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passim
United States v. Erie Cty.,

763 F.3d 235 (2d Cir. 2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2, 16
United States v. Sattar,
471 F. Supp. 2d 380 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10, 13, 15, 16
United States v. Silver,
No. 15-CR-93 (VEC), 2016 WL 1572993
(S.D.N.Y. Apr. 14, 2016) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16, 22, 23
United States v. Smith,
985 F. Supp. 2d 506 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) ................................. 27
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Wales LLC,
993 F.Supp.2d 409 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Wolinsky v. Scholastic Inc.,
900 F.Supp.2d 332 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
iv
PAGE(S)
Statutes
28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Rules
Local Civil Rule 5.1 ......................................................... 19
Constitutional Provisions
U.S. Const. amend. I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passim
v
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
This case is about the public’s right to access court records concerning
allegations of sexual abuse that have been litigated behind closed doors. Miami
Herald Media Company (“Miami Herald”) and investigative journalist Julie Brown
(collectively “Intervenors-Appellants”) seek records that are highly relevant to
Miami Herald’s ongoing coverage of Jeffrey Epstein, the millionaire financier and
convicted sex-offender, who allegedly abused dozens of underage girls for years.
The investigation covers not only the criminal allegations, but also the troublingly
timid prosecution of Epstein, who entered into a plea deal with prosecutors under
which he ultimately served only 13 months in prison. Epstein’s victims were not
informed of the plea deal at the time it was made and were not able to protest his
sentencing. Miami Herald’s investigation seeks to determine whether Epstein’s
victims were heard by prosecutors and whether Epstein escaped more serious
consequences because of his wealth and political connections.
As part of its investigation, Miami Herald sought to review court records in
connection with civil and criminal cases concerning Epstein and his associates. The
instant appeal concerns the records of a defamation matter, brought by one of Epstein’s
alleged former victims, Virginia Giuffre, against Epstein’s associate, Ghislaine Maxwell
(“Defendant-Appellee” or “Ms. Maxwell”) on the grounds that Ms. Maxwell, in
coordination with Epstein, “facilitated [] sexual abuse” of Ms. Giuffre and “wrongfully
1
subjected Giuffre to public ridicule, contempt and disgrace by … calling Giuffre a liar
in published statements.” A.-117, ¶ 1. These records are presumptively public under the
First Amendment to the United States Constitution and the common law, but were
improperly sealed by the District Court. Miami Herald intervened in the defamation
action and moved to unseal the docket, but the motion to unseal was denied based, in
large part, on Ms. Maxwell’s tenuous privacy interests. See Sp.A.-1 (the “Order”).
At present, Miami Herald, Ms. Giuffre – Epstein’s alleged victim – and other
interested members of the public seek to open the docket to bring to light a full and fair
account of Epstein and his associates’ misdeeds. The District Court did not – as it was
required to do under the common law and the First Amendment – articulate compelling
reasons to seal the records. The District Court’s Order should therefore be reversed.
JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
The District Court for the Southern District of New York had original
jurisdiction over the underlying action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Intervenors-
Appellants moved to intervene in the underlying action and unseal the docket on
April 6, 2018. On August 27, 2018 the District Court entered the Order granting
Intervenors-Appellants’ motion to intervene and denying their motion to unseal in
its entirety. Sp.A.-1.
This Court has jurisdiction over this appeal under the collateral order doctrine.
Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 546 (1949); see also United
2
States v. Erie Cty., 763 F.3d 235, 238 n.5 (2d Cir. 2014); Lugosch v. Pyramid Co.
of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 117 (2d Cir. 2006). This appeal is timely: the District
Court entered its order on August 27, 2018, and Intervenors-Appellants filed their
Notice of Appeal on September 26, 2018.
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW
This appeal presents the following issues:
1. The District Court characterized the documents sought by Intervenors-
Appellants as either “discovery documents” or “summary judgment judicial
documents.” In regards to the former, the District Court held that “the documents
sealed in the course of discovery were neither relied upon by this Court in the
rendering of an adjudication, nor ‘necessary to or helpful in resolving [a] motion’”
and that therefore the documents were not entitled to a presumption of access.
Sp.A.-28. Notwithstanding this finding, the District Court also recognized precedent
holding that documents submitted in support of a motion to compel discovery
“presumably will be necessary to or helpful in resolving that motion” and that “they
are, therefore, judicial documents.” Sp.A.-31 (quoting Alexander Interactive, Inc. v.
Adorama, Inc., No. 12 CIV. 6608 PKC JCF, 2014 WL 4346174, at *2 (S.D.N.Y.
Sept. 2, 2014)). Did the District Court err in characterizing the documents sought
by Intervenors-Appellants, which include motions to compel discovery, as
“discovery documents” that are not entitled to the presumption of access?
3
2. Did the District Court err, in violation of the common law and the First
Amendment to the United States Constitution, in concluding that the privacy
interests of the parties in the underlying suit outweighed the public’s right of access
to the sealed documents submitted in connection with Defendant’s summary
judgment motion, notwithstanding Plaintiff’s support for Intervenors-Appellants’
motion to unseal?
3. The Protective Order specified that it “shall have no force and effect on
the use of any CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION at trial” (A.-135) and therefore
allowed that the information disclosed by third parties pursuant to the Protective
Order could be disclosed. Did the District court err, in violation of the common law
and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, in concluding that the
privacy interests of third-parties that relied on the Protective Order outweighed the
public’s right of access to the sealed documents submitted in connection with
Defendant’s summary judgment motion?
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
I. INTERVENORS-APPELLANTS’ COVERAGE OF ALLEGATIONS

AGAINST JEFFREY EPSTEIN AND GHISLAINE MAXWELL.
For over three years, Miami Herald has reported on and investigated Epstein
and others who were involved in the sexual abuse of underage girls. It has covered,
among other subjects, the initial investigation by the Palm Beach state attorney, the
FBI and the U.S. Attorney’s Office, the negotiations between those law enforcement
4
agencies and Epstein’s legal defense team, and the ultimate decision by the U.S.
Attorney’s Office to sign a non-prosecution agreement that was negotiated in secret
and sealed in return for a guilty plea to a lesser state crime. The plea deal, which was
not revealed to Epstein’s victims at the time, resulted in him serving 13 months of
an 18-month sentence.
Coverage of this ongoing story requires that Miami Herald closely monitor
the civil and criminal cases brought in connection with Epstein’s crimes, including
the defamation matter underlying the instant appeal. As with other cases connected
with Epstein’s crimes, Miami Herald sought to access public court filings to shed
light on the investigation, the scope of the crimes, and, most importantly, the
remedies – or lack thereof – available to Epstein’s victims. Many of these questions
have yet to be answered because court records that could inform the investigation
were improperly sealed by the District Court pursuant to two overly broad orders –
a protective order entered March 18, 2016 (the “Protective Order”) (A.-131) and a
sealing order entered August 10, 2016 (the “Sealing Order”) (A.-265).
II. THE PROTECTIVE ORDER AND SEALING ORDER
On March 2, 2016, Defendant-Appellee Maxwell filed a motion for a
protective order, which averred broadly that:
In this action, both parties have sought and will seek

confidential information in the course of discovery from
the other party and from non-party witnesses. Release of
such confidential information outside of the litigation
5
could expose the parties to “annoyance, embarrassment,

[and] oppression” and result in significant injury to one or
more of the parties’ business or privacy interests . . .
Based on written discovery requests served to date, it is
anticipated that Plaintiff will seek to question Ms.
Maxwell concerning her personal and professional
relationships as well matters concerning her private
affairs. Furthermore, Plaintiff has served Ms. Maxwell
with document requests that seek information of a
sensitive and confidential nature. Dissemination of such
information to third parties could be significantly harmful
to Ms. Maxwell’s business and personal privacy interests.
A.-128. Despite the unspecified nature of Ms. Maxwell’s privacy interests, the
District Court entered an order that (1) applied to “all documents, materials, and
information,” at issue in the case (A.-131, ¶ 1); (2) allowed the parties to unilaterally
designate material as “Confidential” (A.-132, ¶ 3); and (3) required that any party
seeking to file confidential information submit a motion to seal (A.-134, ¶ 10).
Pursuant to Protective Order, numerous letter briefs were filed seeking to seal
various documents that would otherwise be available on the public docket. The letter
briefs themselves were bereft of detail. The vast majority simply identified the
document at issue, reiterated the language of the Protective Order, and stated that the
document at issue contained material “designated as confidential.” See, e.g., A.-137,
A.-139, A.-141, A.-144, A.-147, A.-148, A.-149, A.-152, A.-154, A.-157, A.-161,
A.-163, A.-165, A.-236, A.-237, A.-239, A.-243, A.-252, A.-253, A.-254, A.-256,
A.-262, A.-263. Nevertheless, the District Court granted each motion. Sp.A.-10.
6
Due to the volume of sealing requests, on August 9, 2016, the District Court
entered the Sealing Order, which removed the requirement that the parties file letter
briefs and prospectively granted them: “To reduce unnecessary filings and delay, it is
hereby ordered that letter motions to file submissions under seal pursuant to the District
Court’s Protective Order, ECF No. 62, are granted.” A.-265. This order effectively
withdrew judicial and public oversight from the sealing process. In total, one hundred
and sixty-seven documents – almost one fifth of the docket, were placed under seal.
Sp.A.-10. Importantly, in addition to the wholesale sealing of certain motions, the
entire body of Defendant-Appellee’s motion for summary judgment – 68 pages – was
redacted (see A.-315) and over half of the order denying Defendant-Appellee’s motion
for summary judgment was redacted. (A.-318, 320-69.) (hereinafter these documents
are referred to as the “Summary Judgment Documents”).
III. PRIOR ATTEMPTS TO UNSEAL
Prior to Intervenors-Appellants’ motion to unseal, two other third-parties –
lawyer Alan Dershowitz and journalist Michael Cernovich – separately moved to
unseal specific documents in the record. Mr. Dershowitz, himself implicated in
Epstein’s crimes, sought to unseal documents that he believes will vindicate his
reputation. Mr. Cernovich sought to unseal the Summary Judgment Documents in
connection with his own journalistic coverage of the Epstein case.
7
Both of these motions (respectively the “Dershowitz Motion” and “Cernovich
Motion”) were denied.1 The District Court’s reasoning (which is available only in
connection with the Cernovich Motion)2 was grounded in two risk factors that are
no longer relevant to the instant appeal. First, the court cited the “privacy interests”
of the parties which, as detailed below, have been waived by Ms. Giuffre. A.-401.
And, even if Ms. Giuffre had not waived her privacy interests, such interests are not
sufficient to overcome the public right of access. Second, the District Court reasoned
that premature release of sensitive information could taint the jury pool in the
upcoming trial. A.-400, 402. This risk was rendered moot when the case settled.
Both Mr. Cernovich and Mr. Dershowitz appealed, which appeals have been
consolidated with that of Intervenors-Appellants.
IV. THE ORDER DENYING INTERVENORS-APPELLANTS’ MOTION

TO UNSEAL.
On April 6, 2018, Intervenors-Appellants moved to intervene and unseal the
entire docket. A.405, 406. The District Court denied the motion to unseal on August
27, 2018. Sp.A.-1. This appeal followed.
1
As explained in the appeals brought by Mr. Dershowitz and Mr. Cernovich, the
District Court misapplied the legal standard in denying these motions. Instead of
treating the Cernovich and Dershowitz motions as motions to unseal, the District
Court framed them as motions to modify a protective order.
2
The District Court’s order on the Dershowitz Motion is sealed.
8
ARGUMENT
I. LEGAL STANDARDS
A. Standard of Review
In reviewing a District Court’s order to seal or unseal, the court’s findings are
examined for clear error, its legal determinations de novo, and its ultimate decision
to seal or unseal for abuse of discretion. Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossmann LLP, 814 F.3d 132, 139 (2d Cir. 2016) (citing United States v. Amodeo,
44 F.3d 141, 146 (2d Cir.1995) (Amodeo I )).
B. Applicable Legal Standards
There is a long-established presumption of public access to “judicial
documents,” defined broadly as documents that are filed with the court and “relevant
to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process.”
Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 119 (quoting Amodeo I, 44 F.3d at 145). This presumption
finds its “twin sources in the common-law right of public access and the qualified
First Amendment right to attend judicial proceedings.” In re Omicom Grp., Inc. Sec.
Litig., No. 02 CIV. 4483 RCC/MHD, 2006 WL 3016311, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 23,
2006). The party seeking closure bears the burden of demonstrating that sealing is
justified under the related but distinct First Amendment and common law tests.
Under Seal v. Under Seal, 273 F. Supp. 3d 460, 469 (S.D.N.Y. 2017).
9
i. Judicial Documents
This circuit has defined “judicial documents” broadly, encompassing a spectrum
that ranges from “documents [] used to determine litigants’ substantive rights,” to those
documents that “play only a negligible role in the performance of Article III duties.”
Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 121. The strength of the common law presumption of access that
attaches to such documents varies in accordance with their place on the spectrum.
Documents more central to the performance of Article III duties garner a stronger
presumption, (id.) while those that “come within a court’s purview solely to insure
their irrelevance” garner a weaker presumption. United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d
1044, 1049 (2d Cir. 1995) (Amodeo II). Based on these guidelines, courts in this
Circuit have held that documents “submitted to the Court for purposes of seeking an
adjudication” are judicial documents. United States v. Sattar, 471 F. Supp. 2d 380,
385 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). These “judicial” documents are distinct from those that are not
filed with the court, such as those that are merely traded between the parties and that
therefore “lie entirely beyond the presumption’s reach.” Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1050.
ii. The Presumption of Access Under the Common Law
“The common-law presumption [of access] is intended to promote
accountability in the judicial process and to encourage public confidence in the
administration of justice.” In re Omnicom Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, 2006
WL 3016311, at *1. There is a three-step process used to determine whether the
10
common law presumption of access applies to documents before the court. First, the
court must determine that the documents in question are “judicial documents.”
Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 119. If so, a baseline presumption of access applies. Id.
Second, the court must determine the weight of the presumption of access. As stated
above, the presumption is strongest where the document is relied upon or used to
determine the substantive rights of litigants because “the strength of the presumption
. . . depends on the utility of the document in promoting oversight of the courts’
performance”. In re Omnicom Group Inc. Securities Litigation, 2006 WL 3016311
at *1. Summary judgment documents fit squarely within this category. The
presumption is weaker for documents that “come within a court’s purview solely to
insure their irrelevance,” such as with some discovery-related documents that are
filed with the court, however, the presumption of access still remains. Amodeo II,
71 F.3d at 1049. Third, once the weight of the presumption is determined, the court
balances the presumption against competing considerations. Under Seal, 273
F.Supp.3d at 467-68. “Such countervailing factors include but are not limited to the
danger of impairing law enforcement” or the “privacy interests of those resisting
disclosure.” Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 120 (citations omitted).
iii. The Presumption of Access Under the First Amendment
There is an even stronger presumption of public access to certain judicial
documents under the First Amendment. Hartford Courant Co. v. Pellegrino, 380
11
F.3d 83, 91 (2d Cir. 2004). The First Amendment right of access is linked directly
to the public’s right to attend judicial proceedings because “the ability of the public
and press to attend civil and criminal cases would be merely theoretical if the
information provided by docket sheets were inaccessible.” Id. at 93.
This Circuit has “articulated two different approaches for determining
whether “the public and the press should receive First Amendment protection in their
attempts to access certain judicial documents.” Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 120 (citations
omitted). The first approach – “experience and logic” – requires the court to consider
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. (quoting Press–Enterprise Co.
v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1, 8 (1986)). The second approach considers the extent
to which the judicial documents are “derived from or [are] a necessary corollary of
the capacity to attend the relevant proceedings.” Id. at 120. Once the court
determines that the First Amendment right of access applies, documents may be
sealed only if “specific, on the record findings are made demonstrating that closure
is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.”
Id. (quoting In re New York Times Co., 828 F.2d 110, 116 (2d Cir. 1987)). “Broad
and general findings by the trial court, however, are not sufficient to justify closure.”
Id.
12
II. THE DOCUMENTS SOUGHT BY INTERVENERS-APPELLANTS

ARE JUDICIAL DOCUMENTS SUBJECT TO THE PRESUMPTION
OF ACCESS.
The District Court correctly determined that the Summary Judgment
Documents are judicial documents subject to the presumption of access, but erred in
its characterization of the rest of the docket. Courts in this Circuit construe “judicial
documents” broadly. Even those put before the court “solely to insure their
irrelevance” are entitled to a “predication” of access. Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1050.
Courts in this Circuit have also consistently reiterated that documents filed with the
court are judicial documents entitled to the presumption of access. See Under Seal,
273 F. Supp. 3d at 269;. Sattar, 471 F. Supp. 2d at 385 (generally, a document is a
“judicial document” if it is “submitted to the Court for the purposes of seeking or
opposing adjudication”). The District Court erred by grouping the remainder of the
sealed documents into one, vaguely described group of “discovery documents” and
in failing to analyze each document specifically to set forth why it fell outside the
broad definition of judicial documents adopted by this Circuit. Instead, the District
Court justified sealing nearly one-fifth of the docket in one short, nonspecific
paragraph, stating – without elaboration – that (1) the documents were not helpful
in resolving a motion, and (2) documents passed between the parties lie “beyond the
. . . reach” of the presumption of access. Sp.A.-28.
13
These two general statements, which constitute the entirety of the District
Court’s reasoning in this regard, are insufficient to justify the wholesale sealing of one
hundred and sixty-seven documents and redaction of many others. These documents
vary in nature and purpose, and include, at minimum: entries related to motions to
compel (A.-137, A.-142, A.-145, A.-148, A.-149, A.-155, A.-156, A.-157); entries
related to motions to serve deposition subpoenas, exceed deposition limits, reopen
Plaintiff’s deposition, or complete depositions (A.-151, A.-153, A.-159, A.-162, A.-
163, A.-166-170, A.-237, A.-240, A.-246); entries related to motion for sanctions or
an adverse inference (A.-245, A.-251, A.-257, A.-266); entries related to a brief in
support of privilege claimed for Plaintiff’s in camera submission (A.-143); entries
related to Defendant-Appellee’s response to a non-party’s motion to quash subpoena
(A.-241); entries related to Plaintiff’s sur-reply (A.-244, A.-248); entries related to
Plaintiff’s proposed search terms (A.-256); entries related to exhibits accompanying
Plaintiff’s notice of supplemental authority (A.-261); and entries related to a motion
for protective order (A.-267)3. The nature of the remaining documents filed under
seal is unknown because the Sealing Order released the parties from the requirement
of moving to seal documents in the first instance.
3
Many of these documents were identified through the letter briefs that were
submitted to the District Court and that specified which documents the moving party
sought to place under seal. Each of these letter motions was granted. Sp.A.-10.
14
A. The Documents are Judicial Documents Because They Were

Submitted to the District Court to Influence an Adjudication.
In this Circuit, whether or not a document has been filed is the key question
in the judicial document determination. When a document is submitted to a court,
the public interest in that document is triggered because the moving party believes
the document adds to the persuasiveness of her request before the court. The public
has an interest in monitoring whether the court agrees with the party, or disregards
that party’s submission in favor of other evidence – that a court ultimately declines
to rely on certain documents is immaterial. Sattar, 471 F. Supp. 2d 380, is
instructive. In Sattar, for instance, the court considered whether a letter from the
defendant’s counsel transmitting a psychiatric report constituted a judicial
document. Id. at 383. Counsel had submitted the document with respect to
defendant’s sentence, but the court ultimately declined to rely on the documents.
The court held that the documents were judicial documents, reasoning:
The Court did not find the submissions to be useful and did
not rely on them. The Court set forth at sentencing the
reasons for the sentence and did not refer at all to the letter
from [counsel] or the report by [defendant’s physician].
However, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
recently held, in the context of documents submitted in
support of and in opposition to a motion for summary
judgment, before the motion was even decided, that it did
not make a difference to the classification of a document
as a judicial document that the document was not
actually relied upon by the court. See Lugosch, 435 F.3d
at 122–23, 126. It is sufficient that the document was
15
submitted to the Court for purposes of seeking or

opposing an adjudication. See id.
Sattar, 471 F. Supp. 2d at 385 (emphasis supplied); see also United States v. Silver,
No. 15-CR-93 (VEC), 2016 WL 1572993, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 14, 2016) (noting,
in regards to a motion in limine, “Whether the Court issued a final decision on the
Motion and whether the Motion resulted in the admission or exclusion of evidence
at trial does not affect the judicial document determination”). Therefore, the District
Court’s blanket statement that the sealed documents were neither relied upon by the
court, nor “necessary to or helpful in resolving [a] motion” is inadequate to
disqualify the documents from the “judicial document” definition. Sp.A.-28. This
is especially true in light of this Circuit’s rule that documents deemed “irrelevant”
to the substance of an action are nevertheless entitled to a presumption of access.
Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1050.
B. At Minimum, the “Judicial Document” Determination Should Have

Been Made on a Case-by-Case Basis.
At the very least, the “judicial document” determination should have been
made on a document-by-document basis. As this Circuit has instructed, the
determination of whether a document is a “judicial document” should “emphasize
the role of the document in the judicial process.” United States v. Erie Cty., 763
F.3d 235, 239 (2d Cir. 2014). The sealed and redacted documents on the docket vary
in their nature and purpose. The unsubstantiated statement that such documents
16
were “not helpful in resolving a motion” (Sp.A.-28) does not stand to reason,
particularly because many of these documents are exhibits annexed in support of
motions submitted to the District Court for the purpose of influencing a decision.
That any of these motions were not dispositive motions makes no difference.
This court has consistently held that a presumption of access exists with respect to
any document “which is presented to the court to invoke its powers or affect its
decisions.” Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1050, see also Alexander Interactive, Inc., 2014
WL 4346174 (“documents to be submitted are in support of a motion to compel
discovery [] presumably will be necessary to or helpful in resolving that motion.
They are, therefore, judicial documents”); In re Omnicom Grp., 2006 WL 3016311
at *2 (holding that a “series of letter briefs with accompanying exhibits . . . certainly
qualify as judicial documents” because they were submitted “to request the court to
exercise its adjudicative powers in favor of the parties’ respective views of a
discovery dispute”); Schiller, 2006 WL 2788256, at *5 (holding that briefs and
supporting papers submitted in connection with a dispute over the confidentiality of
discovery materials were “created by or at the behest of counsel and presented to a
court in order to sway a judicial decision” and were therefore “judicial documents
that trigger the presumption of public access”).
The District Court should have explained – and must now be instructed to
explain – whether or not each individual document falls within the broad definition of
17
judicial documents set forth by this Circuit. It must then proceed to determine, again
on a document-by-document basis, whether there is a lawful reason for the document
to be sealed. An individual determination as to the nature of each document is
especially important in connection with the documents sealed after the Sealing Order,
and therefore not identified in a letter brief. The public has no means to monitor the
court’s characterization of documents filed with it if the type or designation of the
documents themselves are undisclosed. Indeed, Intervenors-Appellants have been
disadvantaged in their argument to unseal precisely because they cannot even
characterize or describe the documents that have been sealed and are unavailable to
them, much less present an argument regarding why sealing was unlawful.
C. The District Court Erred in Characterizing the Documents as

“Discovery Documents” Passed Amongst the Parties.
Though the documents sought by Miami Herald vary in nature in purpose,
they have one thing in common: they are not documents that were merely “passed
between the parties in discovery.” Sp.A.-28. The Miami Herald is not seeking
documents that were never filed, but merely passed between the parties during
discovery. It is seeking filed documents. With regard to standard discovery
documents exchanged by the parties, as a general rule, such documents are not filed
in the first instance:
A party seeking or opposing relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26

through 37 inclusive, or making or opposing any other
motion or application, shall quote or attach only those
18
portions of the depositions, interrogatories, requests for

documents, requests for admissions, or other discovery or
disclosure materials, together with the responses and
objections thereto, that are the subject of the discovery
motion or application, or that are cited in papers submitted
in connection with any other motion or application.
Local Civil Rule 5.1. Miami Herald seeks those documents that have been filed but
sealed; it does not seek all documents merely traded between the parties pursuant to
requests for production. It bears noting that the committee note in support of Local
Civil Rule 5.1 states that “[this rule] continues to serve a very useful purpose by
making clear that only those discovery materials that are necessary to the decisional
process should be filed in connection with a motion or application.” Local Civil
Rule 5.1 note (2011)(emphasis supplied). Stated otherwise, Local Rule 5.1 aims to
ensure that only “judicial documents” i.e., documents that are “relevant to the
performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process” are filed.
These are the documents that Intervenors-Appellants seek and to which they are
entitled under the common law and the First Amendment.
III. THE DISTRICT COURT SHOULD UNSEAL THE DOCKET IN ITS

ENTIRETY.
A. The Press and Public Have a Right to The Documents at Issue Under
the Common Law and the First Amendment.
The judicial documents at issue – both the Summary Judgment documents and
the remainder of those on the docket – are relevant to an ongoing investigation that
raises significant questions of public interest. These questions include how the
19
Epstein case was disposed of by the criminal justice system, whether victims were
treated properly, whether Epstein’s victims were unfairly kept in the dark about the
terms of his plea deal, whether Epstein was given favorable treatment because of his
wealth and status, in short, whether the public interest was served. These questions
have yet to be answered because records that could provide responsive information
have been sealed. The public, including Epstein’s victims, has the right to know how
Epstein’s case was prosecuted. The law provides the public with the presumption of
access in order to hold our legal institutions accountable and to maintain confidence
that they will protect the most vulnerable in our society.
The Summary Judgment Documents, which discuss the core issues in the
underlying defamation matter, garner the highest presumption and should not remain
under seal absent the most compelling reasons. Joy v. North, 692 F.2d 880, 893 (2d
Cir. 1982); Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 123. The remainder of the docket garners a similar,
if slightly weaker, presumption that can only be overcome by specifically articulated
countervailing interests. As set forth below, the District Court failed to articulate
these interests, and therefore must be reversed.
B. The District Court Miscalculated the Presumption of Access with

Regard to the Summary Judgment Documents.
As a preliminary matter, the District Court ignored recent precedent and
incorrectly determined that the Summary Judgment Documents were entitled to a
“lesser” presumption of access because the motion for summary judgment was denied.
20
Sp.A.-34 (citing Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1049). Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 122, makes clear
that the outcome of a summary judgment motion has nothing to do with the weight of
its presumption. Noting with approval case law in the First Circuit, this Court in
Lugosch stated: “The First Circuit has clearly held that ‘relevant documents which are
submitted to, and accepted by, a court of competent jurisdiction in the course of
adjudicatory proceedings, become documents to which the presumption of public
access applies,’ a framing that has nothing to do with how a court ultimately
comes out on a motion.” Id. at 122 (emphasis supplied). Continuing this reasoning,
this Court stated: “to equate the weight of the presumption with the disposition of each
particular claim would require the Court to review the documents under varying
standards, which would be extremely difficult and a waste of judicial resources.” Id.
at 123 (quoting The Diversified Group, Inc. v. Daugerdas, 217 F.R.D. 152, 159 n. 5
(S.D.N.Y. 2003)). Therefore, the Summary Judgment Documents should be unsealed
unless there is a compelling and narrowly tailored reason for closure.
C. The District Court Failed to Articulate A Compelling Reason to Seal

the Summary Judgment Documents.
There is no recognized privacy interest in allegations of sex-trafficking. At
its core, however, that is what the District Court’s Order protects. The Order states
that “the primary countervailing factor is ‘the privacy interests of those resisting
disclosure,’” (Sp.A.-35), but neglects to note that Ms. Maxwell – Epstein’s alleged
associate and the defendant in the underlying defamation claim – is the only party
21
advocating for continued sealing. All other interested parties, Mr. Dershowitz and
Mr. Cernovich, Miami Herald, and Ms. Giuffre have petitioned to open the docket
so that the public can access a full and fair account of the lawsuit.
Yet, despite this consent from Ms. Giuffre, the Order places great weight on
protecting the interests of Ms. Giuffre and similarly situated victims, essentially
ignoring Ms. Giuffre’s clearly stated position. Citing Kavanagh v. Zwilling, 997 F.
Supp. 2d 241, 256 (S.D.N.Y.), aff’d, 578 F. App’x 24 (2d Cir. 2014), the Order
emphasizes that the “interest [in privacy] is amplified where, as here, the Summary
Judgment [] Documents ‘contain sensitive and personal information about the sexual
abuse of minors.” Sp.A.-38. However, the motion to unseal in Kavanagh, was put
forth by the alleged abuser and there is nothing in the opinion indicating that the
victim advocated the same. Here, the situation is reversed. The compelling privacy
interest in this matter belongs to Ms. Giuffre, who advocates unsealing the entire
docket, to provide the public with the “complete picture of the abuse that occurred
. . . ”. A.-428. Moreover, Ms. Giuffre has already, for years, been publically
identified as a victim of Epstein’s. Continued sealing of these documents would do
nothing to protect Ms. Giuffre’s interests.
United States v. Silver, 2016 WL 1572993, at *8, also cited by the District
Court, is similarly inapposite. There, the court considered whether to unseal a
Motion in Limine and corresponding briefs that discussed extramarital affairs among
22
the defendant – a public official – and two women. In regards to the defendant, the
court reasoned that the “otherwise personal and embarrassing conduct [had] public
ramifications.” Id. And further that “[t]he privacy interest of the [d]efendant—a
public official convicted of participating in criminal schemes that were cut from the
same corrupt cloth as the evidence discussed in the Motion in Limine—does not, in
this case, trump the public’s right of access.” Id. at *7 (emphasis supplied). The
privacy interests of the two women warranted redaction, but, in contrast to the
present issue on appeal, both women advocated closure. Moreover, despite the
privacy interests at stake, the court ordered unsealing accompanied by narrowly
tailored redaction to “obscure the identities of the Jane Does while simultaneously
disclosing the nature of the evidence that the Government sought to admit.” Id.
(emphasis supplied). This approach is a far cry from authorizing the redaction the
entire body of Defendant-Appellee’s motion for summary judgment and over half of
the order denying Defendant-Appellee-Maxwell’s same motion. See also
Application of Newsday, Inc., 895 F.2d 74, 80 (2d Cir. 1990) (rejecting “drastic
restrictions on the common law right of access” and only authorizing redactions of
“references to innocent third parties”). There is simply no precedent that favors the
“privacy interests” of an alleged sex-offender over that of victims advocating for
disclosure and the public’s right to information regarding our justice system’s
treatment of victims of sexual abuse.
23
The District Court’s second reason for closure – the parties’ reliance on the
Protective and Sealing Orders – also fails to overcome the “compelling” standard
required by the law. The District Court reasoned – in error – that the guarantee of
confidentiality was critical to the parties’ settlement agreement and, accordingly,
that unsealing would denigrate the integrity of the judicial process by betraying such
reliance. Sp.A.-39. This position neglects that courts in this Circuit have repeatedly
ordered the unsealing in cases with protective orders or confidentiality provisions.
Gambale v. Deutsche Bank AG, 377 F.3d 133, 143 (2d Cir. 2004), is instructive. In
Gamble – a sex-based discrimination suit – the plaintiff filed documents disclosed
in discovery – labeled as confidential by the defendant-bank – in support of her
opposition to summary judgment. Id. at 135. The bank moved for, and was granted,
a temporary protective order subject to renewal upon motion. Id. The parties then
jointly advised the court that they had reached a settlement agreement and,
importantly, the bank asserted that “the settlement was motivated significantly by its
desire to avoid public disclosure at trial of the temporarily sealed documents.” Id.
at 136 (emphasis supplied). Nevertheless, the District Court later unsealed the
documents on the grounds that they were “judicial documents . . . entitled to the
presumption of access.” Id. at 138. This Circuit affirmed.4
4
The Court disagreed with the District Court’s decision that the settlement amount,
which was disclosed in a court conference, should be unsealed.
24
In Bernstein, 814 F.3d at 139, as well, the court ordered that the unsealing of
a complaint notwithstanding the fact that the “parties settled the suit on confidential
terms.” In Bernsten v. O’Reilly, 307 F. Supp. 3d 161 (S.D.N.Y. 2018), the court
held that settlement and arbitration agreements themselves, which were submitted in
support of a motion to compel, were subject to a presumption of access and should
be unsealed. Similarly, in Wolinsky v. Scholastic Inc., 900 F.Supp.2d 332, 334
(S.D.N.Y. 2012), the court addressed whether to seal an FLSA settlement agreement
that contained a confidentiality provision and had been submitted to the court for
approval. Defendant argued that confidentiality was a material term of the agreement
constituting part of the consideration provided by plaintiff; however, the Court found
the argument to be unavailing:
[T]he mere fact ‘that the settlement agreement contains a

confidentiality provision is an insufficient interest to
overcome the presumption that an approved FLSA
settlement agreement is a judicial record, open to the
public.’ . . . [T]he presumption of public access would
become virtually meaningless if it could be overcome by
the mutual interest of the parties in keeping their
settlement private.
Id. at 338. See also Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Wales LLC, 993 F.Supp.2d 409, 414
(S.D.N.Y. 2014) (holding the fact that the agreement “contains a confidentiality
clause is not binding here, given the public’s right of access to ‘judicial
documents.’”); Aioi Nissay Dowa Ins. Co. v. ProSight Specialty Mgmt. Co., No. 12-
cv-3274, 2012 WL 3583176, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2012) (“[W]hile enforcement
25
of contracts is undeniably an important role for a court, it does not constitute a
‘higher value’ that would outweigh the presumption of public access to judicial
documents . . . Respondents may have an action for breach of contract against
[petitioner] for its alleged failure to adhere to its obligations under the confidentiality
agreement—the Court makes no finding whatsoever on that question.”). Reliance
on confidentiality agreements has been repeatedly outweighed by competing
interests, including the very interests at issue here – the public right of access.
Therefore, such reliance cannot constitute an interest compelling enough to
overcome the standards set by the common law and First Amendment.
D. The District Court Failed to Justify Sealing the Remainder of the

Docket.
Finally, the District Court’s Order is overly broad because it sealed documents
in their entity without any individualized analysis. In fact, court records cannot
constitutionally be sealed from public view unless the court makes on the record
findings that “closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored
to serve that interest.” Press-Enter. Co., 478 U.S. at 13-14 (internal quotation marks
omitted); In re New York Times Co., 828 F.2d 110, 116 (2d Cir. 1987) (“Broad and
general findings . . . are not sufficient to justify closure.”).
To meet this standard, the District Court was required to review and analyze
each document to determine both that sealing was necessary to protect a compelling
interest (that outweighs the presumption of access under the First Amendment and
26
the common law), and that the sealing is only as extensive as required to protect that
compelling interest. Under Seal, 273 F. Supp. 3d at 466 (“motions to seal documents
must be carefully and skeptically review[ed] . . . to insure that there really is an
extraordinary circumstance or compelling need to seal the documents from public
inspection.”) (citation omitted); see also People v. Macedonio, 51 Misc. 3d 1219(A),
2016 WL 2616995, at *12 (N.Y. Sup Ct, Suffolk County, May 4, 2016) (Ordering
limited redaction of innocent third parties names and identifying information
because “a blanket sealing of the plea agreement . . . would not satisfy the narrow
tailoring required to safeguard the First Amendment right of access). That analysis
must be made on a case-by-case and document-by-document basis. See Bernstein
v. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, No. 14-CV-6867 (VEC), 2016 WL
1071107, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2016), aff'd, 814 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2016)
(“Accordingly, determining whether the ethical concerns raised by providing public
access to a judicial document outweigh the public’s constitutional right of access
must be done on a case-by-case basis); United States v. Smith, 985 F. Supp. 2d 506,
528 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (“Rather, the courts should evaluate the extent of the harm to
public officials caused by the discovery materials on a case-by-case basis, taking
into consideration the nature of the information in the discovery materials, as well
as the public officials at issue”).
27
The District Court entirely failed to undertake this analysis and its Order must
be reversed as a result.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the District Court’s Order must be reversed.
Dated December 10, 2018
/s/ Sanford L. Bohrer

SANFORD L. BOHRER
(305) 374-8500
CHRISTINE N. WALZ
31 West 52nd Street
(212) 513-3200
28
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH

FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32(a)
1. This brief complies with the type-volume limitation of Fed. R. App. P.
32(a)(7)(B) because it contains 6,576, excluding the parts of the brief exempted by
Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B)(iii).
2. This brief complies with the typeface requirements of Fed. R. App. P.
32(a)(5) and the type style requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(5) because this
brief has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using Microsoft Word
in Times New Roman 14-Point font.
Dated: New York, NY

December 10, 2018
/s/ Sanford L. Bohrer

SANFORD L. BOHRER
(305) 374-8500
CHRISTINE N. WALZ
31 West 52nd Street
(212) 513-3200
SPECIAL APPENDIX
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Opinion of the Honorable Robert W. Sweet Appealed From,

dated August 27, 2018 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SPA-1
SPA-1
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 953 Filed 08/27/18 Page 1 of 41
UN ITE D STATES DISTRI CT COURT

----------------------------------------x
VIRGINIA GIUFFRE,

OPINION
-against-
GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
Defendant.
------------------------------~---------x
APPEARANCES:
Coun sel f or Inte r veno rs Julie Brown


31 West 52~ Street
Ne w Yo rk, NY 1001 9
By: Christine N. Wa l z , Es q.
Sanfo rd L. Bohrer, Esq.
Counsel for Pl aintiff Vi rginia Gi uffre
BO IES SC HILLER & FLEXNER LLP

401 E. Las Olas Bo ulev ard, Suite 1 2 00
Fo rt Laud e rdal e , FL 333 01
By: S i g rid S . Mccawl e y, Esq.
Mered i th L . Schul t z , Esq .

333 Ma in St r eet
Armo n k , NY 10 504
By : David Boies , Esq .

4 25 North Andre ws Ave n u e , Sui te 2
Fo rt La uderdale, FL 33301
By : Br adle y J . Edwards , Es q.
SPA-2

UNIVERSITY OF UTAH 1
383 Universi t y Street
Salt Lake Cit y , UT 84112
Counsel for Defendant Ghisla i ne Maxwell

Denver, CO 80203
By: Laura A. Menni nger, Esq.
Je ffre y S. Pagliuca , Esq.
Ty Gee, Esq.

100 Pearl Street , 14 th Floor
Hart ford , CT 06103
By : J ay M. Wolman, Esq .
Counsel for Intervenor Alan Ders h owitz

600 Fifth Avenue , 10 th Floor
New York, NY 10020
By: Andrew G. Celli, Jr ., Esq.
1 This dayt i me business address is provided for

identification and correspondence purposes only a n d is not
intended to imply institutional endorsement by t he University of
Utah for this private representation .
SPA-3
Table of Contents
I . Prior Proceedings ... ........ . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

II.The Motion to Intervene is Granted ..... . .. .. .. . ... . ... . .... 11
III. The Issues and the Applicable Standards .... ... ..... ... .... 13
IV . The Motion to Unseal the Discovery Documents is Denied .... 24
V . The Swnmary Judgment Judicial Documents .. .. . .. ... ...... .... 26
is Denied . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . ...... ... ... . 30
VII. Conclusion ... . .......... ... ........ . ...... . . ... ... .... ... . 38
SPA-4
Sweet, D . J.
Third- party proposed i n tervenors The Miami Herald
Medi a Company (the "Miami Hera l d") a nd investiga tive journal ist
for t he Miami He rald Julie Brown ("Brown") (collectiv~ly , the
"Intervenors" ), have moved pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
plaintiff Virginia Giuffre ("Giuffre " or the "Plaintiff")
against defendant Ghislaine Maxwell ("Maxwell " or the
"Defendant") and to unseal al l o f the documents previous l y
sealed in this act ion.
Resolut ion, c l arity and certainty, sometime s d elayed,
are h allmar k s of the judicial process. The present motions
c hal lenge certain r e solutions of thi s sett led and closed action
a nd raise significant issues , the conduct of the discovery
process , the enfo r ceability of confidentialit y agreement s and
protective orde r s , the privacy rights of parties and witn esses ,
the public interest and the rol e of t he media, and the
transparency of the judicial process .
This defama t ion acti on from it s incept i o n in September
20 15 t o its settlement in May 2017 has been bitterly contes ted
and difficult to administer because of the t r u t h or fa l sity of
1
SPA-5
the allega tions conce rning the intimate , sexual , and private
conduct o f the parties and o f th ird persons, some prominent ,
some priva t e . The instant motions renew t h at pattern and require
a reexamination of the effort t o provide an appropriate
res olution of the issue s presented by the litigat i on.
Upon this reexamination and th e conclus i ons s et forth
below, the mot ion to intervene is granted, and the mot i on to
unseal is denied as to t h e documents produced in the discovery
p rocess and a s to the summary judgment judicia l doc umen ts based
o n the diff i cult balan c ing of the confl icting principles
desc r ibed b e low.
I n early 20 11 Giuffre, in a n i nterview with journalist
Sh aron Churcher ("Churchern) wh ich was published i n two Brit ish
tabloids , described Maxwell's alleged role as someone who
recruited o r facilitated the recru itment of young females for
sexual activity with Jeffrey Epst e i n ("Epsteinn), that she ,
Giuffre , had been inte r vie we d by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (" FBi n) in 2011, and that she had discussed
Maxwell's i nvolvement in t h e descri bed sexual abuse . Maxwell
issued a statement denying t h is acco unt on March 9, 2 01 1 .
2
SPA-6
On January 1, 2015, Giuffre moved to join two a l leged
Vict ims ' Rights Act against the United States, purport ing to
challenge Epstein's plea agreement . Giuffre ' s joinder motion
(the "Joinder Mot ion") included numerous details about Giuffre 's
repeat edly named Maxwell in the Joinder Mo t ion as being
personally involved in the sexual abuse and sex tra fficking
scheme created by Epste in.
On January 3, 2015, Maxwell again issued a s tatement ,
responding to the allegations made in connection with Giuffre 's
Joinder Motion . Maxwell stated that Giuffre's allegations
"against Ghi slaine Maxwell are untrue" a nd that Giuffre's
"claims are obvious lies" (the "January 3 Statement " ) .
Giuffr e filed her complaint i n this acti on on
September 21, 2015 (the "Complaint "), setting forth her claim of
defa mation by Maxwell arising out of the Maxwel l January 3
Statement . Giuffre alleged she was the "vict im o f sexual
trafficki ng and abuse while she was a minor child" and that
Maxwe ll "facilitated" Giuffre's sexual abuse and "wrongfully"
subjected Giu ff re to "public ridicule, contempt and disgra ce" by
denying Giuffre's allegations . Giuffre further alleged that over
3
SPA-7
locations" around the world with prominen t and pol i tically
powe rful men.
Vigorous litigation was undertaken by the part ie s, as
demonstrated by the 950 docket entries as o f August 27 , 2018 ,
p rimary issue presented was the trut h or fals ity o f the January
3 statement issued by Maxwell, which in turn challenged all t he
previous statements made t o the press by Giuffre and in
Giuffre ' s Joinder Motion. This resu lted, understandably, in a
le ngthy and tumult uous d iscovery process resulting in 1 8
h earings and 15 d e cisions.
After hearing counsel, it was determined t hat fact
discovery would be comp leted on Ju l y 29, 2 016, 2 see Proposed
Discovery and Case Management Plan , Aug. 1, 2016 , EC F No. 317 .
Both part ies early on recognized t he extreme sens i tivities and
privacy interests aris i ng out o f a n effect i ve discovery process
involving the truth or falsity of the allegations at issue . The
2 The parties reserved the right to extend thi s deadline

where the parti es so a greed, or fo r good cause shown. See
Proposed Discovery and Case Management Plan , Aug . 1 , 2016 , ECF
No . 317.
4
SPA-8
agreement , and endorsed by the Court on March 17, 2016 (the
"Protective Order"), and the seal ing order was orde red by the
Court o n August 9 , 201 6 (the " Sealing Orde r"), for the purpose
of protecting the discovery and dissemination o f confidential
informati on to be exchanged in th is action. See Protective
Ord er , ECF No. 62 . This Protect ive Orde r al lowed the parties to
provide discovery on h ighly private and sens itive sub j ects
without it being disclosed to the public , ab sent an additional
o rder of t his Court . The Protective Order served "to protec t the
discovery a nd dissemination of confidential information or
infor mation which wi ll properly annoy , embarrass, o r o ppress any
party, witne ss , or pe rson providi ng discove ry in t his case ." Ee~·
0kt. 62. The Protective Orde r applied broadly "to all documents ,
materials, and info rmat i on , including wi thout limitat ion,
documents produced , a n s we rs to inte rrogatories, respon ses to
r e quests for admission, deposition testimony, a n d other
information disclosed pursuant to the disclosure or dis cove ry
dut ies created by the Federal Rules o f Civil Procedure." Id . ~
1.
The Prot e c tive Order also provided the procedure s to
des i gnate any such material as confidential , and to chall e nge
s uch de signations. I d . ~~ 8-10. Upon r eview by an atto rney
5
SPA-9
acting in good fait h, the designating party was to designate
certain confidential information as "CONFIDENTIAL ," triggering a
action. Id. ! 8. When a party filed mat er i al designated as
confidential with the Court, it was to additionally fi l e a
York. Id . ! 10. Absent conse nt of the producing party,
des i gnated documents " shall not . be disclosed." 3 Id. ! 5.
party or destroy the documents. Id . ! 12. The Protective Order
[S]uch information may be disclosed to : a) attorneys

actively working on this case ; b) persons regularly
employed or assoc i ated with the attorneys active ly
working on t his case whos e assistance is required by
connection with this procee ding, to the extent such
employees . . in this case; f) stenographic
reporte rs who are engaged in proceedings necessarily
incident to the conduct of this action; g) deponents ,
witnes ses, or potential witnesses; and h) other
persons by written agreement of t h e parties.
Id. ! 5 .
6
SPA-10
specified that it "shall have no force and e ff ect on the use of
From March 17, 20 16 to August 9 , 2016, 26 motion s to
seal were filed with the Court pursuant t o t he Protective Order,
.each of which we re granted . On August 9, 20 16, an order amended
the Pro tective Order as fo llows :
To reduce unne ces sary filings a nd delay, it is hereby

orde red that letter motions to file submiss i ons under
seal pursuant to the Court ' s Prot ective Or der, ECF No.
62, are granted . The Protective Order is amended
accordingly such that filin g a letter motion seeking
sealing for each submission is no longer n ecessary. A
party wishing to challenge t he sealing of any
particular submi ssion may do so by motion .
Sealing Order, ECF No. 348 . One hundred sixty-seven documents
were sealed pursuant t o the Sealing Order.
On Augus t 11, 2016 , Intervenor Alan Dershowit z
("Dershowitz" or "Intervenor Dershowitz") moved to u nseal three
documents: (1) port i ons of a Reply Brief submitted by Churcher
in support of h er motio n to quash the subpoena served on her;
(2) emails b e tween Churcher and Gi uffre submitt ed in connection
wi t h the same mot i on; and (3) a draft of a manus cript prepared
by Giuffre submitted in connection with a moti on to ext end a
time deadline. See Dershowitz Motion to Intervene, Aug . 11,
2016 , ECF Nos. 362 - 64 . Other than the requested documents which
7
SPA-11
he sought in order to make a public statement, Dersh o witz agreed
to be bound by the Protective Order. S ee Dershowit z Deel. , ECF
No. 363 i 30 . On November 2 , 2016, the motion wa s de nied on the
basis that the se docume nts "were s ubmi tted with respect to t he
discovery process ra ther than in connection with t h P. rlisposition
documents" such that no presumption o f access exists . Giuffre v .
Maxwell, No. 1 5 Civ . 7433 (RWS) (S .D.N.Y. Nov. 2 , 2 016), ECF No.
496 . Appea l h as been fil ed on that decision .
Pursuant t o severa l amendment s , a t rial date of May
25 , 2017 was determined. See Order , Oct. 30 , 2015 , ECF No. 13 ;
Amended Prop osed Discovery and Case Management Plan , Sept. 3 0,
20 1 6 , ECF No. 451; Amended Second Discovery and Case Management
P lan, Feb . 27, 2 017, ECF No. 648 ; Joint Letter, May 8 , 2017, ECF
No. 912.
Expert discovery wa s comp let ed on November 30 , 2016 .
See id.
Twenty-nine motions in limine were filed by t h e
parties between January 5 , 2017 a nd May 1, 2 01 7 , on which
decision was reserved. See ECF Nos . 520 , 522, 52 4, 526 , 528 ,
8
SPA-12
530, 533 , 535, 561, 563, 567, 608, 663 - 667 , 669 , 671 , 673 , 675,
677, 679 , 681, 683 , 685-86 , 68 9 , 691 .
Maxwell filed a motion fo r summary judgment on Janua ry
6 , 20 1 7 , which was heard on Febru ary 1 6 , 2017 and denied by an
opinion filed on March 22 , 201 7. See Sealed Document , March 2 4,
20 1 7 , EC F No. 779 ( the "Summary Judgment Opinion"). The parties ,
in accordance with the agreed upon procedures , were directed to
joint l y fi le a proposed redac ted version of the Summary Judgment
Opinio n consistent wi t h t he Protect ive Order . The a g reed upon
red acted opinion was fil ed with the Court and made public on the
docket o n April 27 , 2017 (the "Redacted Opi nion") . See Redacted
Opinion, April 27 , 2017, ECF No . 872 .
On January 19 , 2017, Inte rvenor Michael Ce rnovich
("Cernovi c h" or "Intervenor Cernovich") made a motion t o unseal
the ma t erials submitted in connec tion with Maxwel l' s mo tion for
summary judgment , whi ch the Court denied on May 3 , 2 017 (the
"May 3 Opinion ") on the basis that Cernovi c h "ha[ d] not
established a compelling need for the documents obtai ned in
discovery which undergird the summary judgment decis i o n. "
Giuffre v. Maxwel l , No. 15 Civ . 7433 (RWS ) (S.D.N.Y. Ma y 3 ,
2 017), ECF No . 892. "This act i on is current l y scheduled for
9
SPA-13
trial i n mid-May and a release of contested confidenti al
discovery mat e ri als coul d conceivab ly taint the jury pool . " Id.
The parties arrived at a settlement and joint ly
stipulated to d ismiss this action o n May 24 , 201 7. See
Stipul atio n of Vo l untary Di s missal, ECF No. 916 ; J oint
Stipulation for Dismissal, ECF No. 919. The set tlemen t
confidential wit h terms known only to the pa rti es . This case was
closed on May 25 , 20 1 7 .
On April 9 , 2018, t h e Miami Herald filed the instant
motion, con tending t hat al l sealed documents in thi s action are
presumpt ively public under both common law principle s and the
First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution , and were sealed
pursuant to an improvident l y g ran ted protective order, which
allowed the parties to designa te informa tion as con fidential
without the particularized judicial s c rutiny requ ired by the law
prior to seali ng . See ECF No . 62 . The motion was joined by
Interven o r Dershowit z, who requested t hat he be advi sed of any
do c ume nts unsealed in order to request unsealing of additiona l
document s to protect his interests , and by Intervenor Cernovich.
Argume nt was heard on May 9 , 2018 , at which time this motion was
con sidered f ully submi tte d.
10
SPA-14
II . The Motion to Intervene is Granted
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 prov i des
int ervention of right under Rule 24(a) to anyone who " claims an
interest re l ating to the property or transact ion that i s the
sub j ect of the acti o n , and i s so s.ituated t h at dispos i ng of the
act i on may as a practical matter impair or impede th e mova n t 's
ability to protect its interest , un l ess exis t ing part i es
adequat e ly r e p r esent that interest." Fed. R. Civ . P. 24(a ) .
Pe r missive i ntervention ma y b e granted t o a n yone "who has a
clai m or de f ense that shares with the ma in action a common
question of l a w or fact." Fed . R. Civ. P . 2 4(b) .
Becau se courts, including thi s o ne, "have repeated ly
recogn i zed that members of t h e press (and other non-parties) may
seek to pursue mo d i fi cat i o n of confid ent iality orde rs that have
led t o sea li ng of docume nts f i l e d with the court," and si nce
"the a ppropriate procedural me chanism to do so is a motion to
intervene , " the mot i on of Brown a n d the Miami Hera ld to
intervene is g r anted . See In re Pineapple Antitrus t Litig ., No .
04 Md . 1628 (RMB} (MHD} , 2 0 1 5 WL 5439090, at *2 (S . D.N .Y. Aug .
1 0 , 2015); Giuffre v . Maxwell, No . 15 Civ . 7433 (RWS} (S.D.N . Y.
Nov. 2 , 20 1 6 ), ECF No. 496 (Opinio n Grant i ng Ders ho wi t z Mot ion
to Intervene); Giuff re v . Maxwell , No. 1 5 Civ . 7433 (RWS }
11
SPA-15
(S.D.N.Y . May 3 , 2017) , ECF No. 892 (Opinion Grantin g Cernovich
Moti on to Inte rven e ).
May 2 5, 2017 pursuant t o the settlement agreement , "intervent ion
for the purpose of chal l enging conf identiality orders is
pe rmissible even years afte r a cas e is closed . " United States v .
Erie Cnty , r N.Y., No . 09 Civ. 849S , 2013 WL 4679070 , at *6
(W . D.N . Y. Aug. 30 , 2013) , revrd on other gds ., 763 F.3d 235 (2d
Cir. 20 14); see also In re Pi neapple Antitrust Liti g. , 20 15 WL
5439090 , a t * 2 ("[T]here is no implication in the caselaw or in
disable a journalist from seeking unsea ling.") . Moreover,
"[w]hether deemed a n interve ntion as of right under Ru le 24(a)
or a permissive intervention under Ru le 24(b) , intervention by
the press-a step prel iminary t o determin i ng whethe r any sealed
documents should be d i sclos ed- shou ld be granted absent some
compelling justification for a contrary result . " In re Pin eapple
Antitrust Litig., 2015 WL 5439090 , at *2 (footnote omitted).
Accordingly , the motion to intervene is g ra nte d, a nd
it is appropriate to reopen th e case f or the disposition of the
instant motion .
12
SPA-16
III . The Issues and the Applicable Standards
Th e i ssues presented by the p arties engage vital
societal concepts , the privacy rights of i ndi viduals, the
judicial process to es tablish truth or falsity, the transparency
of that process, and freedom of information and of the press . On
these concepts our Circuit has rendered he l pful guidance. 4
4 See United States v . HSBC Bank USA, N.A ., 863 F.3d 125
(2d Cir . 2017) (noting discovery documents l ie beyond the
presumption of public access); Bernstei n v. Bernstein Litowitz
Berger & Grossmann LLP, 814 F.3d 1 32 {2d Cir . 2016) (weigh i ng
interests in f avor of access); Newsday LLC v . Cnty. of Nassau,
730 F . 3d 156 (2d Cir. 2013) (finding First Amendment right of
access to contempt proceeding) ; N.Y. Civil Liberties Union v.
N. Y.C . Transit Auth ., 684 F . 3d 286 (2d Clr . 2012 ) (qualified
First Amendment righ t of pub lic access attached to TAB hearings
conducted by Ne w York City Transit Authority); United States v.
Aref, 533 F . 3d 72 (2d Cir . 20 08) (finding that where classified
i nformation presented at trial, if disclosed , would jeopard i ze
national securi ty weighed against public access); Lugosch v .
Pyramid Co . of Onondaga , 4 35 F . 3d 110 (2d Cir. 2 006) (existence
of confidentia l ity order alone did not defeat presumption of
public access); Hartford Courant Co . v . Pellegrino, 380 F . 3d 83
(2d Cir. 2004) ( establ ishing qualified First Amendment right of
access to sealed docket s h eets ) ; Sec . Exch . Comm'n v .
TheStreet . com , 273 F . 3d 222 (2d Cir . 200 1 ) (holding pretrial
deposition test imo ny were n ot "judicial documents"); DiRussa v .
Dean Wi tter Reynolds Inc . , 121 F . 3d 818 (2d Cir . 1997) (sealing
file pursuant to confiden tialit y agreement between part ies was
not abuse of d iscretion); United States v . Amodeo, 44 F . 3d 141
cou rt t o e dit and r e dact judicial document t o allow access to
appropriate p ortions afte r weighing competing interests ) ; United
States v. Amodeo , 7 1 F . 3d 1044 (2d Cir . 1 995} ("Amodeo II")
(presumpti on of access afforded to particular document filed
with court varies with document ' s r e l evan ce to exe rcise of
Art i c l e I I I functions); Gardner v . Newsd a y , 895 F. 2d 7 4, 79 {2d
Cir . 19 90) (balancing newspaper's common law right of access
13
SPA-17
Because of t he nature of t his de f a mation actio n, the particu lar
allegations at issue involving sexua l conduct, and the need to
b e able to rely on court determinations, this mot ion presents a
unique pattern fo r decis i on .
the boundaries of privacy , or " t he right to be let alone ," but
the r esult remains a mosaic , the deve lopment of which can be
t raced more t o the unraveli ng of case law t h a n the priority of
ce rtain rights over others . See Lo uis Menand, Why Do We Care So
Much About Priva cy? , THE NEW YORKER, June 1 8, 2018.
The legal imp l ications of privacy have been cons idered
in relat i on to "te legraphy , telephony , instantaneous photography
(snapshots) , dactyloscopy (fingerprint ing) , Social Security
numbers , suburbanization , the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
Inventory, Fourth Ame ndment jurisprudence, abortion right s, gay
liberation , human-subject research, the Family Educational
Rights and Pri vacy Act , ' 60 Minutes, ' Betty Ford , the 1973 PBS
documentary ' An American Fami ly ,' the Starr Report , the memoir
craze , b logging, and social media." Id . at 6 ; see e.g. , Smith v.
with defendant's privacy rights) ; Joy v. North, 692 F.2 d 880 ( 2d

Cir. 1 982 ) (di s tinguishing between documents obtai n e d in
discovery from those fi l ed pursuant to an adjudication for
purposes of th e "judicial document" det ermi n ation ).
14
SPA-18
Maryland, 442 U. S . 7 35 ( 197 9) (holding no reasonable expectation
of privacy in phone numbers dialed); Assoc. Press v . U. S. Dep't
of Defense, 554 F.3d 274 (2009) (finding Guantanamo deta i nees
enjoy a privacy interes t i n the nondi sclosure of their names and
identifying i nformation in records containing allegations of
abuse by military personne l and by other detainees); Nat'l
Archives & Records Admin. v . Favish , 541 U.S. 157 (2004)
surviving family members' right t o persona l privacy with respect
to their c lo se relative 's d eath-scene images).
(private roads and private sales) , " see United States v. Knotts,
460 U.S . 276, 282 (1983 ) (holding that defendant enjoyed a
thoroughfares) , "with confidentialit y (private conversations),"
see Katz v . United States , 389 U.S . 347, 351 (1967) (holding
that defendant did not shed his reasonable expectati on of
privacy in holding a pr i vate conversation in a public phone
booth), "with noncomformi ty and dissent ," see Warden v . Hayden,
387 U.S . 295 , 323 (1967) (Douglas , J., dissenting) ("Those who
wrote the Bill of Rights believed that every indivi dual needs
both to communicate with others and t o keep h is affa i rs to
15
SPA-19
himself . That dual aspect of privacy me ans that the individual
should have t he free d o m to select for himse l f the t ime and
circumstances whe n he will s h are h is secret s with others and
decide t he extent of that sharing."), "with shame and
embarrassment , " sec Perlman v. U.S . Dep't of Justice, 312 F . 3 d
100, 106 (2d Cir . 2002 ), vacated and remanded, 5 41 U. S. 970
(2 004) , aff'd, 380 F.3d 1 10 (2d Cir. 20 0 4) (per cur i am)
because being identified as par t o f a law e nforcement
investi gation could s ubject them to 'embarrassme n ts and
harassment '"), "with the deviant and the taboo . .," see
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 , 573 (2003) (holding that
persons i n a h omosexu a l relationship ma y seek aut onomy in their
consensua l sexual conduct in t he home j ust as hete rosexua l
persons do) , " a n d with subterfuge and concea lment , " see U. S .
Dep ' t of Justice v . Reporters Comm . For Freedom of Press , 489
U. S . 749, 763 (1 989 ) (holdi ng that an indiv i d ual ' s interest in
n o n disclosure of an FBI rap s h eet was the sort of persona l
privacy interes t that Congress intended FOIA law enfo r cement
exemption to p rotect ); see Menand, supra at 6.
In the law , "privacy functions as a k ind of default
right when an injury h as b een inflicted and no oth er r i ght seems
to suit the case ." Menand, supra a t 6. The right to privacy
16
SPA-20
might e manate from one or many Amendments to the Consti tuti on.
For example, the right prohibiting the government fr om obtaining
heat wave informat ion from withi n one 's home by way of sense -
notion s of privacy roo t ed in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence , see
Kyllo v . Unit ed Sta tes, 533 U.S . 27, 34 (2001), while the right
of a woman, with certain exceptions , to pursue an abortion
beyond the state 's pol ice powers e xists i n the zones of privacy
arising from the First, Fourth , Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth
Amendments, see Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 1 13 , (1973) (ho lding t hat
constitutiona l right of privacy is broad enough to encompass
woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnan cy , but
that this right i s not abso lute in that the state may properly
assert important i nterest s in safeguarding h e alth, in
these disparate concepts does not lend itself t o easy
det erminations of privacy r ight s . Nevertheless, certain t hings
enjoy an undisputed r ight to priva cy: trade secrets , see Kewanee
Oil Co. v. Bi cron Corp., 416 U.S. 470, 475-76 {1974) {the holder
o f a trade secre t is protected against the disclosure or
unauthori zed use o f the trade secret); sexual activity (a l though
of what kind it rema ins to be determined), compare Lawrence , 539
17
SPA-21
U.S. 558 (making it unconstitution al to criminalize homosexual
re l ations) with Eisenstadt v . Baird, 405 U.S . 438 (1972)
(h olding unconstitutio nal Massachuset ts statute permit t ing
marri ed persons to o btain co nt r acept i ves but p roh i biting
distribution of contraceptive s to single persons); And persona l
characterist i cs-such as t he rad iat i o n of heat from one ' s home ,
Kyllo, 533 U. S . 27 , and the unampli f ied sound of one's voice ,
Ka t z , 389 U. S . 347-which make up Fourth Amendment juri sprudence .
ba l a n ced aga i nst t h e public ' s r i ght t o access rooted in First
Amendment and common law jurisprudence .
There are two "related but distinct presumpti ons in
favor of public access to court . . records : a strong form
rooted in t he First Amendment and a s l ightly weaker form based
in federa l common law . " Newsday LLC v . Cnty . of Nassau, 730 F . 3d
156 , 163 (2d Cir . 20 1 3). Gen erally , the public holds a n
affirmative , enforceable right of access to judicial r ecords
under both t he common law and the First Amendment to t he U. S .
Constitution . " The presumption of access is based on the need
for federal courts, although independent- indeed, part i cul arly
because they are ind ependent- to have a measure of accountabi li ty
and for the public to h ave confidence in the administratio n of
j u stice . " United States v . Amodeo, 71 F. 3d 1044 , 1048 (2d Cir .
18
SPA-22
1995) ("Amodeo II"). However , "the r ight to inspect .
judicial records is n ot abs olute. Every court h as supervisory
power over its own records and f iles, and access h as been denied
where court files might have become a vehi cle for improper
purposes" such as us ing reco rds "to gratify spite or promote
scandals" or where files might serve "as r eservoirs of libe l ous
s tat e ments f or pres s consumption." Nixon v. Warner Commc 'ns,
Inc. , 435 U. S . 589 , 5 98 ( 1978); see also Amodeo II , 71 F. 3d at
1051 (interna l quotation marks and c itation omitted) ("Courts
h ave long declined to a llow public access simply to cater to a
morbid craving f o r that wh ic h is sensational and impure .").
Pret rial discovery is intended to aid the parties in
their search for t rut h. See Hickman v . Taylor, 329 U. S . 4 9 5, 501
(1947) (celebrating that " [t]he depos i tion - d i scovery regime set
out by the Federal Rul es of Civil Procedure i s an extremel y
permissive one to which co u r ts h ave l ong ' a ccorded a broad and
liberal treatment to effectuate their p u rpose that civil trial s
in the feder al court s [n eed not ] be carried on in the dark,'"
and that d i scovery is a powerful tool for "the parties t o obtain
t he fullest poss ible know ledge of t he i ssues and facts b e fore
tri a l."). It i s presumed that the t rial itse l f will make the
final determination of tr u t h or fal s ity . The boundary between
19
SPA-23
discovery and tr i al is sometime s , as here , blurred. The effort
i s assis t ed by the definit i o n of " judicial documents ."
Whether d iscovery or tria l , " a court must first
conclude that the d ocument s at issue a r e indeed 'judicial
documents.'" Lugos ch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F. 3d 110,
1 19 (2d Ci r. 2006); see also id . (noting that " only judicial
whether on common l aw or Fist Amendment grounds."). If the
document is a judicia l document , courts next ask whe ther the
presumption of access is a product of the commo n law right of
access, or of t he more robust First Ame ndme n t right to access
certain judicial documents . Id. at 11 9-2 0 . It is a given
accepted by t he Protec tive Order that the tria l and a l l trial
documents are accessible and public absent specia l
c i rc umstances.
Under the common law approach , once a document is
classified as a judici al document , t he p resump tio n of access
a ttaches . Id. a t 119 . The court mus t then determine the weight
of the presumption of access, wh ich is a fun ction of "the role
power" a nd " t he resultant value o f such information to those
mo nitoring the federa l courts . " See id . ; Stern v. Cosby, 529 F.
20
SPA-24
Supp. 2d 417, 420 {S.D.N.Y. 2007) (internal citations omitted)
is, whether the presumption is an especially strong o n e that can
whether the presumption i s somewhere in between."). Documents
traditionally fal l somewhere on a continuum "from matters that
court's purview solely to ens ure their irrelevance." Amodeo II,
71 F . 3d at 1049. Such a presumption under the common law may be
privacy interests, the public's safety, or preservati on of
attorney-client privilege." Under Sea l v. Under Seal , 273 F.
Su pp . 3d 460, 467 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (collecting cases).
criminal or civil . " Id. at 468 {citing Richmond Newspapers, Inc.
v. Virginia , 448 O. S . 555 , 580 (1980)) {internal c i tation
omitt ed) . This right applies specifically to "related
government ' s arbitrary interference wi t h access to important
21
SPA-25
information." N.Y. Civil Liberties Union v . N . Y . C . Transit
Auth ., 684 F.3d 286 , 298 (2d Cir. 2012) (citations omitted) . As
noted above , the Protective Order specified t hat confidenti al
material would not be protec ted with respect to any document
proffered at trial .
The Second Circuit has recognized two approaches f o r
determining whet her the First Amendment right of access extends
to particular judicial r eco rds. Lugosch, 4 35 F.3d at 120. In the
eva luates whether t he d ocume nts are those that "have
functioning of the particul a r process in question." Id . Courts
Hartford Courant Co . v . Pellegrino, 380 F.3d 83, 92 (2d Cir .
2004) .
attaches t o judi cial docume nts "derived from or a necessary
corollary of the capacity to attend the relevant proceedings."
Id . at 93 . Accordingly, the Second Circuit has found "the right
22
SPA-26
of particular tribunals ." Id.; see also id. (observing t hat
"[o]ther c ircuits that have addressed [the] question h ave
construed the consti tutional right of acces s to app ly to writ ten
documents submitted in connection with judici al proceedings that
To be clear , the First Amendment creat es only a
presumptive right of access. Newsday, 730 F.3d at 1 64 - 65. "What
offends the First Amendment is the attempt to do so wit hout
suffi c ient justification ." N.Y. Civil Liberties Union, 684 F.3d
at 296 . Under either approach , a presumpt ive right of access may
be overcome by "specific , on-the-reco rd find i ngs that sealing is
n ecessa ry to preserve highe r values a nd on l y if the sealing
F.3d at 124 . The part y seeking to keep t he judicial documents
u nder seal carries the burden of demonstrating t hat higher
values overcome the presumption of publi c access, DiRussa v .
Dean Witter Reynolds Inc., 121 F.3d 8 18 , 826 (2d Cir. 1997), and
such a showing must be supporte d by "finding s specific enough
that a reviewing court can d e termine whether t he c l osure order
wa s properly entered ." Press-Enter. Co . v . S uperior Court of
Cal ., Riverside Cnty., 464 U.S . 50 1, 510 (1984).
23
SPA-27
The parties early on agreed that the release o f
expose the parties to annoyance, embarrassment, and opprP.ssion
given the h i ghl y sensitive nature of the underlyi ng allegations .
The part ies mutually assented to entering i nto t he Protect ive
confidentia l in cluded a range of al l egat ions of sexual acts
involving Plaintiff and non-part ies t o this litigation, some
famous, some not; the identities of non- parties who either
allegedly engaged in sexual acts with Plaint iff or who allegedly
facilita ted such acts ; Plaintiff's sexual history and pr i or
The Protect i ve Order has ma i ntained the confidentiality of these
sensitive materi als. One hundred sixt y-seve n discovery documents
Order.
Further , upon the issuance of a n opi nion by t his
Court , the parties were directed to jointly file a proposed
f orth above . The parties submitted the Redacted Opi n i on to
24
SPA-28
Order .
Except as discuss e d below , the documents seale d in the
course of discovery were neither re lied upon by this Court in
the rendering of a n a djudication, n o r "necessary to or he l pful
in resolving [ a] motion." See Al exander In teractive, Inc. v .
Adorama, Inc., No. 12 Civ . 6608 (PKC) (JCF) , 20 14 WL 4346174 , at
*2 (S .D .N .Y. Sept. 2 , 2014) . Mo re over, o ur Circuit has "long
recognized that documents ' passed between t he parties in
dis covery[] lie entire ly beyond t he . reac h' of the
presumption of publ ic access." United States v . HSBC Bank USA,
N.A., 863 F .3d 125 , 1 39 (2d Cir . 20 17); see also S ec. Exch .
Comm'n v. Am. Int'l Grp., 71 2 F .3d 1, 24 (D.C. Cir. 2013)
("[T]hough filing a document with the court i s not sufficient t o
render the document a jud i cia l record, i t is ve r y much a
prere quisite."). To provide "unthi n kabl e ac cess to every item
t u rned up in the course of litigation would be unthinkable ."
Amodeo II , 71 F.3d at 1048. Accordingly , t he motion to unseal
25
SPA-29
Under the common law and First Amendment, the primary
inquiry is whether the documents at issue are "judicia l
documents." To be a judicial document , "t:h e it.em filed must be
re l evant to the performance of the judicial function and useful
in the judicial p rocess ." Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 119; see HSBC
Bank USA/ N.A., 863 F. 3d at 134 ("The thre shold merits quest i on
i n this case is whether the [sealed document] is a judicial
document , as only judicial documents are subj ect to a
presumptiv e right of public access , whether on common law or
contents to the nature of t he proceeding" and t he degree to
in understanding the issues before t he . court, and in
evaluating the fai rness and integrity of the court's
proceedings." Bernstein v . Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann
LLP, 814 F.3d 132, 139 (2d Cir . 2016) (citing Newsday LLC, 730
F.3d at 166- 67) (alteration omitted).
Documents fi l ed with the court vary i n their status a s
' judicial documents. ' At one end of the continuum, "[t]he me r e
filing of a paper or document with t h e court i s insufficie n t to
26
SPA-30
p ubli c access." United States v . Amodeo, 44 F . 3d 14 1 , 145 (2 d
Cir. 1995) ("Am odeo I"). Likewi se , the filing of "deposition
transcripts, interrogatorie s , and documents exchan ged in
d i scovery" with a court is not suffici ent to reach the status of
judicial document, and to cons i der them as such "would
constitute a radical expansion of the 'public acce ss' doctri n e."
HSBC Bank USA, N.A ., 863 F . 3d at 139 (citing Amodeo II , 71 F . 3d
at 1 048) ; accord Joy v. North, 692 F. 2d 880, 893 (2d Cir. 1982)
("Discovery involves the u se of compulsory process t o faci li t a te
orderly preparation for trial, not to educate or tit illate the
public. Private matters which are d iscoverable may, upon a
showing of cause , be put u nder seal under Rule 26(c) , in the
fi rst instance."). At the other e nd, the " case law i s clear that
pleadings and summary judgment papers . . are judicial
documents upon filing . " Id. at 141- 42 . The Second Circuit has
repeatedly he ld that all documents submitted in support of a
motion for summary judgment , whether or not relied upon, "are
unquestionab l y judicia l documents under the common law."
Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 123. The same appl ies for complaints. See
Bernstein , 814 F.3d at 140 (internal citation o mitt ed) ("A
complaint , which initiates judi cial proceedings, is the
cornerstone of every case , the very arc hitect ure of the laws uit,
27
SPA-31
and acces s to the complaint i s almost always necess ary if the
public is to unde r s t and a court's decis ion ." ) .
Some where in the middle l ie documents "submi tted
in suppo rt of a motion to compel discovery [which]
presuma bly wi ll be necessary to or he l pful in resolving that
motion . They are, therefore , judicial documents . " Alexander
Int eractive/ Inc., 20 14 WL 434617 4, at *2; see al so In re
Omnicom Grp ./ In c. Sec. Litig ., No. 02 Civ . 4483 (RCC) (MHD) ,
2006 WL 3016311, at *2 (S.D .N. Y. Oct. 23, 2006) (internal
c itation omitted) ( finding that a "series of lette r briefs wit h
accompanying exhibit s . certai nly qualify as judicial
documents" because t h ey are "relevant to the pe rfo r man ce of the
judicia l functi on and useful in the judicial process.").
The Summary Judgment Opin ion refers to facts drawn
from Maxwell's Memo ra ndum of Law in Support of Maxwell's Motion
for Summary Judgment ; Maxwel l ' s Rule 56.1 Statement of Material
Facts ; Gi u ffr e ' s Statement of Contested Facts a nd Giuffre ' s
Undisputed Facts; a nd Maxwell ' s Repl y t o Gi uffre 's Statement of
Contested Fact s and Giuff re 's Undisputed Facts pursuant to Lo ca l
Civi l Rule 56. 1 (the "Factual Statements") .
28
SPA-32
they rely, f ormed the basis of or the recital of both
Judgment Opinion. The recital and the Fac tual Statements
Complaint. That recital descr i bed t he issues to be resolved at
tri al , if, as was the case, the summary judgment was denied.
the substance of the evidence jointly deemed confidenti al by the
summary judgment motion are "judicial documents" trigger ing a
presumption of access subject to balancing unde r the First
Amendment and common law if they "directly affec t an
adjudication." Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 1 23 ("As a mat ter of law, we
hold that the contested documents-by virtue of having been
a motion for summary judgment- are unquestionably judic i al
29
SPA-33
VI . The Motion to Unseal the Summary Judgment Judicial
Documents is Denied
Intervenors contend that the Summary Judgment Judi cial
Documents should b e unsealed b ecause they carry a strong
presumption of acc ess under both the First Amendment and common
l aw , and the re are no compelli ng rea s ons to keep th em sealed .
Because i t has been d ete rmined that the Summa ry
Judgment Opinion and the materi als submi tt ed in connection with
it are judi c i al document s, the weight of the pres umpt ion under
the common l aw must be determined, in addit ion to any
countervaili ng factors . S ee Bernstein, 8 14 F . 3d a t 143 (citing
Lugosch , 43 5 F . 3d at 11 9- 20) (interna l quotation ma r ks omitted)
(not i ng that the fi nal step of t he inquiry as to the summary
judgment pape rs is the "weight-of-the -pres umption analysis :
ba l ancing the value of p u blic disc l o sure and cou n t erva i l i ng
factors . ") .
Intervenors asse rt that beca u se Defendant ' s motion for
summary judgment fits squarel y into t he d efinition of a j udicia l
document , those mat er i a ls are entit l ed to the strongest
presumption of access. Maxwe ll contends that the Int ervenors are
not in a position to det ermine the wei ght of the presumption
30
SPA-34
afforded each summary judgment document because they have no t
seen each document.
While th e Summary Judgme n t Judicia l Do cument s are
entitled to a presumpt ion of access, th is presumption is l P.ss
"where a district court denied t h e summary judgment motion,
es sent ially postpo ning a final determi nation o f substantive
l egal rights , [because ] t he public interest in access is not as
p r essing ." See Amodeo II, 7 1 F.3d a t 1049 (quoting In re
Reporters Comm . f o r Freedom of the Press , 773 F.2d 1 325 , 1342
n. 3 (D . C. Cir. 1985) (inte rnal quot ation marks omitt ed)
(emphas i s in o rigi nal) (alteration added) ). Because the mot i on
for summary judgment was d enied by the Court on March 22 , 20 1 "/ ,
the Summary Judgment Judic ial Document s are entitled to a lesser
presumption of access .
"Notwith standing the presumpti on of access u nder both
kept under seal if ' count ervailing fa ctors' i n th e common law
f ramewor k or 'higher valu es ' in the Firs t Amendment framewo rk so
demand ." Lugosch , 435 F. 3d at 125 . At common law, the
presump tion of access may be overcome by demonstrat i ng that
"sealing wi l l further o t her substant ial interests su c h as a
t hird party ' s pe r son a l privacy interest s , t he public's sa fet y,
31
SPA-35
F. Supp . 3d at 467; see Amodeo II , 71 F.3d at 1050 (describing
factors that weigh against the presumption of access) ; United
States v . Aref, 533 F.3d 72, 83 (2d Cir. 2008) (affirming a
sealing order "[g]iven the legitimate national-security concerns
client privilege "might well be . a compelling reason 11 to
order, "a s trong p resumption against public access" applies if a
establi shes " reasonabl[e] reli[ance ] on the protective order.").
Here , the primary countervailing factor is "the
privacy interests of those resisting disclosure ." Amodeo II, 71
F.3d at 1050; see also Gardner v. Newsday, 895 F.2d 74, 79 (2d
Cir. 1990) (" [T l h e common law right of access is qualified by
recognit i on of the privacy rights of the persons whose intimate
relations may thereby be disclosed . ") . The Second Circuit has
parties . . shou ld weigh heavily in a court's balancing
32
SPA-36
equation.ll Id. at 79-80; see also Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1051
("Such interests, while not always f itting comfortably under the
presumption of access.ll).
In assessing the weight to be accorded an assertion of
a right of privacy, "courts should f irst consider the d egree to
which the subject matte r is traditionally conside red private
rather than public.ll Amodeo II, 71 F . 3d at 1051. For example,
"[f]inancial records of a wholly owned business, family affairs,
illnesses, embarrassing conduct with no public ramifications ,
conduct affecting a substantial portion of the public . ll Id. ; but
see Unit ed States v . Silver, No. 15 Cr. 93 (VEC), 2016 WL
1572993, at *6 n.5 (S.D.N . Y. April 14, 2016) (emphasizing that
between wholly private c itizens or between a private c iti zen and
a government official where there is no i nt ersection with state
busi ne ss . In the case of the former , there is the ever- present
risk of public scrutiny and a l egitimate public interest in
e nsuring that government officials are acting in the publ ic' s
33
SPA-37
falsity of the underlying allegations of the sexual assau lt and
The "nature and degree of injury must a l so be
weighed," which means that cons ideration must also be given to
"the sensitivity of t he information and the subject but also of
as well as dozens of th ird persons, all of whom relied upon the
interests to the underlying confident ial information by
support ing this motion, as Maxwell has not agreed to such a
waiver.
More importantly , the dozens o f non-parties who
provided highly confidential information relating to t h e ir o wn
34
SPA-38
stories provided that in formation in reli ance on the Protect ive
Order and the u nderstandin g t hat it would continue to protect
everything it claimed it would. This interest is amp l i fied
where , as here, t h e Summary Judgment Judicial Documents " contain
sensitive and personal information aho11t. the sexual abuse of [J
minor [s ] ." Ka vanagh v. Zwilling, 997 F. Supp. 2d 2 41, 256
(S.D.N.Y. 2014). To disregard this protecti o n now wou ld be to
implicate the rights of dozen s of individuals who shared private
information under the trusted understanding that it would rema in
sealed . See Ga rdner, 895 F .2d at 79 ("[T]he privacy i nterests of
innocent third pa rti es as wel l as thos e of defendants that may
be ha rmed by disclosure of the Title I I I ma teri al should weigh
heavily in a cou rt ' s ba lancing equatio n . The job of
pro t ecti ng such interests r es ts heavily wi th the t rial judge ,
typically not be fore the court.u) .
The same cons iderat i ons apply under the First
Amendment, wh ere the "pres umption i s rebuttable upon
demonstration that supp res s i on ' is essential to pres e r ve higher
values and i s n arrowly tailored to serve that i n terest .'"
Har tford Courant Co. , 380 F.3d at 96 (quoting Press-Enterprise
Co . v. Superi or Court o f Cal., Riverside Cnty ., 4 64 U.S . 501,
510 (1984)) (internal citation omitted) What must b e determined
35
SPA-39
.. .~ Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 953 Filed 08/27/18 Page 39 of 41
'
is the "harm to a compelling interest , " Under Seal, 273 F. Supp.
3d at 469 , balanced against, in this case , a generalized public
interest. So long as "specific , o n the record findings are made
demonstrat i ng t hat ' closure is essential to preserve h igher
values and i s narrowly tailorerl to se r ve that interest, ' " the
documents may be sealed. In re N . Y . Times Co ., 828 F.2d 110, 116
(2d Cir. 1987) (citing Press -Enterprise Co. , 464 U.S. 510).
discussed above . It is also the integrity of the judicial
process .
reliance on the Protective Order and i ts provisions. It is not
allegations was a significant, if not determinative , facto r i n
the confidential settlement arrived at . That one of the parties
to that settlement , Giuffre, no longer opposes unsealing does
not vit i ate the strength of the agreement . I ndeed given the
entire context of the litigation it may demonstrate the n eed to
compel the parties to stick to t h eir b argain . See id. (noting
that this Circuit is ins tructe d to "give added weight to fair
36
SPA-40
a potentia l chilling effec t o n fut u re movants.").
While the Intervenors cite to the public interes t,
there are no parti c ul ars identified that point to t h e need for
evidence gathered from t h e period from 2015 to 2016 concerning
events that t ook place over 15 years ago. See Lug osch , 435 F.3d
at 125 ("Notwithstanding t h e presumption of public acce ss . • I
the documents may be kept under seal if . 'higher values' in
the First Amendment frame work so demand.").
Communicat i on s, Inc., 435 U. S . at 589 , "courts have the power to
insure that their r ecords are not us ed to gratif y p rivate spite
or pro mot e pub l i c scan da l, a nd have refused to permit their
files to serve as r eservoirs of l ibelous statements f or press
consumpti on ." (inte rna l quotation mar ks omi tted) .
Docume n t s would both promote scandal arising out of u nproven
poten t ially l ibe l ous statements- part icul a rly in light of the
allegation s re lat i ng to t h e sexual abuse of minors by public
figures , a nd defeat the compe lling privacy interests of the
parties a n d non- parties who re lie d o n the Protective Order.
37
SPA-41
VII. Conclusion
Based on the facts and conclusions set forth above,
the Intervenors' motion to intervene is granted, and this motion
to uns ea l is denied and the action is closed.
It is so ordered.
7
New York, NY
Augu•tf). 2018
-.~
,,/
U.S.D.J.
38
18-2868
d
IN THE

Plaintiff-Appellee,
—against—
GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
Defendant-Appellee,

JOINT APPENDIX
VOLUME I OF II
(Pages A-1 to A-215)
SIGRID S. MCCAWLEY SANFORD L. BOHRER

BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
401 East Las Olas Boulevard, 701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3300
Suite 1200 Miami, Florida 33131
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 (305) 374-8500
(954) 356-0011 MADELAINE J. HARRINGTON
PAUL CASSELL, PROFESSOR CHRISTINE N. WALZ
UNIVERSITY OF UTAH, HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
S.J. QUINNEY COLLEGE OF LAW 31 West 52nd Street
332 South 1400 East, Room 101 New York, New York 10019
Salt Lake City, Utah 84124 (212) 513-3200
(801) 585-5202 Attorneys for Intervenors-Appellants
Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellee
(Counsel continued on inside cover)
—against—

Respondents,
TY GEE
HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN, P.C.
Denver, Colorado 80203
(303) 831-7364
Attorneys for Defendant-Appellee
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Docket Entries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1
Complaint, dated September 21, 2015 (Dkt. 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-116
Defendant’s Motion for a Protective Order, dated March 2, 2016

(Dkt. 38) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-128
Protective Order, dated March 18, 2016 (Dkt. 62) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-131
So-Ordered Letter from Laura A. Menninger to the Honorable

Robert W. Sweet, dated April 15, 2016 (Dkt. 100) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-137
Letter Motion to File Plaintiff’s Non-Redacted Reply in Support of

Motion for Forensic Examination and Certain Exhibits Under
Seal, dated April 25, 2016 (Dkt. 120) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-139
Letter Motion to File Plaintiff’s Brief in Support of the Privilege

Claimed for her In Camera Submission and Certain Exhibits
Under Seal, dated May 4, 2016 (Dkt. 138) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-140
Letter Motion to File Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant to

Answer Deposition Questions Under Seal, dated May 5, 2016
(Dkt. 142) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-141
So-Ordered Letter Motion to File Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel

Defendant to Answer Deposition Questions Under Seal,
entered May 6, 2016 (Dkt. 145) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-142
So-Ordered Letter Motion to File Plaintiff’s Brief in Support of the

Privilege Claimed for her In Camera Submission and Certain
Exhibits Under Seal, dated May 4, 2016 (entered May 6, 2016)
(Dkt. 146) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-143
ii
PAGE
Letter Motion to File Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of Motion to
Compel Defendant to Answer Deposition Questions and Certain
Exhibits Under Seal, dated May 11, 2016 (Dkt. 151) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-144
So-Ordered Letter Motion to File Defendant’s Exhibits E and J to the

Declaration in Support of Motion to Compel Non-Privileged
Documents Under Seal, dated May 20, 2016 (Dkt. 158) . . . . . . . . . . . A-145
Letter Motion to File Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Serve Three

Deposition Subpoenas by Means Other Than Personal Service
and Certain Exhibits Under Seal, dated May 25, 2016 (Dkt. 159) . . A-147
So-Ordered Letter Motion to File Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of

Motion to Compel Defendant to Answer Deposition Questions
and Certain Exhibits Under Seal, entered May 26, 2016
(Dkt. 163) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-148
So-Ordered Letter Motion to File Defendant’s Exhibits C, H, J and K

to the Declaration in Support of Motion to Compel All Attorney-
Client Communications and Attorney Work Product Placed At
Issue by Plaintiff and her Attorneys and Certain Exhibits Under
Seal, entered May 27, 2016 (Dkt. 167) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-149
So-Ordered Letter Motion to File Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to

Serve Three Deposition Subpoenas by Means Other than Personal
Service and Certain Exhibits Under Seal, entered May 27, 2016
(Dkt. 168) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-151
Letter Motion to File Plaintiff’s Motion to Exceed Presumptive Ten

Deposition Limit in Federal Rule Civil Procedure 30(A)(2)(a)(ii)
So-Ordered Letter Motion to File Plaintiff’s Motion to Exceed

Presumptive Ten Deposition Limit in Federal Rule Civil
Procedure 30(A)(2)(a)(iii) and Certain Exhibits,
entered March 31, 2016 (Dkt. 178) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-153
iii
PAGE
Letter Motion to File Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to
Defendant’s Motion to Compel Attorney-Client Communications
and Attorney Work Product Materials and Certain Exhibits Under
Seal, dated June 1, 2016 (Dkt. 181) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-154
So-Ordered Letter Motion to File Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition

to Defendant’s Motion to Compel Non-Privileged Documents and
Certain Exhibits Under Seal, entered June 1, 2016 (Dkt. 182) . . . . . A-155

Certain Exhibits Under Seal, entered May 31, 2016 (Dkt. 183) . . . . A-155

to Defendant’s Motion to Compel Attorney-Client
Communications and Attorney Work Product Materials and
So-Ordered Letter Motion to File Defendant’s Exhibit S to the

Declaration in Support of Defendant’s Reply in Support of
Motion to Compel All Attorney-Client Communications and
Attorney Work Product Placed At Issue by Plaintiff and her
Attorneys Under Seal, entered June 7, 2016 (Dkt. 196) . . . . . . . . . . . A-157
So-Ordered Letter Motion to File Defendant’s Exhibit A to the

Declaration in Support of Defendant’s Response in Opposition to
Motion to Exceed Presumptive Ten Deposition Limit Under Seal,
entered June 7, 2016 (Dkt. 197) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-159

Exceed Presumptive Ten Deposition Limit in Federal Rule Civil
Procedure 30(A)(2)(a)(ii) and Certain Exhibits Under Seal, dated
June 13, 2016 (Dkt. 202) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-161
iv
PAGE
So-Ordered Letter Motion to File Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of her
Motion to Exceed Presumptive Ten Deposition Limit in Federal
Rule Civil Procedure 30(A)(2)(a)(iii), entered May 27, 2016
(Dkt. 209) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-162
So-Ordered Letter Motion to File Under Seal (1) Defendant’s

Combined Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Extending
Deadline to Complete Depositions and Motion for Sanctions for
Violations of Rule 45; (2) Motion to Reopen Deposition of
Plaintiff; and (3) Motion for Rule 37(b) & (c) Sanctions for
Failure to Comply with Court Order and Failure to Comply with
Rule 26(a), entered June 21, 2016 (Dkt. 236) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-163
Letter Motion to File Plaintiff’s Reply in Opposition to Defendant’s

Motion to Extend the Deadline to Complete Depositions and
Opposition to Motion for Sanctions for Violation of Rule 45 and
Certain Exhibits Under Seal, dated June 22, 2016 (Dkt. 245) . . . . . . A-165
Reply Declaration of Sigrid S. McCawley in Support of Motion to

Extend the Deadline to Complete Depositions and Opposition to
Motion for Sanctions for Violation of Rule 45,
dated June 22, 2016 (Dkt. 249) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-166
Exhibit 1 to McCawley Declaration—
Sigrid MacCawley’s March 7, 2016 Correspondence
to Martin G. Weinberg (Dkt. 249-1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-171
Sigrid MacCawley’s May 25, 2016 Correspondence
Gregory Poe’s June 16, 2016 Correspondence
to Bradley Edwards (Dkt. 249-5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-190
v
PAGE
to Bruce Reinhart (Dkt. 249-6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-201
Douglas G. Mercer’s Affidavit of Service, dated May 24, 2016
(Dkt. 249-7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-203
Jack Goldberg’s May 23, 2016 Correspondence
to Sigrid MacCawley (Dkt. 249-8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-209
Sigrid MacCawley’s June 21, 2016 Correspondence
Plaintiff’s Notice of Taking Videotaped Deposition
of Jane Luc Brunel (Dkt. 249-10) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-216
Brad Edwards’ June 14, 2016 Correspondence to Ross Gow
(Dkt. 249-11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-221
Transcript of May 24, 2016 Phone Conference with Plaintiff’s
Attorney, Defendant’s Attorney and Judge Robert Sweet
(Dkt. 249-12) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-224

Defendant’s Motion for Defendant’s Rule 37(b) & (c) Sanctions
for Failure to Comply with Court Order and Failure to Comply to
Rule 26(a) and Certain Exhibits Under Seal, dated June 28, 2016
(Dkt. 255) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-236

Defendant’s Motion to Reopen Plaintiff’s Deposition and Certain
Exhibits Under Seal, dated June 28, 2016 (Dkt. 256) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-237
vi
PAGE
to Defendant’s Motion for Defendant’s Rule 37(b) & (c)
Sanctions for Failure to Comply with Court Order and Failure to
Comply to Rule 26(a) and Certain Exhibits Under Seal,
entered May 27, 2016 (Dkt. 266) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-238
Letter Motion to File Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Sur-Reply

with Exhibits Under Seal, dated July 12, 2016 (Dkt. 271) . . . . . . . . . A-239

to Defendant’s Motion to Reopen Plaintiff’s Deposition and
Certain Exhibits Under Seal, entered July 13, 2016 (Dkt. 273) . . . . A-240
Order Granting Letter Motion for Leave to File Reply Brief in Further
Support of Motion to Quash, entered July 13, 2016 (Dkt. 275) . . . . A-241
Letter Motion to File Plaintiff’s Motion for an Adverse Inference

Instruction Pursuant to Rule 37(b), (e) and (f), Fed. R. Civ. P.
and Certain Exhibits Under Seal, dated July 13, 2016 (Dkt. 278) . . A-243
Order Granting Motion to Seal Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a

Sur-Reply with Exhibit, entered July 15, 2016 (Dkt. 281) . . . . . . . . . A-244
Order Granting Motion to Seal Motion for an Adverse Inference

and Certain Exhibits, entered July 15, 2016 (Dkt. 282) . . . . . . . . . . . . A-245
So-Ordered Letter Motion to File Defendant’s Exhibits to the

Declaration of Laura A. Menninger in Support of Reply to
Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Reopen
Plaintiff’s Deposition and the Declaration of Laura A. Menninger
in Support of Defendant’s Reply in Support of Motion for Rule
37(b) & (c) Sanctions for Failure to Comply with Court Order
and Failure to Comply with Rule 26(a) Under Seal,
entered July 15, 2016 (Dkt. 285) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-246
vii
PAGE
So-Ordered Letter Motion to File Defendant’s Letter Motion
Requesting the Court to Strike and Disregard Plaintiff’s Sur-
Reply in Response to Defendant’s Reply in Support of Motion
for Sanctions, or in the Alternative, Permit Defendant to File a
Sur Sur-Reply Under Seal, entered July 15, 2016 (Dkt. 286) . . . . . . A-248

Defendant’s Improper Letter Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Motion
for an Adverse Inference Instruction Pursuant to Rule 37(b),
(e) and (f), Fed. R. Civ. P. and Certain Exhibits Under Seal,
dated July 18, 2016 (Dkt. 289) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-250

to Defendant’s Improper Letter Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s
Motion for an Adverse Inference Instruction Pursuant to Rule
37(B), (E) and (F), Fed. R. Civ. P. and Certain Exhibits Under
Seal, entered July 19, 2016 (Dkt. 297) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-251
Letter Motion to File Plaintiff’s Motion for an Extension of Time to

Serve Process Upon and Depose Ross Gow and Certain Exhibits
Under Seal, dated July 25, 2016 (Dkt. 305) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-252
Letter Motion to File the Exhibit to Plaintiff’s Notice of

Supplemental Authority Under Seal, dated July 29, 2016
(Dkt. 312) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-253

Answer Deposition Questions Filed Under Seal and Certain
Exhibits Under Seal, dated July 29, 2016 (Dkt. 314) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-254
So-Ordered Letter Motion to File Plaintiff’s Motion for an Extension

of Time to Serve Process Upon and Depose Ross Gow and
Certain Exhibits Under Seal, entered August 1, 2016 (Dkt. 319) . . . A-255
Letter Motion to File Plaintiff’s Proposed Search Terms Under Seal,

dated August 1, 2016 (Dkt. 322) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-256
viii
PAGE
So-Ordered Letter Motion to File Defendant’s Sur Sur-Reply in
Support of Motion for Rule 37(b) & (c) Sanctions Exhibits Under
Seal, entered August 2, 2016 (Dkt. 328) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-257
Letter Motion to File Defendant’s Submission Regarding “Search

Terms” and Notice of Compliance with Court Order Concerning
Forensic Examination of Computer Device and Supporting
Exhibits Under Seal, dated August 1, 2016 (Dkt. 329) . . . . . . . . . . . . A-259
So-Ordered Letter Motion to File the Exhibit to Plaintiff’s Notice of

Supplemental Authority Under Seal, entered August 4, 2016
(Dkt. 332) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-261
Letter Motion to File Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order and

Motion for the Court to Direct Defendant to Disclose All
Individuals to Whom Defendant Has Disseminated Confidential
Information and Certain Exhibits Under Seal,
Letter Motion to File Plaintiff’s Supplement to Motion for Adverse

Inference Instruction Based on New Information and Certain
Letter Motion to File Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel the Production of

Documents Subject to Improper Objection and Improper claim of
Privilege and Certain Exhibits Under Seal, dated August 9, 2016
(Dkt. 344) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-264
Standing Order of the Honorable Robert W. Sweet,

So-Ordered Letter Motion to File Plaintiff’s Supplement to Motion

for Adverse Inference Instruction Based on New Information and
ix
PAGE
So-Ordered Letter Motion to File Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective
Order and Motion for the Court to Direct Defendant to Disclose
All Individual to Whom Defendant Has Disseminated
Confidential Information and Certain Exhibits Under Seal,
entered August 9, 2016 (Dkt. 351) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-267
Defendant’s Motion to Compel Responses to Defendant’s Second Set

of Discovery Request to Plaintiff and for Sanctions,
dated August 10, 2016 (Dkt. 354) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-268
Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant’s Motion for Summary

Judgment, dated January 6, 2017 (Dkt. 538) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-308
Opinion of the Honorable Robert W. Sweet, dated April 27, 2017

(Dkt. 872) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-318
Opinion of the Honorable Robert W. Sweet, dated May 3, 2017

(Dkt. 892) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-394
Intervenors’ Notice of Motion to Intervene and Unseal,

dated April 6, 2018 (Dkt. 935) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-405
Memorandum of Law in Support of Proposed Intervenors Julie Brown

and Miami Herald Media Company’s Motion to Intervene and
Unseal, dated April 6, 2018 (Dkt. 936) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-406
Plaintiff’s Response to Proposed Intervenors Julie Brown and

Miami Herald Media Company’s Motion to Intervene and
Unseal, dated April 27, 2018 (Dkt. 945) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-427
Intervenors’ Notice of Appeal, dated September 26, 2018 (Dkt. 945) . . . A-432
A-1
SDNY CM/ECF NextGen Version 1.2 Page 1 of 115
Query Reports Utilities Help Log Out
CLOSED,APPEAL,ECF
U.S. District Court

CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:15-cv-07433-RWS

Related Case: 1:17-mc-00025-RWS Jury Demand: Both
17-01625 Slander
Cause: 28:1332ct Diversity-(Citizenship) Jurisdiction: Diversity
Plaintiff
Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing. Edwards,
Fistos, Lehrman, P.L.
(954)-524-2820
Fax: (954)-524-2822
PRO HAC VICE
John Pottinger
49 Twin Lakes Road
(917)-446-4641
Meredith L Schultz
Suite 1200
(954)-356-0011
Fax: (954)-356-0022
Paul G Cassell
https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?518494309578425-L_1_0-1 12/6/2018
A-2
University of Utah
(801)-585-5202
Fax: (801)-585-2750
Sigrid S. McCawley
401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite
1200
954-356-0011
Fax: 954-356-0022
V.
Defendant
Denver, CO 80203
(303)-831-7364
Fax: (303)-832-2628
PRO HAC VICE
Laura A. Menninger
Denver, CO 80203
(303)-831-7364
Fax: (303)-832-2628
V.
Respondent
1251 Avenue of the Americas, 21st
Floor
New York, NY 10020
A-3
(212) 489-8230
Fax: (212) 489-8340
LEAD ATTORNEY
Laura R. Handman
Suite 200
202 508-6600 x6624
Fax: 202 508-6699
LEAD ATTORNEY
Respondent
Poe & Burton PLLC
(202) 583-2500
Fax: (202) 583-0565
LEAD ATTORNEY

(561)-659-8305
Fax: (561)-835-8691
LEAD ATTORNEY
PRO HAC VICE

Boston, MA 02116
617-227-3700
Fax: 617-338-9538
LEAD ATTORNEY
A-4

New York, NY 10036
(212) 506-3900
Fax: (212) 506-3950

Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck,
Untereiner & Sauber
2000 K Street, N.W.
Ste 4th Floor
202-775-4495
Fax: 202-775-4510
Applicant
Miscellaneous
Fahringer & Dubno
New York, NY 10017
212-319-5351
Fax: 212-319-6657
LEAD ATTORNEY
Interested Party
90 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10016
(212) 210-9400
Fax: (212) 210-9444
LEAD ATTORNEY

One Atlantic Center, 1201 West
Peachtree Street
A-5
Atlanta, GA 30309
(404)-881-7697
LEAD ATTORNEY
Interested Party
NYP Holdings, Inc.,
Interested Party
Daily News, L.P.
V.
Material Witness
LEAD ATTORNEY
John Pottinger
V.
Intervenor
Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady,
LLP
New York, NY 10020
212-763-5000
Fax: 212-763-5001
LEAD ATTORNEY
David A Lebowitz
Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady,
LLP
New York, NY 10020
(212) 763-5000
Fax: (212) 763-5001
A-6
Intervenor
Hartford, CT 06103
702-420-2001
Fax: 305-437-7662
LEAD ATTORNEY
Intervenor
Holland & Knight
31 West 52nd Street
New York, NY 10019
(212)-513-3368
Fax: (212)-385-9010
LEAD ATTORNEY

701 Brickell Avenue
Suite 3000
Miami, FL 33131
(305)-789-7678
Fax: (305)-679-6335
LEAD ATTORNEY

31 West 52nd Street
New York, NY 10019
(212)-513-3374
Fax: (212)-385-9010
Email:
madelaine.harrington@hklaw.com
Intervenor
LEAD ATTORNEY
A-7

LEAD ATTORNEY


09/21/2015 1 COMPLAINT against MAXWELL GHISLAINE. (Filing Fee $ 400.00,
Receipt Number 0208-11409928)Document filed by VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE.
09/21/2015 2 FILING ERROR - DEFICIENT PLEADING - SIGNATURE ERROR -
CIVIL COVER SHEET filed. (McCawley, Sigrid) Modified on 9/22/2015
(dgo). (Entered: 09/21/2015)
(Entered: 09/21/2015)
09/21/2015 4 FILING ERROR - DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY - MOTION for Sigrid
S. McCawley to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number
0208-11410210. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's
Office staff. Document filed by VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE. (Attachments: # 1
Text of Proposed Order)(McCawley, Sigrid) Modified on 9/21/2015 (sdi).
(Entered: 09/21/2015)
09/21/2015 >>>NOTICE REGARDING DEFICIENT MOTION TO APPEAR PRO
HAC VICE. Notice to RE-FILE Document No. 4 MOTION for Sigrid S.
Office staff... The filing is deficient for the following reason(s): missing
Certificate of Good Standing from Supreme Court of Florida; Missing
case number on the Motion and Proposed Order;. Re-file the motion as a
Corrected Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice - attach the correct signed PDF
- select the correct named filer/filers - attach valid Certificates of Good
Standing issued within the past 30 days - attach Proposed Order.. (sdi)
(Entered: 09/21/2015)
09/22/2015 ***NOTICE TO ATTORNEY REGARDING PARTY MODIFICATION.
Notice to attorney Sigrid S. McCawley. The party information for the
following party/parties has been modified: VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE,
MAXWELL GHISLAINE. The information for the party/parties has been
modified for the following reason/reasons: party name contained a
typographical error; party name was entered in all caps;. (dgo) (Entered:
09/22/2015)
A-8
09/22/2015 CASE OPENING INITIAL ASSIGNMENT NOTICE: The above-entitled

action is assigned to Judge Robert W. Sweet. Please download and review the
Individual Practices of the assigned District Judge, located at
http://nysd.uscourts.gov/judges/District. Attorneys are responsible for
providing courtesy copies to judges where their Individual Practices require
such. Please download and review the ECF Rules and Instructions, located at
09/22/2015 5 ELECTRONIC SUMMONS ISSUED as to Ghislaine Maxwell. (dgo)
(Entered: 09/22/2015)
09/25/2015 6 MOTION to Amend/Correct Notice Regarding Deficient Motion to Appear Pro
Hac vice,,, Corrected Pro Hac Vice Motion (S. McCawley). Document filed by
Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order
for Corrected Pro Hac Vice Motion (S. McCawley))(McCawley, Sigrid)
(Entered: 09/25/2015)
09/25/2015 8 SUMMONS RETURNED EXECUTED Summons and Complaint served.
Ghislaine Maxwell served on 9/22/2015, answer due 10/13/2015. Service was
accepted by Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. Document filed by Virginia L.
09/29/2015 9 ORDER FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE granting 6 Motion to
Amend/Correct. The motion of Sigrid S. McCawley for admission to practice
Pro Hac Vice in the above captioned action is granted. (Signed by Judge
Robert W. Sweet on 9/28/2015) (ajs) (Entered: 09/29/2015)
Courtroom 18C, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Robert
W. Sweet. (See Order.) (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 10/8/2015) (ajs)
(Entered: 10/08/2015)
10/13/2015 11 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Laura A.
Menninger dated 10/9/2015 re: I write pursuant to Section 1.E. of Your
Honor's Individual Practice Rules to request an extension of Defendant's time
to answer, move or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's Complaint from October
13, 2015 up to and including November 30. 2015. ENDORSEMENT: So
ordered. Ghislaine Maxwell answer due 11/30/2015. (Signed by Judge Robert
W. Sweet on 10/12/2015) (rjm) (Entered: 10/13/2015)
10/13/2015 12 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Laura A. Menninger on behalf of Ghislaine
10/28/2015 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Robert W. Sweet: Initial
Pretrial Conference held on 10/28/2015. (Chan, Tsz) (Entered: 10/30/2015)
10/30/2015 13 ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. All motions are to be made
returnable at 12:00 noon on Wednesday and in compliance with the rules of
A-9
this Court. Fact Discovery due by 7/1/2016. Expert Discovery due by 8/3/2016.
Motions due by 9/7/2016. Final Pretrial Conference set for 9/7/2016 at 04:30
PM before Judge Robert W. Sweet. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on
10/28/2015) (spo) (Entered: 10/30/2015)
12/01/2015 14 MOTION to Dismiss . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. Responses due
by 12/17/2015 Return Date set for 1/7/2016 at 12:00 PM.(Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 12/01/2015)
12/01/2015 15 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 14 MOTION to Dismiss . .
Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura) (Entered:
12/01/2015)
12/01/2015 16 DECLARATION of Laura A. Menninger in Support re: 14 MOTION to
Dismiss .. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)
12/01/2015 17 MOTION to Stay Discovery Pending Decision on Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. Return Date set for 1/7/2016
at 12:00 PM. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered:
12/01/2015)
12/01/2015 18 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 17 MOTION to Stay Discovery
Pending Decision on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. . Document filed by
12/02/2015 19 ORDER: Defendant's motions to dismiss and for a stay of discovery shall be
heard at noon on January 14, 2016 in Courtroom 18C, United States
Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street. All papers shall be served in accordance with
Local Civil Rule 6.1. Set Deadlines/Hearing as to 17 MOTION to Stay
Discovery Pending Decision on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. 14 MOTION
to Dismiss. : Motion Hearing set for 1/14/2016 at 12:00 PM in Courtroom 18C,
500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Robert W. Sweet. (Signed
12/10/2015 20 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 17 MOTION to Stay Discovery
Pending Decision on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. . Document filed by
12/10/2015 21 DECLARATION of Sigrid S. McCawley in Opposition re: 17 MOTION to
Stay Discovery Pending Decision on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss..
Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1, #
2 Exhibit Composite Exhibit 2 Part 1, # 3 Exhibit Composite Exhibit 2 Part 2,
# 4 Exhibit Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit Composite Exhibit 5
Part 1, # 7 Exhibit Composite Exhibit 5 Part 2, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit 6, # 9
Exhibit Exhibit 7, # 10 Exhibit Exhibit 8, # 11 Exhibit Exhibit 9)(McCawley,
12/15/2015 22 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 17 MOTION to Stay
Discovery Pending Decision on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. . Document
12/17/2015 23
A-10
MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 14 MOTION to Dismiss . .

Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered:
12/17/2015)
12/17/2015 24 DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in Opposition re: 14 MOTION to
Dismiss .. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, #
2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 12/17/2015)
12/28/2015)
01/14/2016 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Robert W. Sweet: Oral
Argument held on 1/14/2016 re: 19 Order, Set Motion and R&R
Deadlines/Hearings. Motion to dismiss and for stay held.Decision is reserved.
(Court Reporter Michael McDaniel) (Chan, Tsz) (Entered: 01/21/2016)
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. Defendant is
directed to respond or object to Plaintiff's First Request for Production within
fourteen days of the date of this opinion. For the foregoing reasons and as set
forth above, Defendant's motion to stay is denied, the motion to extend is
granted, and discovery shall proceed as set forth above. (As further set forth in
this Order.) (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 1/19/2016) (spo) Modified
on 1/21/2016 (ca). (Entered: 01/20/2016)
Motion. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)
01/25/2016 30 NOTICE of Response to Defendant's Notice of Supplemental Authority re: 29
Notice (Other). Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (McCawley, Sigrid)
(Entered: 01/25/2016)
01/28/2016 31 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: ARGUMENT held on 1/14/2016 before
Judge Robert W. Sweet. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Michael McDaniel, (212)
805-0300. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased
through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of
Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.
Redaction Request due 2/22/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for
3/3/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/2/2016.(McGuirk, Kelly)
(Entered: 01/28/2016)
01/28/2016 32 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT Notice is hereby given
that an official transcript of a ARGUMENT proceeding held on 1/14/16 has
been filed by the court reporter/transcriber in the above-captioned matter. The
A-11
parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to
Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript
may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction
after 90 calendar days...(McGuirk, Kelly) (Entered: 01/28/2016)
02/26/2016 33 MOTION to Compel Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell to Produce Documents
Subject to Improper Claim of Privilege . Document filed by Virginia L.
Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell to Produce Documents Subject to Improper
Claim of Privilege .. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 02/26/2016)
02/26/2016 35 MOTION to Compel Ghislaine Maxwell to Produce Documents Subject To
Improper Objections . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: #
1 Appendix)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 02/26/2016)
2 Exhibit Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit 4 Part 1, # 5
Exhibit Exhibit 4 Part 2, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit 6, # 8
Exhibit Exhibit 7, # 9 Exhibit Exhibit 8, # 10 Exhibit Exhibit 9, # 11 Exhibit
Exhibit 10 Part 1, # 12 Exhibit Exhibit 10 Part 2, # 13 Exhibit Exhibit 11)
02/29/2016 37 OPINION #106248 re: 14 MOTION to Dismiss, filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
For the foregoing reasons and as set forth above, Defendant's motion to dismiss
is denied. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge Robert W.
03/02/2016 38 MOTION for Protective Order . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
03/02/2016 39 DECLARATION of Laura A. Menninger in Support re: 38 MOTION for
Protective Order .. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit A)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 03/02/2016)
03/04/2016 40 RESPONSE to Motion re: 38 MOTION for Protective Order . . Document filed
by Virginia L. Giuffre. (McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 03/04/2016)
03/04/2016 41 DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in Opposition re: 38 MOTION for
Protective Order .. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit)(McCawley, Sigrid)
(Entered: 03/04/2016)
03/04/2016 42 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 35 MOTION to Compel
Ghislaine Maxwell to Produce Documents Subject To Improper Objections .,
33 MOTION to Compel Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell to Produce Documents
Subject to Improper Claim of Privilege . . Document filed by Ghislaine
03/07/2016 43
A-12
REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 35 MOTION to Compel

Subject to Improper Claim of Privilege . . Document filed by Virginia L.
Subject to Improper Claim of Privilege .. Document filed by Virginia L.
Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit
03/07/2016 45 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 35
MOTION to Compel Ghislaine Maxwell to Produce Documents Subject To
Improper Objections . . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger,
03/07/2016 46 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 33
MOTION to Compel Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell to Produce Documents
Subject to Improper Claim of Privilege . . Document filed by Ghislaine
03/07/2016 47 DECLARATION of Laura A. Menninger in Opposition re: 33 MOTION to
Compel Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell to Produce Documents Subject to
Improper Claim of Privilege .. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5
Exhibit E)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 03/07/2016)
03/08/2016 48 ORDER: Plaintiff's motions to compel, filed February 26, and Defendant's
motion for a protective order, filed March 2, 2016, shall be heard at noon on
(Motion Hearing set for 3/17/2016 at 12:00 PM before Judge Robert W. Sweet
in Courtroom 18C, United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street.) (Signed by
Judge Robert W. Sweet on 3/6/2016) (spo) Modified on 3/10/2016 (spo).
(Entered: 03/09/2016)
03/09/2016 49 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 38 MOTION for Protective Order . .
03/09/2016)
03/10/2016 50 INTERNET CITATION NOTE: Material from decision with Internet citation
re: 37 Memorandum & Opinion. (Attachments: # 1 Internet Citation, # 2
Internet Citation) (vf) (Entered: 03/10/2016)
ELECTRONIC DEVICES AND GENERAL PURPOSE COMPUTING
DEVICES INTO THE COURTHOUSE FOR JANUARY 14, 2016 HEARING
granting 27 Motion for Leave to Bring Personal Electronic Devices. It is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the motion is hereby GRANTED.
Plaintiffs counsel Sigrid S. Mccawley shall be permitted, to bring and to use
Personal Electronic Device(s) and/or the General Purpose Computing Device
A-13
(s) (collectively, "Devices") listed below into the Courthouse for use in this
action. Attorney: Sigrid McCawley. Device(s): Personal Electronic Device; and
General Purpose Computing Device. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on
1/13/2016) Copies Sent By Chambers. (spo) Modified on 3/14/2016 (spo).
(Entered: 03/14/2016)
03/14/2016 52 MOTION for Jeffrey S. Pagliuca to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00,
receipt number 0208-12065065. Motion and supporting papers to be
(Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Certificate of Good Standing)(Pagliuca,
Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/14/2016)
03/14/2016 >>>NOTICE REGARDING PRO HAC VICE MOTION. Regarding
Document No. 52 MOTION for Jeffrey S. Pagliuca to Appear Pro Hac
Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number 0208-12065065. Motion and
supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff.. The document
has been reviewed and there are no deficiencies. (bcu) (Entered:
03/14/2016)
03/14/2016 53 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 35 MOTION to Compel Ghislaine Maxwell
to Produce Documents Subject To Improper Objections . . Document filed by
03/14/2016 54 ANSWER to 1 Complaint with JURY DEMAND. Document filed by
Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1
Part 1, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 1 Part 2, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 2 Part 1, # 4 Exhibit
Exhibit 2 Part 2, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit 3 Part 1, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit 3 Part 2, # 7
Exhibit Exhibit 3 Part 3, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit 3 Part 4, # 9 Exhibit Exhibit 4, #
10 Exhibit Exhibit 5, # 11 Exhibit Exhibit 6, # 12 Exhibit Exhibit 7 Part 1, # 13
Exhibit Exhibit 7 Part 2, # 14 Exhibit Exhibit 7 Part 3, # 15 Exhibit Exhibit 8, #
16 Exhibit Exhibit 9, # 17 Exhibit Exhibit 10, # 18 Exhibit Exhibit 11 Part 1, #
19 Exhibit Exhibit 11 Part 2, # 20 Exhibit Exhibit 12, # 21 Exhibit Exhibit 13
Part 1, # 22 Exhibit Exhibit 13 Part 2, # 23 Exhibit Exhibit 13 Part 3)
03/14/2016 56 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 33 MOTION to Compel Defendant
Ghislaine Maxwell to Produce Documents Subject to Improper Claim of
Privilege . . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (McCawley, Sigrid)
(Entered: 03/14/2016)
Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell to Produce Documents Subject to Improper
Claim of Privilege .. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 3)(McCawley,
A-14
Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (McCawley, Sigrid) Modified on

3/17/2016 (ldi). (Entered: 03/15/2016)
MOTION for Leave to Serve Rolling Production and Privilege Log re: 58
Notice (Other) And Incorporated Memorandum of Law. Document filed by
Virginia L. Giuffre.(McCawley, Sigrid) Modified on 3/17/2016 (ldi). (Entered:
03/15/2016)
03/16/2016 60 ORDER FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE granting 52 Motion for Jeffrey
S. Pagliuca to Appear Pro Hac Vice. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on
3/15/2016) (rjm) (Entered: 03/16/2016)
03/16/2016 61 ORDER: Plaintiff's motions for leave to serve rolling production and privilege
log, filed March 16, 2016, shall be heard at noon on March 17, 2016 in
Courtroom 18C, United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street. Motion Hearing
set for 3/17/2016 at 12:00 PM in Courtroom 18C, 500 Pearl Street, New York,
NY 10007 before Judge Robert W. Sweet. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet
on 3/16/2016) (cf) (Entered: 03/16/2016)
03/17/2016 ***NOTICE TO ATTORNEY TO RE-FILE DOCUMENT - EVENT
TYPE ERROR. Notice to Attorney Sigrid S. McCawley to RE-FILE
Document 58 Notice (Other). Use the event type Miscellaneous Relief
found under the event list Motions. (ldi) (Entered: 03/17/2016)
Document 59 MOTION for Leave to Serve Rolling Production and
Privilege Log re: 58 Notice (Other) And Incorporated Memorandum of
Law. Use the event type Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion found
under the event list Replies, Opposition and Supporting Documents. (ldi)
(Entered: 03/17/2016)
Argument held on 3/17/2016 re: 58 Notice (Other) filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
Motion Pending. (Court Reporter Vincent Bologna) (Chan, Tsz) (Entered:
03/21/2016)
03/18/2016 62 PROTECTIVE ORDER...regarding procedures to be followed that shall
govern the handling of confidential material... (Signed by Judge Robert W.
03/22/2016 63 MOTION for Protective Order Regarding Deposition of Defendant. Document
Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.(Menninger, Laura) (Entered:
03/22/2016)
Protective Order Regarding Deposition of Defendant.. Document filed by
Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C,
A-15
# 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9

Exhibit I)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 03/22/2016)
03/23/2016 66 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: MOTION held on 3/17/2016 before Judge
Robert W. Sweet. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Vincent Bologna, (212) 805-
0300. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased
4/28/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/24/2016.(McGuirk,
Kelly) (Entered: 03/23/2016)
that an official transcript of a MOTION proceeding held on 3/17/16 has been
filed by the court reporter/transcriber in the above-captioned matter. The
Disclose Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 26. . Document filed by Virginia L.
Compel Plaintiff to Disclose Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 26.. Document
filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit
Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 3)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 03/23/2016)
Regarding Deposition of Defendant. . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
03/23/2016 71 DECLARATION of Sigrid S. McCawley in Opposition re: 63 MOTION for
Protective Order Regarding Deposition of Defendant.. Document filed by
Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2,
# 3 Exhibit Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit
03/24/2016 72 MOTION for Meredith L. Schultz to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $
reviewed by Clerk's Office staff. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing, # 2 Text of Proposed
Order Proposed Order)(Schultz, Meredith) (Entered: 03/24/2016)
Document No. 72 MOTION for Meredith L. Schultz to Appear Pro Hac
has been reviewed and there are no deficiencies. (sdi) (Entered: 03/24/2016)
03/24/2016
A-16
Minute Entry The motion to compel on March 24, 2016 is agreed upon by
counsel and the Court that it will be heard telephonically in Chambers at 4:00
p.m. (Chan, Tsz) (Entered: 03/24/2016)
03/24/2016 73 ORDER: Plaintiff's motion to compel Defendant to produce documents subject
to improper objections, docket no. 35, is resolved as set forth in the official
transcript of proceedings held March 17, 2016, docket no. 66. With respect to
Plaintiff's motion to compel Defendant to produce documents subject to
improper objections, docket no. 33, the parties are directed to submit further
briefing as set forth in the transcript. Defendant's motion for a protective order,
docket no. 63, and motion to compel, docket no. 64, shall be heard at noon on
Thursday, March 24, 2016 as stipulated, in Courtroom 18C, United States
Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street. (Motion Hearing set for 3/24/2016 at 12:00 PM
in Courtroom 18C, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge
Robert W. Sweet.) (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 3/23/2016) (spo)
(Entered: 03/24/2016)
03/28/2016 74 ORDER FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE granting 72 Motion for
Meredith L. Schultz to Appear Pro Hac Vice. (Signed by Judge Robert W.
Sweet on 3/24/2016) (spo) (Entered: 03/28/2016)
03/31/2016 75 MOTION to Compel Responses to Defendant's First Set of Discovery Requests
to Plaintiff. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.(Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 03/31/2016)
Compel Responses to Defendant's First Set of Discovery Requests to Plaintiff..
Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2
Documents Subject to Improper Claim of Privilege. Document filed by
Defendant's First Set of Discovery Requests to Plaintiff. . Document filed by
2 Exhibit Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit
Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit 6)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 04/04/2016)
04/05/2016 80 MOTION for Paul G. Cassell to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00,
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing, # 2 Text of Proposed
Order)(Cassell, Paul) (Entered: 04/05/2016)
Document No. 80 MOTION for Paul G. Cassell to Appear Pro Hac Vice .
A-17
Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number 0208-12149795. Motion and supporting

papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff.. The document has been
reviewed and there are no deficiencies. (wb) (Entered: 04/05/2016)
04/06/2016 81 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Sigrid S.
McCawley dated 4/5/2016 re: Request for temporary seal of docket no. 79.
ENDORSEMENT: So ordered. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on
4/6/2016) (spo) (Entered: 04/06/2016)
04/07/2016 82 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: Argument held on 3/24/2016 before Judge
Robert W. Sweet. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Pamela Utter, (212) 805-0300.
Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the
Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript
Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction
Request due 5/2/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 5/12/2016. Release
of Transcript Restriction set for 7/11/2016.(Grant, Patricia) (Entered:
04/07/2016)
that an official transcript of a Conference proceeding held on 03/24/2016 has
after 90 calendar days...(Grant, Patricia) (Entered: 04/07/2016)
04/07/2016 84 ORDER: Defendant's letter objection to pro hac vice admission of Paul G.
Cassell, submitted April 6, 2015, will be treated as a motion and heard at
10:00am on Wednesday April 13, 2016. Plaintiff's reply to Defendant's letter, if
any, shall be submitted on or before Monday, April 11, 2016. (Motion Hearing
set for 4/13/2016 at 10:00 AM before Judge Robert W. Sweet.) (Signed by
04/07/2016 85 ORDER: Defendant' s motion to compel, filed March 31, 2016, shall be heard
at noon on April 21, 2016 in Courtroom 18C, United States Courthouse, 500
Pearl Street. Motion Hearing set for 4/21/2016 at 12:00 PM in Courtroom 18C,
500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Robert W. Sweet. (Signed
by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 4/7/2016) (cf) (Entered: 04/07/2016)
04/07/2016 86 MOTION for Bradley James Edwards to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $
(Attachments: # 1 Certificate Good Standing_Edwards, # 2 Text of Proposed
Order)(Edwards, Bradley) (Entered: 04/07/2016)
Document No. 86 MOTION for Bradley James Edwards to Appear Pro
Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number 0208-12160815. Motion and
has been reviewed and there are no deficiencies. (wb) (Entered: 04/07/2016)
04/07/2016 87
A-18
MOTION for Adjournment of Hearing on April 13, 2016 . Document filed by

04/08/2016 88 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 86 MOTION for Bradley James
Edwards to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number 0208-
12160815. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office
staff. . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura) (Entered:
04/08/2016)
Conference. Defendant's motion to adjourn, filed April 7, 2016, is granted in
part and denied in part. Any objection to the pro hac vice admission of Paul G.
Cassell and Bradley James Edwards will be treated as motions and heard at
11:00am on Thursday April 21, 2016 in Courtroom 18C, United States
Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street. Defendant's motion to compel is similarly
adjourned to 11:00am on Thursday April 21, 2016. Plaintiff's reply to
Defendant's letter with respect to Mr. Cassell, if any, remains returnable on or
before Monday, April 11, 2016. Defendant's objection to the admission of Mr.
Edwards, if any, shall be submitted on or before April 13, 2016. Plaintiff's
reply to Defendant's objection with respect to Mr. Edwards shall be submitted
on or before April 19, 2016. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 4/8/2016)
(mro) (Entered: 04/11/2016)
04/08/2016 Set/Reset Deadlines Responses due by 4/13/2016 Replies due by 4/19/2016.
Motion Hearing set for 4/21/2016 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 18C, 500 Pearl
Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Robert W. Sweet. (mro) (Entered:
04/11/2016)
04/10/2016 89 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 80 MOTION for Paul G. Cassell to Appear
Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number 0208-12149795. Motion
and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff., 86 MOTION
for Bradley James Edwards to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00,
reviewed by Clerk's Office staff. . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
04/11/2016 91 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages For Reply In Support Of Defendants
Motion To Compel. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.(Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 04/11/2016)
04/11/2016 92 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 75 MOTION to Compel Responses to
Defendant's First Set of Discovery Requests to Plaintiff. . Document filed by
04/11/2016 93 FILING ERROR - DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY (SEE 94 Declaration)
- AFFIDAVIT of Laura A. Menninger in Support re: 75 MOTION to Compel
Responses to Defendant's First Set of Discovery Requests to Plaintiff..
Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit D)
(Menninger, Laura) Modified on 4/12/2016 (db). (Entered: 04/11/2016)
A-19

04/12/2016 95 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on 91 granting Motion for Leave to File Excess
Pages. ENDORSEMENT: So ordered. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on
4/12/2016) (spo) (Entered: 04/12/2016)
04/13/2016 96 MOTION for Clarification of Court's Order and For Forensic Examination .
Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.(McCawley, Sigrid) Modified on
4/21/2016 (spo). (Entered: 04/13/2016)
04/13/2016 97 DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in Support re: 96 MOTION for
Clarification of Court's Order and For Forensic Examination .. Document filed
by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4
Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit)(McCawley, Sigrid)
(Entered: 04/13/2016)
04/15/2016 98 ORDER denying in part 96 Motion for Clarification of the Court's order and
Forensic examination. Plaintiff's motion for clarification of the Court's March
17, 2016 ruling is denied on the grounds that the following matters were
resolved by the Court at the March 17, 2016 hearing as further set forth in this
Order. Plaintiff's motion for a forensic examination shall be heard on Thursday,
Opposition, if any, shall be served on or before April 21, 2016. Plaintiff's reply,
if any, shall be served on or before April 25, 2016. (Signed by Judge Robert W.
04/15/2016 99 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 75 MOTION to Compel Responses to
Defendant's First Set of Discovery Requests to Plaintiff. Resubmitted.
04/15/2016)
Menninger dated 4/15/2016 re: Defendants' requesting that the Reply be placed
under seal and that we substitute for public filing a Reply which omits words
from page 9 about which Plaintiff complains. ENDORSEMENT: So ordered.
(Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 4/15/2016) (cf) (Entered: 04/15/2016)
04/15/2016 Transmission to Sealed Records Clerk. Transmitted re: 100 Endorsed Letter to
the Sealed Records Clerk for the sealing or unsealing of document or case. (cf)
(Entered: 04/15/2016)
04/18/2016 101 MOTION to Compel Plaintiff to Disclose Alleged "On-going Criminal
Investigations by Law Enforcement [sic]" or, In the Alternative, to Stay
Proceedings. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.(Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 04/18/2016)
Disclose Alleged "On-going Criminal Investigations by Law Enforcement
[sic]" or, In the Alternative, to Stay Proceedings. . Document filed by Virginia
04/19/2016 103
A-20
DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in Opposition re: 101 MOTION to

Compel Plaintiff to Disclose Alleged "On-going Criminal Investigations by
Law Enforcement [sic]" or, In the Alternative, to Stay Proceedings.. Document
filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3
Motions for Admission Pro Hac Vice by Paul G. Cassell, and Bradley J
Edwards. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.(Menninger, Laura) Modified
on 4/20/2016 (db). (Entered: 04/19/2016)
MOTION to Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell's Objection to Motions for
Admission Pro Hac Vice by Paul G. Cassell, and Bradley J Edwards..
Exhibit B)(Menninger, Laura) Modified on 4/20/2016 (db). (Entered:
04/19/2016)
04/19/2016 106 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 35 Motion to Compel; granting in
part and denying in part 63 Motion for Protective Order; denying 64 Motion to
Compel. Plaintiff's motion to compel Defendant to Produce Documents Subject
to Improper Objections, filed February 26, 2016, ECF No. 35, was granted in
part and denied in part as set forth in open court on March 17, 2016. See ECF
Nos. 66, 98. Defendant's motion for a protective order regarding deposition of
Defendant, filed March 22, 2016, ECF No. 63, was granted in part and denied
in part as set forth in open court on March 24, 2016. Tr. 4:7-7:16, ECF No. 82.
Defendant's motion to compel Plaintiff to disclose pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 26, filed March 22, 2016, ECF No. 64, was denied with leave
granted to refile as set forth in open court on March 24, 2016. Tr. 3:19 4:6.
(Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 4/19/2016) (mro) (Entered: 04/20/2016)
TYPE ERROR. Notice to Attorney Laura A. Menninger to RE-FILE
Document 105 Declaration in Support of Motion. Use the event type
Declaration in Support (non-motion) found under the event list Other
Answers. (db) (Entered: 04/20/2016)
Document 104 SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION to Defendant Ghislaine
Maxwell's Objection to Motions for Admission Pro Hac Vice by Paul G.
Cassell, and Bradley J Edwards.. Use the event type Response to Motion
found under the event list Replies, Opposition and Supporting Documents,
then link to 80 and 86 Motions. (db) (Entered: 04/20/2016)
04/20/2016 107 Objection re: 80 MOTION for Paul G. Cassell to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing
fee $ 200.00, receipt number 0208-12149795. Motion and supporting papers
to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff., 86 MOTION for Bradley James
A-21
staff. . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura) (Entered:

04/20/2016)
04/20/2016 108 DECLARATION of Jeffrey S. Pagliuca in Support re: 107 Objection (non-
motion),,. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A,
# 2 Exhibit B)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 04/20/2016)
04/21/2016 110 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 96 MOTION for Clarification of
Court's Order and For Forensic Examination . . Document filed by Ghislaine
by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Menninger,
Argument held on 4/21/2016 re: [10 MOTION to Compel Plaintiff to Disclose
Alleged "On-going Criminal Investigations by Law Enforcement [sic]" or, In
the Alternative, to Stay Proceedings. filed by Ghislaine Maxwell, 80 MOTION
for Paul G. Cassell to Appear Pro Hac Vic Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number
0208-12149795.Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office
staff filed by Virginia L. Giuffre, 86 MOTION for Bradley James Edwards to
Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number 0208-12160815.
Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff filed by
Virginia L. Giuffre, 75 MOTION to Compel Responses to Defendant's First
Set of Discovery Requests to Plaintiff filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Court
Reporter Steven Greenblum)As set forth in open court, Defendant's motin to
compel ECF No. 75 is granted in part and denied in part, the pro hace vice
motions of Paul G. Cassell ECF No. 80 and Bradley James Edward ECF No.
86 are denied with leave to renew, and Defndant's motion to compel ECF No.
101 is granted in part and denied in part.(Chan, Tsz) (Entered: 04/21/2016)
terminated: 80 MOTION for Paul G. Cassell to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee
$ 200.00, receipt number 0208-12149795 Motion and supporting papers to be
reviewed by Clerk's Office staff filed by Virginia L. Giuffre, 75 MOTION to
Compel Responses to Defendant's First Set of Discovery Requests to Plaintiff
filed by Ghislaine Maxwell, 86 MOTION for Bradley James Edwards to
Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number 0208-12160815 and
supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff filed by Virginia L.
Giuffre, 101 MOTION to Compel Plaintiff to Disclose Alleged "On-going
Criminal Investigations by Law Enforcement [sic]" or, In the Alternative, to
Stay Proceedings filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Court Reporter Steven
04/21/2016 112 MOTION for Paul G. Cassell to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Motion and
supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff. Document filed by
Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing, #
A-22
2 Text of Proposed Order)(McCawley, Sigrid) Modified on 4/22/2016 (sdi).

Modified on 4/22/2016 (bcu). (Entered: 04/21/2016)
04/21/2016 113 LETTER RESPONSE to Motion addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from
Sigrid McCawley dated April 21, 2016 re: 86 MOTION for Bradley James
staff. . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered:
04/21/2016)
04/21/2016 114 DECLARATION of Bradley Edwards in Support re: 86 MOTION for Bradley
James Edwards to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number
Office staff.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1
04/21/2016 115 MOTION for Bradley J. Edwards to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Motion and
supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff. Document filed by
Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing, #
2 Text of Proposed Order)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 04/21/2016)
04/21/2016 116 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 112 MOTION for Paul G.
Cassell to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Motion and supporting papers to be
reviewed by Clerk's Office staff., 115 MOTION for Bradley J. Edwards to
Appear Pro Hac Vice . Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by
Clerk's Office staff. . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger,
04/21/2016 117 DECLARATION of Menninger in Opposition re: 112 MOTION for Paul G.
Cassell to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Motion and supporting papers to be
reviewed by Clerk's Office staff., 115 MOTION for Bradley J. Edwards to
Appear Pro Hac Vice . Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by
Clerk's Office staff.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: #
1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 04/21/2016)
Document No. 115 MOTION for Bradley J. Edwards to Appear Pro Hac
Vice . Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office
staff.. The document has been reviewed and there are no deficiencies. (sdi)
(Entered: 04/22/2016)
Document No. 112 MOTION for Paul G. Cassell to Appear Pro Hac Vice .
Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff.. The
document has been reviewed and there are no deficiencies. (bcu) (Entered:
04/22/2016)
04/22/2016 118 ORDER FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE granting 115 Motion for
Bradley J. Edwards to Appear Pro Hac Vice. (Signed by Judge Robert W.
04/22/2016 119 ORDER FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE: The motion of Paul G. Cassell,
for admission to practice Pro Hac Vice in the above captioned action is
A-23
granted. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 4/22/2016)(mro) (Entered:

04/22/2016)
04/25/2016 120 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet
from Sigrid McCawley dated April 25, 2016. Document filed by Virginia L.
04/25/2016 121 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 96 MOTION for
Clarification of Court's Order and For Forensic Examination . REDACTED.
04/25/2016)
by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4
Exhibit REDACTED, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit REDACTED, # 8
Exhibit REDACTED)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 04/25/2016)
AFFIDAVIT of Erika Perez in Support re: 96 MOTION for Clarification of
Court's Order and For Forensic Examination .. Document filed by Virginia L.
Giuffre. (McCawley, Sigrid) Modified on 4/27/2016 (ldi). (Entered:
04/26/2016)
04/27/2016 124 MOTION Unopposed for Adjournment of Hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for
Forensic Examination. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.(Menninger,
04/27/2016 125 ORDER granting 120 Motion to Seal Document. So ordered. (Signed by Judge
04/27/2016 Transmission to Sealed Records Clerk. Transmitted re: 125 Order on Motion to
Seal Document to the Sealed Records Clerk for the sealing or unsealing of
document or case. (spo) (Entered: 04/27/2016)
Document 123 Affidavit in Support of Motion. Use the event type Affidavit
of Service Other found under the event list Service of Process. (ldi)
(Entered: 04/27/2016)
04/28/2016 126 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE of Plaintiff's Non-Redacted Reply in Support of
Motion for Forensic Examination Filed Under Seal served on Laura Menninger
and Jeffrey Pagliuca on April 26, 2016. Service was made by E-MAIL.
04/28/2016)
04/28/2016 127 ORDER granting 124 Motion to adjourn conference. With respect to
Defendant's motion for an adjournment of the April 28, 2016 hearing, filed
April 27, 2016, Plaintiff's motion for a forensic examination is adjourned and
shall instead be heard at noon on May 12, 2016 in Courtroom 18C, United
States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street. In the event the matter is resolved prior to
the hearing, Plaintiff may accordingly withdraw her motion with leave granted
A-24
to refile, and the parties are directed to jointly notify the Court by letter. This
Order resolves ECF No. 124. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 4/28/2016)
(spo) (Entered: 04/28/2016)
04/28/2016 Set/Reset Deadlines as to Motion Hearing set for 5/12/2016 at 12:00 PM in
W. Sweet. (spo) (Entered: 04/28/2016)
04/28/2016)
04/29/2016 129 NOTICE of Filing Under Seal Joint Proposed Redacted Order Regarding
Privilege. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura) (Entered:
04/29/2016)
04/29/2016 130 Objection re: 128 Notice (Other) to Submission of Law Enforcement Materials
for In Camera Review. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger,
05/01/2016 131 RESPONSE re: 130 Objection (non-motion) . Document filed by Virginia L.
05/01/2016 132 DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in Opposition re: 130 Objection (non-
motion). Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)
05/02/2016 134 ORDER: With respect to Plaintiff's April 28, 2016 in camera submissions, the
Plaintiff is directed to submit a log in camera on or before April 4, 2016,
identifying the documents at issue, the applicable page range and category of
grouped documents (that is, documents spanning more than one page in their
original form), the dates of any submission, the law enforcement agency to
which provided, any individuals, agencies, or organizations to whom it has
been released or made available, and a statement identifying the privilege
claimed and any authorities relied upon. The statement concerning privilege
and authorities will be provided to the Defendant. (Signed by Judge Robert W.
05/02/2016 135 OPINION #106433 re: 33 MOTION to Compel Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell
to Produce Documents Subject to Improper Claim of Privilege, filed by
Virginia L. Giuffre. For the foregoing reasons and as set forth above, Plaintiff's
motion to compel is granted in part and denied in part. Defendant is directed to
produce documents as set forth above on or before April 18, 2016. This matter
being subject to a Protective Order dated March 17, 2016, the parties are
directed to meet and confer regarding redactions to this Opini6n consistent
with that Order. The parties are further directed to jointly file a proposed
redacted version of this Opinion or notify the Court that none are necessary
within two weeks of the date of receipt of this Opinion. (As further set forth in
this Order.) (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 4/15/2016) (spo) Modified
on 5/4/2016 (ca). (Entered: 05/02/2016)
A-25
05/03/2016 136 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: conference held on 4/21/2016 before Judge
Robert W. Sweet. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Steven Greenblum, (212) 805-
(Entered: 05/03/2016)
that an official transcript of a conference proceeding held on 4/21/16 has been
05/04/2016 138 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Brief in Support of the Privilege
Claimed for In Camera Submission addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from
Sigrid McCawley dated May 4, 2016. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
05/04/2016 140 DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley re: 139 Response ., DECLARATION of
Sigrid McCawley in Support. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Redacted, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit)(McCawley,
05/04/2016 141 NOTICE of In Camera Submission re: 134 Order,,. Document filed by Virginia
05/05/2016 142 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant
to Answer Deposition Questions addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from
05/05/2016 143 MOTION to Compel Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell to Answer Deposition
Questions Redacted. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.(McCawley,
Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell to Answer Deposition Questions Redacted..
Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Redacted, #
2 Exhibit Redacted, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit Redacted, # 5 Exhibit Redacted, #
6 Exhibit Redacted, # 7 Exhibit Redacted)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered:
05/05/2016)
05/06/2016
A-26
Transmission to Sealed Records Clerk. Transmitted re: 145 Order on Motion to

document or case. (spo) (Entered: 05/06/2016)
Seal Document 145 Order on Motion to Seal Document to the Sealed Records
Clerk for the sealing or unsealing of document or case. (spo) (Entered:
05/06/2016)
05/06/2016 147 ORDER: Plaintiff's motion to compel, filed May 5, 2016, shall be heard at
noon on Thursday May 12, 2016 in Courtroom 18C, United States Courthouse,
500 Pearl Street. (Motion Hearing set for 5/12/2016 at 12:00 PM in Courtroom
18C, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Robert W. Sweet.)
05/10/2016 149 RESPONSE to Motion re: 143 MOTION to Compel Defendant Ghislaine
Maxwell to Answer Deposition Questions Redacted. . Document filed by
05/10/2016 150 DECLARATION of Jeffrey S. Pagliuca in Opposition re: 143 MOTION to
Compel Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell to Answer Deposition Questions
Redacted.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit
05/11/2016 151 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Plaintiff's Reply In Support of her
Motion to Compel addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Sigrid McCawley
dated May 11, 2016. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.(McCawley,
Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell to Answer Deposition Questions Redacted. .
05/11/2016)
Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell to Answer Deposition Questions Redacted..
Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1
Redacted, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2 Part 1, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 2 Part 2, # 4 Exhibit
Exhibit 2 Part 3, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit 3 Part 1, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit 3 Part 2, # 7
Exhibit Exhibit 4, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit 5, # 9 Exhibit Exhibit 6, # 10 Exhibit
Argument held on 5/12/2016 re: 143 MOTION to Compel Defendant Ghislaine
Maxwell to Answer Deposition Questions filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
A-27
Decision Reserved.The proceeding was filed under seal.The transcript are seal
by the Court. (Court Reporter Tom Murray) (Chan, Tsz) (Entered: 05/13/2016)
05/20/2016 155 MOTION to Compel Non-Privileged Documents. Document filed by Ghislaine
Compel Non-Privileged Documents.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10
Exhibit J)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 05/20/2016)
05/23/2016 157 ORDER: Defendant's motion to compel, filed May 20, 2016, shall be heard at
noon on Thursday June 2, 2016 in Courtroom 18C, United States Courthouse,
500 Pearl Street. All papers shall be served in accordance with Local Civil
Rule 6.1. Motion Hearing set for 6/2/2016 at 12:00 PM in Courtroom 18C, 500
Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Robert W. Sweet. (Signed by
Judge Robert W. Sweet on 5/23/2016) (cf) (Entered: 05/23/2016)
Menninger dated 5/20/2016 re: Request to file Confidential information Under
Seal. ENDORSEMENT: So ordered. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on
5/23/2016) (spo) Modified on 6/13/2016 (tro). (Entered: 05/23/2016)
05/25/2016 159 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Serve
Three Deposition Subpoenas by Means Other than Personal Service addressed
to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Sigrid McCawley dated May 25, 2016.
Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered:
05/25/2016)
05/25/2016 160 MOTION for Leave to Serve Three Deposition Subpoenas by Means Other
Than Personal Service Redacted. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
05/25/2016 161 DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in Support re: 160 MOTION for Leave
to Serve Three Deposition Subpoenas by Means Other Than Personal Service
Redacted.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit
Composite Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2 Redacted, # 3 Exhibit Composite
Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit 6, #
7 Exhibit Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit Composite Exhibit 9)
05/25/2016 162 MOTION for John Stanley Pottinger to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $
(Attachments: # 1 Appendix Certificate of Good Standing, # 2 Appendix
Proposed Order)(Pottinger, John) (Entered: 05/25/2016)
Document No. 162 MOTION for John Stanley Pottinger to Appear Pro
has been reviewed and there are no deficiencies. (sdi) (Entered: 05/26/2016)
A-28
05/26/2016 164 MOTION to Compel all Attorney-Client Communications and Work Product
Put At Issue by Plaintiff and Her Attorneys. Document filed by Ghislaine
Compel all Attorney-Client Communications and Work Product Put At Issue by
Plaintiff and Her Attorneys.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10
Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15
Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P, # 17 Exhibit Q)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered:
05/26/2016)
05/27/2016 166 ORDER: Plaintiff's motion for leave to serve, filed May 25, 2016, shall be
heard at noon on Thursday June 2, 2016 in Courtroom 18C, United States
Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street. (Motion Hearing set for 6/2/2016 at 12:00 PM in
W. Sweet.) (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 5/26/2016) (spo) Modified
on 6/13/2016 (tro). (Entered: 05/27/2016)
Menninger dated 5/26/2016 re: Request to file under seal. ENDORSEMENT:
So ordered. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 5/27/2016) (spo) (Entered:
05/27/2016)
05/27/2016 169 ORDER. Defendant's motion to compel, filed May 26, 2016, shall be heard at
noon on Thursday June 2, 2016 in Courtroom 18C, United States Courthouse,
500 Pearl Street. It is so ordered. (Oral Argument set for 6/2/2016 at 12:00 PM
Robert W. Sweet.) (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 5/27/2016) (rjm)
(Entered: 05/27/2016)
05/27/2016 170 ORDER FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE granting 162 Motion for J.
Stanley Pottinger to Appear Pro Hac Vice. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet
on 5/26/2016) (kgo) (Entered: 05/27/2016)
05/27/2016 171 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Plaintiff's Motion to Exceed
Presumptive Ten Deposition Limit addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from
05/27/2016 172 MOTION To Exceed Presumptive Ten Deposition Limit Redacted. Document
Presumptive Ten Deposition Limit Redacted.. Document filed by Virginia L.
Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit
A-29
Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit 5 Redacted, # 6 Exhibit

Exhibit 6 Redacted, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit 7 Part 1, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit 7 Part 2, #
9 Exhibit Exhibit 8, # 10 Exhibit Exhibit 9)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered:
05/27/2016)
05/27/2016 174 ORDER: All pending motions scheduled to be heard at noon on Thursday June
2, 2016 in Courtroom 18C, United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street are
advanced to 10:00 am. Motion Hearing set for 6/2/2016 at 10:00 AM in
W. Sweet. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 5/27/2016) (kgo) (Entered:
05/27/2016)
05/27/2016 175 NOTICE of of Acceptance of Service re: 160 MOTION for Leave to Serve
Three Deposition Subpoenas by Means Other Than Personal Service
Redacted.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Schultz, Meredith)
(Entered: 05/27/2016)
05/27/2016 176 MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to 24-Page Motion on Attorney-
Client Waiver Issues. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.(Schultz,
05/31/2016 177 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Response in Opposition to Defendant's
Motion to Compel Non-Privileged Documents addressed to Judge Robert W.
Sweet from Meredith Schultz dated May 31, 2016. Document filed by Virginia
Presumptive Ten Deposition Limit. So ordered. (Signed by Judge Robert W.
Sweet on 5/31/2016) (kko) (Entered: 05/31/2016)
document or case. (kko) (Entered: 05/31/2016)
05/31/2016 179 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 155 MOTION to Compel Non-
Privileged Documents. . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Schultz,
05/31/2016 180 DECLARATION of Meredith L. Schultz in Opposition re: 155 MOTION to
Compel Non-Privileged Documents.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Redacted, # 2 Exhibit Redacted, # 3 Exhibit
Redacted, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Redacted, # 6 Redacted, # 7 Exhibit)(Schultz,
06/01/2016 181 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document 164 MOTION to Compel all Attorney-
Client Communications and Work Product Put At Issue by Plaintiff and Her
Attorneys. addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Meredith Schultz dated
06/01/16. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered:
06/01/2016)
06/01/2016 182 FIRST MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages . Document filed by Virginia
L. Giuffre.(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 06/01/2016)
06/01/2016 183
A-30
ORDER granting 177 Motion to Seal Document. So ordered. (Signed by Judge

06/01/2016)
06/01/2016 184 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 164 MOTION to Compel all
Attorney-Client Communications and Work Product Put At Issue by Plaintiff
and Her Attorneys. . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (McCawley,
06/01/2016 185 DECLARATION of Sigrid S. McCawley in Opposition re: 181 LETTER
MOTION to Seal Document 164 MOTION to Compel all Attorney-Client
Communications and Work Product Put At Issue by Plaintiff and Her
Attorneys. addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Meredith Schultz dated
06/01/16.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1,
# 2 Exhibit 2 Sealed, # 3 Exhibit 3 Sealed, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6
Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11
Exhibit 11 Sealed, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13 Sealed, # 14 Exhibit 14
Sealed, # 15 Exhibit 15 Sealed, # 16 Exhibit 16 Sealed)(McCawley, Sigrid)
(Entered: 06/01/2016)
06/02/2016 Minute Entry The motions on June 2, 2016 was taken on submission. (Chan,
Tsz) (Entered: 06/07/2016)
Seal Document, to the Sealed Records Clerk for the sealing or unsealing of
document or case. (kl) (Entered: 06/03/2016)
06/06/2016 187 ORDER: Plaintiff's motion to exceed the ten deposition limit shall be
returnable on submission on June 16, 2016. All papers shall be served in
accordance with Local Civil Rule 6.1. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on
6/6/2016) (cf) (Entered: 06/06/2016)
06/06/2016 188 MEMO ENDORSEMENT granting 176 Motion for Extension of Time to
respond to motion. ENDORSEMENT: So ordered. (Signed by Judge Robert
06/06/2016 189 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 172 MOTION To Exceed
Presumptive Ten Deposition Limit Redacted. . Document filed by Ghislaine
06/06/2016 190 DECLARATION of Laura A. Menninger in Opposition re: 172 MOTION To
Exceed Presumptive Ten Deposition Limit Redacted.. Document filed by
06/06/2016)
06/06/2016 191 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 155 MOTION to Compel Non-Privileged
Documents. . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 06/06/2016)
A-31

Compel Non-Privileged Documents.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit K, # 2 Exhibit L, # 3 Exhibit M)(Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 06/06/2016)
06/06/2016 193 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 164 MOTION to Compel all Attorney-
Client Communications and Work Product Put At Issue by Plaintiff and Her
Attorneys. . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 06/06/2016)
Compel all Attorney-Client Communications and Work Product Put At Issue by
Plaintiff and Her Attorneys.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Q, # 2 Exhibit R, # 3 Exhibit S)(Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 06/06/2016)
Menninger dated 6/6/2016 re: Letter motion for file exhibits.
6/7/2016) (spo) (Entered: 06/07/2016)
Menninger dated 6/6/2016 re: Request to file exhibit S. ENDORSEMENT: So
ordered. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 6/7/2016) (spo) (Entered:
06/07/2016)
Menninger dated 6/6/2016 re: Request to file exhibit A. ENDORSEMENT: So
ordered. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 6/7/2016) (spo) (Entered:
06/07/2016)
06/10/2016 199 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Depositions. Document filed by
06/10/2016 200 DECLARATION of Sigrid S. McCawley in Support re: 199 MOTION for
Extension of Time to Complete Depositions.. Document filed by Virginia L.
06/10/2016)
06/13/2016 201 MOTION to Maintain Confidentiality Designation . Document filed by
06/13/2016 202 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document re Reply addressed to Judge Robert W.
Sweet from Meredith Schultz dated 06/13/2016. Document filed by Virginia L.
06/13/2016 203 RESPONSE in Support of Motion re: 202 LETTER MOTION to Seal
Document re Reply addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Meredith
Schultz dated 06/13/2016., 172 MOTION To Exceed Presumptive Ten
Deposition Limit Redacted. . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Schultz,
A-32
06/13/2016 204 DECLARATION of Sigrid S. McCawley in Support re: 202 LETTER

MOTION to Seal Document re Reply addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet
from Meredith Schultz dated 06/13/2016., 172 MOTION To Exceed
Presumptive Ten Deposition Limit Redacted.. Document filed by Virginia L.
Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 (Sealed), # 2 Exhibit 2 (Sealed), # 3
Exhibit 3 (Sealed))(Schultz, Meredith) (Entered: 06/13/2016)
06/13/2016 205 MOTION for Protective Order re Subpoena to Apple, Inc. Seeking Production
of All of Ms. Giuffre's Sent and Received Emails and Relevant Data. Document
filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.(Schultz, Meredith) (Entered: 06/13/2016)
06/13/2016 206 DECLARATION of Meredith L. Schultz in Support re: 205 MOTION for
Protective Order re Subpoena to Apple, Inc. Seeking Production of All of Ms.
Giuffre's Sent and Received Emails and Relevant Data.. Document filed by
Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Schultz, Meredith)
(Entered: 06/13/2016)
06/13/2016 207 MOTION for Protective Order re the Subpoena to Microsoft Corporation
Seeking Production of All of Ms. Giuffre's Sent and Received Emails and
Related Data. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.(Schultz, Meredith)
(Entered: 06/13/2016)
06/13/2016 208 DECLARATION of Meredith L Schultz in Support re: 207 MOTION for
Protective Order re the Subpoena to Microsoft Corporation Seeking
Production of All of Ms. Giuffre's Sent and Received Emails and Related Data..
Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)
06/14/2016 209 ORDER granting 202 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document re Reply
addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Meredith Schultz dated 06/13/2016.
Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. So ordered. (Signed by Judge Robert
document or case. (rjm) (Entered: 06/14/2016)
06/14/2016 210 ORDER. Plaintiff's motions for a protective order, to maintain the
confidentiality designations, and for an extension of time shall be heard at noon
on Thursday June 23, 2016 in Courtroom 18C, United States Courthouse, 500
Pearl Street. It is so ordered. (Oral Argument set for 6/23/2016 at 12:00 PM in
06/14/2016)
Deposition Limit Redacted. CORRECTED. Document filed by Virginia L.
Giuffre. (Schultz, Meredith) (Entered: 06/14/2016)
06/14/2016 212 DECLARATION of Meredith L Schultz in Support re: 172 MOTION To
Exceed Presumptive Ten Deposition Limit Redacted.. Document filed by
Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit SEALED, # 2 Exhibit SEALED,
# 3 Exhibit SEALED)(Schultz, Meredith) (Entered: 06/14/2016)
A-33
06/15/2016 213 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Eric Joel Feder on behalf of Sharon

Churcher. (Feder, Eric) (Entered: 06/15/2016)
06/15/2016 214 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Laura R. Handman on behalf of Sharon
Churcher. (Handman, Laura) (Entered: 06/15/2016)
06/15/2016 216 DECLARATION of Sharon Churcher in Support re: 215 MOTION to Quash
subpoena of Sharon Churcher .. Document filed by Sharon Churcher.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 to Churcher Decl., # 2 Exhibit 2 to Churcher Decl.,
# 3 Exhibit 3 to Churcher Decl., # 4 Exhibit 4 to Churcher Decl., # 5 Exhibit 5
to Churcher Decl., # 6 Exhibit 6 to Churcher Decl., # 7 Exhibit 7 to Churcher
Decl., # 8 Exhibit 8 to Churcher Decl.)(Feder, Eric) (Entered: 06/15/2016)
subpoena of Sharon Churcher .. Document filed by Sharon Churcher.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to Handman Decl.)(Feder, Eric) (Entered:
06/15/2016)
06/15/2016 218 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 215 MOTION to Quash subpoena
of Sharon Churcher . . Document filed by Sharon Churcher. (Feder, Eric)
(Entered: 06/15/2016)
06/16/2016 219 MOTION for Gregory Lawrence Poe to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $
reviewed by Clerk's Office staff. Document filed by Jeffrey Epstein.
(Attachments: # 1 Appendix Certificate of Good Standing, # 2 Text of
Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Poe, Gregory) (Entered: 06/16/2016)
06/16/2016 220 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Rachel S Li Wai Suen on behalf of Jeffrey
Epstein. (Li Wai Suen, Rachel) (Entered: 06/16/2016)
Subpoena and for a Protective Order. Document filed by Jeffrey Epstein.(Li
Wai Suen, Rachel) (Entered: 06/16/2016)
06/16/2016 222 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 221 MOTION to Quash Subpoena
of Jeffrey Epstein or in the Alternative Modify Subpoena and for a Protective
Order. . Document filed by Jeffrey Epstein. (Li Wai Suen, Rachel) (Entered:
06/16/2016)
06/16/2016 223 DECLARATION of Gregory L. Poe in Support re: 221 MOTION to Quash
Protective Order.. Document filed by Jeffrey Epstein. (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit 1 to Poe Decl., # 2 Exhibit 2 to Poe Decl., # 3 Exhibit 3 to Poe Decl., #
4 Exhibit 4 to Poe Decl., # 5 Exhibit 5 to Poe Decl., # 6 Exhibit 6 to Poe Decl.,
# 7 Exhibit 7 to Poe Decl.)(Li Wai Suen, Rachel) (Entered: 06/16/2016)
Document No. 219 MOTION for Gregory Lawrence Poe to Appear Pro
A-34

06/16/2016)
Deposition Limit Redacted. AMENDED. Document filed by Virginia L.
06/20/2016 225 ORDER FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE: granting 219 Motion for
Gregory Lawrence Poe to Appear Pro Hac Vice. (Signed by Judge Robert W.
Sweet on 6/20/2016) (ama) (Entered: 06/20/2016)
06/20/2016 226 ORDER: Jeffrey Epstein's motion to quash shall be heard at noon on Thursday
June 23, 2016 in Courtroom 18C, United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street.
IT IS SO ORDERED., Set Deadlines/Hearing as to ( Motion Hearing set for
6/23/2016 at 12:00 PM in Courtroom 18C, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY
10007 before Judge Robert W. Sweet.) (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on
6/20/2016) (ama) (Entered: 06/20/2016)
06/20/2016 227 ORDER: Sharon Churcher' s motion to quash shall be heard at noon on
Thursday June 23, 2016 in Courtroom 18C, United States Courthouse, 500
Pearl Street. IT IS SO ORDERED., Set Deadlines/Hearing as to ( Motion
Hearing set for 6/23/2016 at 12:00 PM in Courtroom 18C, 500 Pearl Street,
New York, NY 10007 before Judge Robert W. Sweet.) (Signed by Judge
06/20/2016 228 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 199 MOTION for Extension of Time
to Complete Depositions. . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger,
Extension of Time to Complete Depositions.. Document filed by Ghislaine
Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4
Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9
Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14
Exhibit N)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 06/20/2016)
06/20/2016 230 MOTION to Reopen Deposition of Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre . Document filed
06/20/2016 231 MOTION for Sanctions 37(b) & (c) for Failure to Comply with Court Order
and Failure to Comply with Rule 26(a). Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
Sanctions 37(b) & (c) for Failure to Comply with Court Order and Failure to
Comply with Rule 26(a).. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments:
# 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6
Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11
(Entered: 06/20/2016)
A-35
06/20/2016 233 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 221 MOTION to Quash Subpoena of
Jeffrey Epstein or in the Alternative Modify Subpoena and for a Protective
Order. . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered:
06/20/2016)
06/20/2016 234 DECLARATION of Sigird S. McCawley in Opposition re: 221 MOTION to
Quash Subpoena of Jeffrey Epstein or in the Alternative Modify Subpoena and
for a Protective Order.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments:
# 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit
Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit 5 Part 1 of 3, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit 5 Part 2 of 3, #
7 Exhibit Exhibit 5 Part 3 of 3)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 06/20/2016)
Reopen Deposition of Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre .. Document filed by Ghislaine
Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9
Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit K, # 11 Exhibit L, # 12 Exhibit M, # 13 Exhibit N)
Menninger dated 6/20/2016 re: This is a letter motion to file under seal the
following Motions, as well as Declarations and certain exhibits thereto, under
seal pursuant to this Court's Protective Order (Doc. #62), the documents as
further specified and listed in this letter. ENDORSEMENT: So ordered.
the Sealed Records Clerk for the sealing or unsealing of document or case.
(rjm) (Entered: 06/21/2016)
06/21/2016 237 ORDER with respect to 230 Motion to Reopen Plaintiff's deposition; with
respect to 231 Motion for Sanctions: Defendant's motion to reopen Plaintiff's
deposition and motion for sanctions shall be taken on submission returnable
Thursday, June 30, 2016 in Courtroom 18C, United States Courthouse, 500
Pearl Street. All papers shall be served in accordance with Local Civil Rule
6.1. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 6/21/2016) (tn) (Entered:
06/21/2016)
06/21/2016 238 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 221 MOTION to Quash
Protective Order. . Document filed by Jeffrey Epstein. (Li Wai Suen, Rachel)
(Entered: 06/21/2016)
06/21/2016 239 DECLARATION of Gregory L. Poe (Supplemental Declaration) in Support re:
221 MOTION to Quash Subpoena of Jeffrey Epstein or in the Alternative
Modify Subpoena and for a Protective Order.. Document filed by Jeffrey
Epstein. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Li Wai Suen, Rachel) (Entered:
06/21/2016)
A-36

from Sigrid S. McCawley dated June 22, 2016. Document filed by Virginia L.
06/22/2016 246 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 215 MOTION to Quash subpoena of
Sharon Churcher . . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 06/22/2016)
Quash subpoena of Sharon Churcher .. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)
Extension of Time to Complete Depositions. REDACTED. Document filed by
Extension of Time to Complete Depositions.. Document filed by Virginia L.
Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit
REDACTED, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, #
10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit, # 13 Exhibit REDACTED, # 14 Exhibit
REDACTED, # 15 Exhibit REDACTED)(Schultz, Meredith) (Entered:
06/22/2016)
06/23/2016 251 ORDER: The Clerk of Court is directed to place the above entitled docket
under seal. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 6/23/2016) (tro) (Entered:
06/24/2016)
Menninger dated 6/22/2016 re: This is a letter motion to file under seal the
Defendant's Response to Nonparty Sharon Churcher's Motion tn Quash
Subpoena, as well as Declaration and certain exhibits thereto, under seal
pursuant to this Court's Protective Order (Doc. #62). ENDORSEMENT: So
ordered. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 6/23/2016) (rjm) (Entered:
06/24/2016)
(rjm) (Entered: 06/24/2016)
Argument held on 6/23/2016 re: 221 MOTION to Quash Subpoena of Jeffrey
Epstein or in the Alternative Modify Subpoena and for a Protective Order filed
by Jeffrey Epstein, 205 MOTION for Protective Order re Subpoena to Apple,
Inc. Seeking Production of All of Ms. Giuffre's Sent and Received Emails and
Relevant Data filed by Virginia L. Giuffre, 215 MOTION to Quash subpoena
of Sharon Churcher filed by Sharon Churcher, 207 MOTION for Protective
A-37
Order re the Subpoena to Microsoft Corporation Seeking Production of All of

Ms. Giuffre's Sent and Received Emails and Related Data filed by Virginia L.
Giuffre. Motion to extend: Granted. Counsel is directed to meet and confer on
a further schedule.Confidentiality designation : Motion granted, confidentiality
will be maintained.Apple Subpoena: Motion to quash granted.Microsoft
Subpoena: Motion to quash granted, with leave to renew.Churcher Subpoena:
Decision reserved.Epstein Subpoena: Reserved on the bench (order
subsequently filed denied the motion to quash). (Court Reporter Vincent
Bologna) (Chan, Tsz) (Entered: 06/27/2016)
06/24/2016 250 ORDER, The Court directs the Clerk of Court and Records Department to
unseal the docket and seal ECF No. 246. It is so ordered. (Signed by Judge
Robert W. Sweet on 06/24/2016) (mps) (Entered: 06/24/2016)
06/24/2016 252 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on NOTICE OF MOTION TO QUASH (OR IN
THE ALTERNATIVE MODIFY) SUBPOENA AND FOR A PROTECTIVE
ORDER. ENDORSEMENT: The motion to quash is denied. So ordered.
Denying 221 Motion to Quash. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on
6/23/2016) (rjm) (Entered: 06/24/2016)
06/24/2016 253 ORDER granting 245 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document addressed to
Judge Robert W. Sweet from Sigrid S. McCawley dated June 22, 2016.
Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. So ordered. (Signed by Judge Robert
Defendant's Motion for Rule 37 Sanctions addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet
from Meredith Schultz dated June 28, 2016. Document filed by Virginia L.
Defendant's Motion to Reopen Plaintiff's Deposition addressed to Judge Robert
W. Sweet from Meredith Schultz dated June 28, 2016. Document filed by
06/28/2016 257 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 231 MOTION for Sanctions 37(b) &
(c) for Failure to Comply with Court Order and Failure to Comply with Rule
26(a). REDACTED. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Schultz,
Comply with Rule 26(a).. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments:
# 1 Exhibit REDACTED, # 2 Exhibit REDACTED, # 3 Exhibit REDACTED,
# 10 Errata REDACTED)(Schultz, Meredith) (Entered: 06/28/2016)
06/28/2016 259
A-38
RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 230 MOTION to Reopen Deposition

of Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre . REDACTED. Document filed by Virginia L.
Reopen Deposition of Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre .. Document filed by Virginia
L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit REDACTED, # 2 Exhibit REDACTED)
07/01/2016 261 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 231 MOTION for Sanctions 37(b) &
(c) for Failure to Comply with Court Order and Failure to Comply with Rule
26(a). REDACTED-CORRECTED. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
07/05/2016 262 LETTER MOTION for Leave to File Reply Brief in Further Support of Motion
to Quash addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Eric J. Feder dated July 5,
2016., LETTER MOTION to Seal Document addressed to Judge Robert W.
Sweet from Eric J. Feder dated July 5, 2016. Document filed by Sharon
07/05/2016 263 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 215 MOTION to Quash
subpoena of Sharon Churcher . . Document filed by Sharon Churcher. (Feder,
Eric) (Entered: 07/05/2016)
07/05/2016 264 NOTICE of of FILING REDACTED OPINION. Document filed by Virginia
L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Redacted
Menninger dated 6/30/2016 re: I write to request a brief 3-day extension of
time to file Ms. Maxwell's Reply in Support of her Motions to Re-open
Plaintiff's Deposition and for Rule 37(b) and (c) Sanctions until July 8, 2016.
ENDORSEMENT: So ordered. (Replies due by 7/8/2016.) (Signed by Judge
07/07/2016 266 ORDER granting 255 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Plaintiff's
Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Rule 37 Sanctions
addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Meredith Schultz dated June 28,
2016. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. So ordered. (Signed by Judge
07/08/2016 267 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 230 MOTION to Reopen Deposition of
Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre . . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
Reopen Deposition of Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre .. Document filed by Ghislaine
Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit O, # 2 Exhibit P)(Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 07/08/2016)
A-39
07/08/2016 269 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 231 MOTION for Sanctions 37(b) & (c) for
Failure to Comply with Court Order and Failure to Comply with Rule 26(a). .
07/08/2016)
# 1 Exhibit O, # 2 Exhibit P, # 3 Exhibit Q, # 4 Exhibit R, # 5 Exhibit S, # 6
Exhibit T)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 07/08/2016)
from Meredith Schultz dated July 12, 2016. Document filed by Virginia L.
07/12/2016 272 LETTER MOTION for Leave to File Sur-Reply addressed to Judge Robert W.
Sweet from Sigrid McCawley dated July 12, 2016. Document filed by Virginia
L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit REDACTED Sur-Reply, # 2 Exhibit
REDACTED Declaration, # 3 Exhibit REDACTED Exhibit 1, # 4 Exhibit
REDACTED Exhibit 2, # 5 Exhibit REDACTED Exhibit 3, # 6 Exhibit
REDACTED Exhibit 8)(Schultz, Meredith) (Entered: 07/12/2016)
07/13/2016 273 ORDER granting 256 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Plaintiff's
addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Meredith Schultz dated June 28,
07/13/2016 274 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on THE PARTIES' AGREED NOTICE OF
FILING REDACTED OPINION. ENDORSEMENT: So ordered. re: 264
NOTICE of of FILING REDACTED OPINION. Document filed by Virginia
L. Giuffre. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 7/11/2016) (rjm) (Entered:
07/13/2016)
07/13/2016 Transmission to Sealed Records Clerk. Transmitted re: 274 Memo
Endorsement to the Sealed Records Clerk for the sealing or unsealing of
07/13/2016 275 ORDER granting 262 LETTER MOTION for Leave to File Reply Brief in
Further Support of Motion to Quash addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from
Eric J. Feder dated July 5, 2016. LETTER MOTION to Seal Document
addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Eric J. Feder dated July 5, 2016.
Document filed by Sharon Churcher. So ordered. (Signed by Judge Robert W.
07/13/2016 Transmission to Sealed Records Clerk. Transmitted re: 275 Order on Motion
for Leave to File Document, Order on Motion to Seal Document to the Sealed
A-40
Records Clerk for the sealing or unsealing of document or case. (rjm) (Entered:
07/13/2016)
07/13/2016 276 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: motion held on 6/23/2016 before Judge
Robert W. Sweet. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Vincent Bologna, (212) 805-
that an official transcript of a MOTION proceeding held on 6/23/16 has been
07/13/2016 278 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Plaintiff's Motion for an Adverse
Inference Instruction addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Meredith
Schultz dated July 13, 2016. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.(Schultz,
Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.(Schultz, Meredith) (Entered:
07/13/2016)
07/13/2016 280 DECLARATION of Meredith Schultz in Support re: 279 MOTION for
Sanctions Motion for Adverse Inference Instruction REDACTED.. Document
filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit REDACTED, # 2
Exhibit REDACTED, # 3 Exhibit)(Schultz, Meredith) (Entered: 07/13/2016)
07/15/2016 281 ORDER granting 271 Motion to Seal Document: So ordered. (Signed by Judge
07/15/2016 282 ORDER granting 278 Motion to Seal Document. SO ORDERED.(Signed by
Judge Robert W. Sweet on 7/15/2016) (ama) (Entered: 07/15/2016)
07/15/2016 283 ORDER: Cassell's motion to quash shall be taken on submission returnable
Thursday, August 4, 2016. All papers shall be served in accordance with Local
Civil Rule 6.1. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 7/11/2016) (tn) (Entered:
07/15/2016)
Menninger dated 7/8/2016 re: that the Court permit the filing of Ms. Maxwell's
Reply In Support Of Motion for Rule 37(b) & (c) Sanctions For Failure To
Comply With Court Order And Failure To Comply With Rule 26(a) in excess
of the 10 pages permitted pursuant to this Court's Practice Standard 2D.
7/15/2016) (tn) (Entered: 07/15/2016)
A-41
Menninger dated 7/8/2016 re: Ms. Maxwell therefore requests permission to
file the Confidential information under seal. ENDORSEMENT: So ordered.
Menninger dated 7/13/2016 re: letter motion to file Ms. Maxwell's Letter
Motion requesting the Court to strike and disregard Plaintiff's Sur-Reply in
Response to Defendant's Reply in Support of Motion for Sanctions.
7/15/2016) (tn) Modified on 7/15/2016 (tn). (Entered: 07/15/2016)
07/15/2016 287 ORDER with respect to 279 Motion for Sanctions: Plaintiff's motion for an
adverse inference instruction shall be taken in submission returnable August
11, 2016. All papers shall be served in accordance with Local Civil Rule 6.1
and pursuant to this Court's previous orders. (Signed by Judge Robert W.
LETTER MOTION for Discovery to Strike Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Motion
for an Adverse Inference Instruction Pursuant to Rule 37(b), (e), and (f),
Fed.R.Civ.P addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Laura A. Menninger
dated June 15, 2016. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Menninger, Laura) Modified on 7/22/2016 (db).
(Entered: 07/15/2016)
07/18/2016 289 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Response in Opposition to Defendant's
Letter Motion to Strike addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Meredith
Schultz dated July 18, 2016. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.(Schultz,
07/18/2016 290 LETTER RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion addressed to Judge Robert W.
Sweet from Meredith Schultz dated July 18, 2016 re: 288 LETTER MOTION
for Discovery to Strike Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Motion for an Adverse
Inference Instruction Pursuant to Rule 37(b), (e), and (f), Fed.R.Civ.P
201 REDACTED. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Schultz, Meredith)
(Entered: 07/18/2016)
07/18/2016 291 DECLARATION of Meredith Schultz in Opposition re: 288 LETTER
MOTION for Discovery to Strike Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Motion for an
201. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit
REDACTED, # 2 Exhibit REDACTED, # 3 Exhibit REDACTED)(Schultz,
A-42

Menninger dated 7/13/2016 re: Defendant Maxwell requests the Court strike
and disregard Plaintiff's Sur-Reply in Response to Defendant's Reply in
Support of Motion for Sanctions, or in the alternative, permit Ms. Maxwell to
file a Sur Sur-Reply responding to both the matters raised therein and new
documents disclosed contemporaneously with the Sur-Reply.
ENDORSEMENT: Sur sur reply permitted. So ordered. (Signed by Judge
Robert W. Sweet on 7/18/2016) (kko) (Entered: 07/19/2016)
07/20/2016 297 ORDER granting 289 Motion to Seal Document: So ordered. (Signed by Judge
Document 288 LETTER MOTION for Discovery to Strike Plaintiff
Virginia Giuffre's Motion for an Adverse Inference Instruction Pursuant to
Rule 37(b), (e), and (f), Fed.R.Civ.P addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet
from Laura A. Menninger dated June 15, 201. Use the event type Letter
found under the event list Other Documents. (db) (Entered: 07/22/2016)
07/22/2016 300 LETTER addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Laura A. Menninger dated
July 15, 2016 re: Motion to Strike Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Motion for an
Adverse Inference Instruction Pursuant to Rule 37(b), (e), and (f), Fed.R.Civ.P.
Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2
Exhibit 2)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 07/22/2016)
07/22/2016 301 ORDER: Defendant's motion to strike Plaintiff's motion for an Adverse
Inference Instruction, ECF No. 288 is denied. The parties are directed to
submit proposed search terms and any briefs in support for court determination
within ten days of the date of filing of this order. The briefing schedule and
submission date for Plaintiff's motion for an Adverse Inference Instruction,
ECF No. 279, set forth in the Court's July 15, 2016 Order, ECF No. 287, is
adjourned. A briefing schedule and submission date will be set after search
terms are determined. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 7/20/2016) (cf)
(Entered: 07/22/2016)
07/25/2016 302 JOINT MOTION Proposed Discovery and Case Management Deadlines and
Request to Modify Pretrial Scheduling Order re: 13 Scheduling Order, .
07/25/2016)
Sur-Reply addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Sigrid McCawley dated
July 12, 2016. Defendant's Sur Sur-Reply In Support of Motion for Rule 37(b)
& (c) Sanctions. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 07/25/2016)
A-43
# 1 Exhibit U, # 2 Exhibit V, # 3 Exhibit W, # 4 Exhibit X)(Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 07/25/2016)
07/25/2016 305 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Plaintiff's Motion for an Extension of
Time to Serve Process Upon and Depose Ross Gow addressed to Judge Robert
W. Sweet from Meredith Schultz dated July 25, 2016. Document filed by
07/25/2016 306 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery to Serve and Depose
Ross Gow. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.(Schultz, Meredith)
(Entered: 07/25/2016)
Extension of Time to Complete Discovery to Serve and Depose Ross Gow..
Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit,
# 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit REDACTED, # 8
Exhibit REDACTED, # 9 Exhibit)(Schultz, Meredith) (Entered: 07/25/2016)
07/25/2016 308 MOTION for Sanctions and finding Civil Contempt against Sarah Kellen for
Ignoring Subpoena. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.(Schultz, Meredith)
(Entered: 07/25/2016)
Sanctions and finding Civil Contempt against Sarah Kellen for Ignoring
Subpoena.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit,
# 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit)(Schultz, Meredith) (Entered:
07/25/2016)
07/25/2016 310 MOTION for Sanctions and for Finding of Civil Contempt Against Nadia
Marcinkova for Ignoring Subpoena. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
Sanctions and for Finding of Civil Contempt Against Nadia Marcinkova for
Ignoring Subpoena.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit)(Schultz, Meredith)
(Entered: 07/25/2016)
07/29/2016 312 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Notice of Supplemental Authority
addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Meredith Schultz dated July 29,
07/29/2016)
07/29/2016 313 NOTICE of Supplemental Authority re: 257 Response in Opposition to
Motion. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit
07/29/2016 314 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Motion to Enforce the Court's Order
addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Meredith Schultz dated July 29,
A-44

07/29/2016)
Defendant to Answer Deposition Questions. Document filed by Virginia L.
Giuffre.(Schultz, Meredith) Modified on 8/10/2016 (db). (Entered: 07/29/2016)
Meredith Schultz in Support re: 315 MOTION to Compel and Motion to
Enforce the Court's Order and Direct Defendant to Answer Deposition
Questions.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit
REDACTED, # 8 Exhibit REDACTED)(Schultz, Meredith) Modified on
8/10/2016 (db). (Entered: 07/29/2016)
MOTION Proposed Discovery and Case Management Deadlines and Request
to Modify Pretrial Scheduling Order re: 13 Scheduling Order. Document filed
by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 7/30/2016) (rjm).
(Entered: 08/01/2016)
08/01/2016 318 ORDER: Plaintiff's motions for a finding of civil contempt against Sarah
Kellen and Nadia Marcinkova shall be taken on submission returnable August
25, 2016. All papers shall be served in accordance with Local Civil Rule 6.1
and pursuant to this Court's previous orders. (Signed by Judge Robert W.
08/01/2016)
08/01/2016)
08/01/2016 321 DECLARATION of Laura A. Menninger in Support re: 320 MOTION
Defendant's Submission Regarding "Search Terms" And Notice Of Compliance
With Court Order Concerning Forensic Examination Of Devices.. Document
filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3
Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F)(Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 08/01/2016)
A-45
08/01/2016 322 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Plaintiff's Proposed Search Terms
addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Meredith Schutlz dated August 1,
08/01/2016)
08/01/2016 323 NOTICE of of Sumbission of Proposed Search Terms re: 301 Order,,.
Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Schultz, Meredith) (Entered:
08/01/2016)
Seal Document, to the Sealed Records Clerk for the sealing or unsealing of
08/02/2016 326 ORDER: Plaintiff's second motion to compel defendant to answer deposition
questions shall be taken on submission returnable August 18, 2016. All papers
shall be served in accordance with Local Civil Rule 6.1 and pursuant to this
Court's previous orders. It is so ordered. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on
8/2/2016) (kl) (Entered: 08/02/2016)
08/02/2016 327 ORDER: Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to serve process upon and
depose Ross Gow shall be taken on submission returnable August 11, 2016. All
papers shall be served pursuant to this Court's previous orders. It is so ordered.
Menninger dated 7/25/2016 re: This is a letter motion to file Ms. Maxwell's Sur
Sur-Reply In Support of Motion for Rule 37(b) & (c) Sanctions exhibits under
seal pursuant to this Court's Protective Order (Doc. # 62). ENDORSEMENT:
So ordered. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 8/2/2016) (kl) (Entered:
08/02/2016)
Menninger dated 8/1/2016 re: This is a letter motion to file Ms. Maxwell's
Submission Regarding "Search Terms" and Notice of Compliance with Court
Order Concerning Forensic Examination of Computer Device and supporting
exhibits under seal pursuant to this Court's Protective Order (Doc. # 62).
8/2/2016) (kl) (Entered: 08/02/2016)
08/03/2016 330 APPLICATION FOR LETTERS ROGATORY by Virginia L. Giuffre.
08/03/2016 331 APPLICATION FOR LETTERS ROGATORY by Virginia L. Giuffre.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 (Composite), # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4
Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7)(Schultz, Meredith)
(Entered: 08/03/2016)
08/04/2016 332 ORDER granting 312 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Notice of
Supplemental Authority addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Meredith
A-46
Schultz dated July 29, 2016. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. So

08/04/2016)
08/04/2016 333 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 306 MOTION for Extension of Time
to Complete Discovery to Serve and Depose Ross Gow. . Document filed by
08/08/2016 334 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Motion for Protective Order addressed
to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Sigrid McCawley dated August 8, 2016.
08/08/2016)
08/08/2016 335 MOTION for Protective Order and Motion for the Court to Direct Defendant
to Disclose All Individuals to whom Defendant has Disseminated Confidential
Information. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.(Schultz, Meredith)
(Entered: 08/08/2016)
08/08/2016 337 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Plaintiff's Supplement to Motion for
Adverse Inference Instruction Based on New Information addressed to Judge
Robert W. Sweet from Meredith Schultz dated August 8, 2016. Document filed
08/08/2016 338 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 279 MOTION for Sanctions
Motion for Adverse Inference Instruction REDACTED. Supplement Based on
New Information. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1
REDACTED DECLARATION, # 2 Exhibit REDACTED, # 3 Exhibit
REDACTED, # 10 Exhibit REDACTED)(Schultz, Meredith) (Entered:
08/08/2016)
08/08/2016 339 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 315 MOTION to Compel and Motion
to Enforce the Court's Order and Direct Defendant to Answer Deposition
Questions. . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 08/08/2016)
08/08/2016 340 DECLARATION of Jeffrey S. Pagliuca in Opposition re: 315 MOTION to
Compel and Motion to Enforce the Court's Order and Direct Defendant to
Answer Deposition Questions.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
A-47
Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I)

Extension of Time to Complete Discovery to Serve and Depose Ross Gow. .
Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Schultz, Meredith) (Entered:
08/09/2016)
08/09/2016 344 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Plaintiff's Motion to Compel addressed
to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Sigrid McCawley dated August 9, 2016.
08/09/2016)
08/09/2016 345 MOTION to Compel Defendant to Produce Documents Subject to Improper
Objection and Improper Claim of Privilege. Document filed by Virginia L.
Defendant to Produce Documents Subject to Improper Objection and Improper
Claim of Privilege.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit REDACTED, # 2 Exhibit REDACTED, # 3 Exhibit REDACTED, # 4
Exhibit REDACTED, # 5 Exhibit REDACTED)(Schultz, Meredith) (Entered:
08/09/2016)
returnable Thursday, September 1, 2016. All papers shall be served pursuant to
Local Civil Rule 6.1 and this Court's previous orders. It is so ordered. (Signed
by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 8/9/2016) (rjm) (Entered: 08/10/2016)
08/09/2016 348 STANDING ORDER. To reduce unnecessary filings and delay, it is hereby
ordered that letter motions to file submissions under seal pursuant to the
Court's Protective Order, ECF No. 62, are granted. The Protective Order is
amended accordingly such that filing a letter motion seeking sealing for each
submission is no longer necessary. A party wishing to challenge the sealing of
any particular submission may do so by motion. It is so ordered. Granting 322
LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Plaintiff's Proposed Search Terms
addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Meredith Schutlz dated August 1,
2016. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre; Granting 334 LETTER
MOTION to Seal Document Motion for Protective Order addressed to Judge
Robert W. Sweet from Sigrid McCawley dated August 8, 2016. Document
filed by Virginia L. Giuffre; Granting 337 LETTER MOTION to Seal
Document Plaintiff's Supplement to Motion for Adverse Inference Instruction
Based on New Information addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Meredith
Schultz dated August 8, 2016. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre; Granting
344 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Plaintiff's Motion to Compel
addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Sigrid McCawley dated August 9,
2016. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Signed by Judge Robert W.
A-48
08/09/2016 349 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Jeffrey S.
Pagliuca dated 8/8/2016 re: This is a letter motion to file Ms. Maxwell's
Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Enforce the Court's Order and
Direct Defendant to Answer Deposition Questions Filed Under Seal and
Supporting exhibits under seal pursuant to this Court's Protective Order (Doc.
8/9/2016) (rjm) (Entered: 08/10/2016)
(rjm) (Entered: 08/10/2016)
08/09/2016 350 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: 337 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document
Plaintiff's Supplement to Motion for Adverse Inference Instruction Based on
New Information addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Meredith Schultz
dated August 8, 2016. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
8/9/2016) (rjm) (Entered: 08/10/2016)
Motion for Protective Order addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Sigrid
McCawley dated August 8, 2016. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
8/9/2016) (rjm) (Entered: 08/10/2016)
Plaintiff's August 1, 2016 submission. Defendant will search all text and
associated metadata set forth below, and as further specified and set forth in
this Order. Terminating 320 MOTION Defendant's Submission Regarding
"Search Terms" And Notice Of Compliance With Court Order Concerning
Forensic Examination Of Devices. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
TYPE ERROR. Notice to Attorney Meredith L Schultz to RE-FILE
Document 315 MOTION to Compel and Motion to Enforce the Court's
Order and Direct Defendant to Answer Deposition Questions. Use the event
type Direct found under the event list Motions. (db) (Entered: 08/10/2016)
DOCKET ENTRY ERROR. Notice to Attorney Meredith L Schultz to
A-49

Document(s) linked to filing error(s). (db) (Entered: 08/10/2016)
08/10/2016 353 MOTION to Strike Document No. [338, and all supporting documents] to
Plaintiff's Supplement to Motion for Adverse Inference Instruction Based on
New Information. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.(Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 08/10/2016)
08/10/2016 354 MOTION to Compel Responses to Defendant's Second Set of Discovery
Requests to Plaintiff, and for Sanctions. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
Compel Responses to Defendant's Second Set of Discovery Requests to
Plaintiff, and for Sanctions.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered:
08/10/2016)
08/11/2016 356 MOTION to Direct DEFENDANT TO ANSWER DEPOSITION QUESTIONS
FILED UNDER SEAL. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.(Schultz,
[SCHULTZ DECLARATION ISO_DE 356_MOTION]. Document filed by
Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2 (Sealed), # 3
(Sealed), # 7 Exhibit 7 (Sealed), # 8 Exhibit 8 (Sealed))(Schultz, Meredith)
Modified on 8/12/2016 (db). (Entered: 08/11/2016)
ROGATORY). THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, presents its compliments to the
Foreign and Commonwealth Office, London SW1A 2AL, United Kingdom or
other appropriate judicial authority and, pursuant to the Evidence (Proceedings
in other Jurisdictions) Act 1975 and Part 34 of the English Civil Procedure
Rules, requests international judicial assistance to issue orders of subpoena
duces tecum to require a witness to appear for questioning and to produce
documents so that evidence may be obtained for a civil proceeding in the
above-captioned action which is pending before this Court, and as further
specified and set forth in this Request for International Judicial Assistance
(Letter Rogatory). (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 8/11/2016) (rjm)
(Entered: 08/11/2016)
08/11/2016 359 ORDER. Defendant's motion to strike, motion to compel, and motion for
sanctions shall be taken on submission returnable Thursday, September 8,
2016. All papers shall be served pursuant to Local Civil Rule 6.1 and this
Court's previous orders. It is so ordered. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on
8/11/2016) (rjm) (Entered: 08/11/2016)
A-50
Menninger dated 8/10/2016 re: This is a letter motion requesting that the Court
permit the filing of Ms. Maxwell's Motion to Compel Responses to Defendant's
Second Set of Discovery Requests to Plaintiff, and for Sanctions in excess of
the 25 pages permitted pursuant to this Court's Practice Standard 2D.
8/11/2016) (rjm) (Entered: 08/11/2016)
Thursday, September 1, 2016. All papers shall be served pursuant to Local
Civil Rule 6.1 and this Court's previous orders. It is so ordered. (Signed by
Modify Protective Order.( Return Date set for 9/8/2016 at 12:00 PM.)
Document filed by Alan M. Dershowitz.(Celli, Andrew) (Entered: 08/11/2016)
08/11/2016 363 DECLARATION of Alan M. Dershowitz in Support re: 362 MOTION to
Intervene . MOTION to Unseal Document or in the Alternative to Modify
Protective Order.. Document filed by Alan M. Dershowitz. (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6
Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N)(Celli, Andrew)
(Entered: 08/11/2016)
08/11/2016 364 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 362 MOTION to Intervene .
MOTION to Unseal Document or in the Alternative to Modify Protective
Order. . Document filed by Alan M. Dershowitz. (Celli, Andrew) (Entered:
08/11/2016)
08/11/2016 365 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Andrew G. Celli on behalf of Alan M.
Dershowitz. (Celli, Andrew) (Entered: 08/11/2016)
08/11/2016 366 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by David A Lebowitz on behalf of Alan M.
Dershowitz. (Lebowitz, David) (Entered: 08/11/2016)
TYPE ERROR. Notice to Attorney Meredith L Schultz to RE-FILE
Document 357 MOTION to Direct DEFENDANT TO ANSWER
DEPOSITION QUESTIONS [SCHULTZ DECLARATION ISO_DE
356_MOTION]. Use the event type Declaration in Support of Motion
found under the event list Replies, Opposition and Supporting Documents.
(db) (Entered: 08/12/2016)
DEFENDANT TO ANSWER DEPOSITION QUESTIONS [SCHULTZ
DECLARATION ISO_DE 356_MOTION]., 315 MOTION to Compel and
Motion to Enforce the Court's Order and Direct Defendant to Answer
Deposition Questions., 356 MOTION to Direct DEFENDANT TO ANSWER
DEPOSITION QUESTIONS FILED UNDER SEAL.. Document filed by
Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 (Sealed), # 2 Exhibit 2
(Sealed), # 3 Exhibit 3 (Sealed), # 4 Exhibit 4 (Sealed), # 5 Exhibit 5 (Sealed),
A-51
# 6 Exhibit 6 (Sealed), # 7 Exhibit 7 (Sealed), # 8 Exhibit 8 (Sealed))(Schultz,

and Motion to Enforce the Court's Order and Direct Defendant to Answer
Deposition Questions., 357 MOTION to Direct DEFENDANT TO ANSWER
DEPOSITION QUESTIONS [SCHULTZ DECLARATION ISO_DE
356_MOTION]., 356 MOTION to Direct DEFENDANT TO ANSWER
DEPOSITION QUESTIONS FILED UNDER SEAL. . Document filed by
DEFENDANT TO ANSWER DEPOSITION QUESTIONS [SCHULTZ
DECLARATION ISO_DE 356_MOTION].. Document filed by Virginia L.
Exhibit REDACTED, # 10 Exhibit REDACTED, # 11 Exhibit REDACTED, #
12 Exhibit REDACTED, # 13 Exhibit REDACTED, # 14 Exhibit
Information. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit
A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 08/12/2016)
Protective Order (REDACTED) Regarding Personal Financial Information..
08/15/2016 373 ORDER: Defendant's motion for a protective order shall be taken on
submission returnable Thursday, September 8, 2016. All papers shall be served
pursuant to Local Civil Rule 6.1 and this Court's previous orders. (Signed by
08/15/2016 374 ORDER: Proposed Intervenor Alan Dershowitz's motion for permissive
intervention and unsealing shall be taken on submission returnable Thursday,
September 8, 2016. All papers shall be served pursuant to Local Civil Rule 6.1
and this Court's previous orders. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on
8/15/2016) (cf) (Entered: 08/15/2016)
08/17/2016 375 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 353 MOTION to Strike Document
No. [338, and all supporting documents] to Plaintiff's Supplement to Motion for
Adverse Inference Instruction Based on New Information. . Document filed by
NON-PARTY JEFFREY EPSTEIN: Undersigned counsel and non-party
Jeffrey Epstein, through counsel, respectfully submit this notice of withdrawal
and substitution of counsel Upon approval of this Court, the Law Offices of
A-52
Gregory L. Poe PLLC (including Gregory L. Poe and Rachel S. Li Wai Suen)
shall withdraw from the representation of Mr. Epstein in connection with this
action and Jack Goldberger, Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A., 250 N.
Australian Avenue #1400, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401, (561) 207-8305,
shall enter an appearance on behalf of Mr. Epstein as a non-party in this action.
So ordered. Attorney Jack Alan Goldberger for Jeffrey Epstein added. Attorney
Rachel S. Li Wai Suen and Gregory L. Poe terminated. (Signed by Judge
08/17/2016 377 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Plaintiff's Response In
Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Compel and for Sanctions. Document
08/17/2016 378 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 354 MOTION to Compel Responses
to Defendant's Second Set of Discovery Requests to Plaintiff, and for
Sanctions. . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (McCawley, Sigrid)
(Entered: 08/17/2016)
Plaintiff, and for Sanctions.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Redacted, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit Redacted, # 4
Exhibit Redacted, # 5 Exhibit Redacted, # 6 Exhibit Redacted)(McCawley,
and Motion for the Court to Direct Defendant to Disclose All Individuals to
whom Defendant has Disseminated Confidential Information. . Document filed
Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7
Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 08/18/2016)
Protective Order.. Document filed by Alan M. Dershowitz. (Lebowitz, David)
(Entered: 08/19/2016)
08/19/2016 383 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 345 MOTION to Compel Defendant
to Produce Documents Subject to Improper Objection and Improper Claim of
Privilege. . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 08/19/2016)
Compel Defendant to Produce Documents Subject to Improper Objection and
Improper Claim of Privilege.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
(Entered: 08/19/2016)
A-53

Claim of Privilege.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger,
08/22/2016)
Individuals to whom Defendant has Disseminated Confidential Information. .
08/23/2016)
Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Composite
Sealed 1, # 2 Exhibit Sealed 2, # 3 Exhibit Sealed 3, # 4 Exhibit Sealed 4)
Menninger dated 8/22/2016 re: request that Ms. Maxwell be permitted to
submit her reply by close of business on August 25. ENDORSEMENT: So
ordered. Set Deadlines/Hearing as to 354 MOTION to Compel Responses to
Defendant's Second Set of Discovery Requests to Plaintiff, and for Sanctions:
Replies due by 8/25/2016. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 8/23/2016)
(tn) (Entered: 08/23/2016)
A-54
08/23/2016 395 MEMO ENDORSEMENT granting 377 Letter Motion for Leave to File
Excess Pages. ENDORSEMENT: So ordered. (Signed by Judge Robert W.
08/23/2016 396 ORDER with respect to 390 Motion to Compel: Plaintiff's motion to compel
defendant to produce financial information, seeking relief oppositional to
Defendant's motion for a protective order regarding financial information, shall
be taken on submission the same date returnable Thursday, September 8, 2016.
Claim of Privilege. . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (McCawley,
Claim of Privilege.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit Sealed Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit Sealed Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit Sealed
Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit Sealed Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit Sealed Exhibit 5)
08/25/2016 400 MOTION for Leave to File A Sur-Reply or, Alternatively, to Strike Plaintiff's
Leave to File A Sur-Reply or, Alternatively, to Strike Plaintiff's
Misrepresentations of Fact to the Court .. Document filed by Ghislaine
Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered:
08/25/2016)
Responses to Defendant's Second Set of Discovery Requests to Plaintiff, and
for Sanctions. . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 08/25/2016)
Plaintiff, and for Sanctions.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
(Entered: 08/25/2016)
08/26/2016 LETTERS ROGATORY ISSUED on August 26, 2016, and picked up by
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP and to be served in London, Senior Courts of
England and Wales Foreign Process Section. (km) (Entered: 08/26/2016)
08/29/2016 404 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 370 MOTION for Protective Order
A-55
08/29/2016 406 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 362 MOTION to Intervene .
MOTION to Unseal Document or in the Alternative to Modify Protective
Order. . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Schultz, Meredith) (Entered:
08/29/2016)
Protective Order.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit, # 14 Exhibit, # 15 Exhibit, # 16 Exhibit, # 17 Exhibit, # 18 Exhibit, #
19 Exhibit, # 20 Exhibit, # 21 Exhibit, # 22 Exhibit, # 23 Exhibit)(Schultz,
08/29/2016 408 DECLARATION of Paul Cassell in Opposition re: 362 MOTION to
Protective Order.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit)(Schultz, Meredith) (Entered:
08/29/2016)
08/30/2016 409 MOTION for Jack A. Goldberger to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Goldberger, Jack)
(Entered: 08/30/2016)
Document No. 409 MOTION for Jack A. Goldberger to Appear Pro Hac
has been reviewed and there are no deficiencies. (wb) (Entered: 08/30/2016)
Menninger dated 8/29/2016 re: Request that the Court permit the filing of Ms.
Maxwell's Reply in Support of Motion for Protective Order Regarding
Personal Financial Information in excess of the 10 pages permitted pursuant to
this Court's Practice Standard 2D. ENDORSEMENT: So ordered. (Signed by
Judge Robert W. Sweet on 8/30/2016) (kko) (Entered: 08/30/2016)
08/30/2016 411 ORDER granting 400 Motion for Leave to File Document. Leave granted to
file a sur reply. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 8/30/2016) (cf)
(Entered: 08/30/2016)
Menninger dated 8/25/2016 re: This is a letter motion concerns Ms. Maxwell's
Reply In Support of her Motion to Compel Responses to Defendant's Second
Set of Discovery Requests to Plaintiff, and for Sanctions. We request that the
A-56
defense be permitted to exceed the 10-page limit. ENDORSEMENT: So

ordered. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 8/30/2016) (kko) (Entered:
08/30/2016)
08/31/2016 413 MOTION Modify Scheduling Order re: 317 Order on Motion for
Miscellaneous Relief, . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.(Edwards,
09/01/2016 414 RESPONSE to Motion re: 390 MOTION to Compel Defendant to Produce
Financial Information to Plaintiff . . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
09/06/2016 417 LETTER MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages (Reply Brief) addressed to
Judge Robert W. Sweet from Sigrid S. McCawley dated 09/06/16. Document
filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.(Schultz, Meredith) (Entered: 09/06/2016)
09/06/2016 418 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 390 MOTION to Compel Defendant to
Produce Financial Information to Plaintiff . . Document filed by Virginia L.
Goldberger to Appear Pro Hac Vice. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on
9/1/2016) (rjm) (Entered: 09/06/2016)
09/06/2016 420 MEMO ENDORSEMENT granting 413 MOTION Modify Scheduling Order
re: 317 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief. ENDORSEMENT: So
ordered. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 9/6/2016) (kl) (Entered:
09/06/2016)
Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Reopen Plaintiff's
Deposition addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Meredith Schultz dated
June 28, 2016, filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. ENDORSEMENT: So ordered.
Endorsement, to the Sealed Records Clerk for the sealing or unsealing of
09/06/2016 422 MOTION to Compel Settlement Agreement (Renewed). Document filed by
Compel Settlement Agreement (Renewed).. Document filed by Ghislaine
agreement shall be heard at noon on Thursday, September 22, 2016 in
Courtroom 18C, United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street. All papers shall be
served in accordance with Local Civil Rule 6.1. It is so ordered. (Oral
A-57
Argument set for 9/22/2016 at 12:00 PM in Courtroom 18C, 500 Pearl Street,
09/07/2016 425 ORDER granting 417 LETTER MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages
(Reply Brief) addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Sigrid S. McCawley
dated 09/06/16. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. So ordered. (Signed by
09/07/2016 426 LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 362
MOTION to Intervene . MOTION to Unseal Document or in the Alternative to
Modify Protective Order. addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Andrew
G. Celli, Jr. and David A. Lebowitz dated September 7, 2016. Document filed
by Alan M. Dershowitz.(Lebowitz, David) (Entered: 09/07/2016)
09/08/2016 427 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Expert Reports (Unopposed).
09/08/2016)
09/09/2016 429 ORDER granting 426 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to File
Response/Reply. So ordered. Replies due by 9/15/2016. (Signed by Judge
Robert W. Sweet on 9/8/2016) (kl) (Main Document 429 replaced on
9/13/2016) (kgo). (Main Document 429 replaced on 9/13/2016) (kgo).
(Entered: 09/09/2016)
9/12/2016) (kgo) (Main Document 430 replaced on 9/13/2016) (kgo). (Entered:
09/12/2016)
09/15/2016 433 Vacated as to Nadia Marcinkova as per Judge's Order dated 3/20/2017,
Doc. # 757 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from
Sigrid S. McCawley dated 9/13/2016 re: Ms. Giuffre would respectfully
request that the Court Order that (1) that Nadia Marcinkova and Sarah Kellen
be directed to appear for deposition (2) that Nadia Marcinkova and Sarah
Kellen pay Giuffre's costs and reasonable attorney's fees associated with
bringing the motion, and that (3) Nadia Marcinkova and Sarah Kellen be
ordered to pay a civil penalty of $200 per day for each day after which they fail
to appear at the rescheduled deposition and any other sanction the court
believes is just and proper. ENDORSEMENT: So ordered. (Signed by Judge
Robert W. Sweet on 9/15/2016) (rjm) Modified on 3/20/2017 (jwh). (Entered:
09/15/2016)
09/15/2016 434 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Paul G.
Cassell dated 9/13/2016 re: Undersigned counsel sends this letter advising that
Cassell believes no redactions are required to the Court's opinion.
A-58

9/15/2016) (rjm) (Entered: 09/15/2016)
Protective Order.. Document filed by Alan M. Dershowitz. (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit O, # 2 Exhibit P, # 3 Exhibit Q, # 4 Exhibit R, # 5 Exhibit S, # 6
Exhibit T, # 7 Exhibit U, # 8 Exhibit V, # 9 Exhibit W, # 10 Exhibit X)(Celli,
Andrew) (Entered: 09/15/2016)
09/15/2016 436 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 362 MOTION to
Protective Order. . Document filed by Alan M. Dershowitz. (Celli, Andrew)
(Entered: 09/15/2016)
09/16/2016 437 NOTICE of Parties' Joint Stipulation regarding Discovery Motion re: 422
MOTION to Compel Settlement Agreement (Renewed).. Document filed by
09/19/2016 438 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: 437 NOTICE of Parties' Joint Stipulation
regarding Discovery Motion re: 422 MOTION to Compel Settlement
Agreement (Renewed). Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
ENDORSEMENT: So ordered. The following hearing(s) was terminated: Oral
Argument. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 9/19/2016) (rjm) (Entered:
09/19/2016)
09/20/2016 440 NOTICE of Filing Proposed Redacted Opinion. Document filed by Sharon
Churcher. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Redacted Opinion)(Feder, Eric)
(Entered: 09/20/2016)
09/21/2016 441 MOTION for Discovery for Court Approval of Plaintiff's Certification of
Production. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.(Schultz, Meredith)
(Entered: 09/21/2016)
Discovery for Court Approval of Plaintiff's Certification of Production..
Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2
Exhibit 2 Sealed, # 3 Exhibit 3 Sealed, # 4 Exhibit 4 Sealed, # 5 Exhibit 5
Sealed)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 09/21/2016)
09/22/2016 443 NOTICE of Plaintiff Notice of Related Action in the United Kingdom to
Obtain the Deposition of Defendant's Press Agent, Ross Gow. Document filed
by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit
09/26/2016 444 LETTER MOTION for Leave to File a less-redacted version of Professor
Dershowitzs Reply Declaration addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from
Andrew G. Celli dated 9/26/2016. Document filed by Alan M. Dershowitz.
Production shall be heard at noon on Thursday, October 13, 2016 in Courtroom
A-59
accordance with Local Civil Rule 6.1 Motion Hearing set for 10/13/2016 at
12:00 PM in Courtroom 18C, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before
Judge Robert W. Sweet. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 9/23/2016) (cf)
(Entered: 09/26/2016)
09/27/2016 446 MEMO ENDORSEMENT: on PLAINTIFF VIRGINIA GIUFFRE'S MOTION
FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO SERVE PROCESS UPON AND
DEPOSE ROSS GOW. ENDORSEMENT: Motion granted. Time extended 60
days. So ordered. Granting 306 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete
Discovery. The following deadline(s) was terminated: Deposition Deadline.
09/28/2016 447 LETTER RESPONSE to Motion addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from
Sigrid S. McCawley dated September 28, 2016 re: 444 LETTER MOTION for
Leave to File a less-redacted version of Professor Dershowitzs Reply
Declaration addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Andrew G. Celli dated
9/26/2016. . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Schultz, Meredith)
(Entered: 09/28/2016)
09/29/2016 448 NOTICE of Plaintiff's Notice of English Court's Issuance of Order
Commanding Ross Gow to Sit for Deposition. Document filed by Virginia L.
Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Composite Exhibit 1)(McCawley, Sigrid)
(Entered: 09/29/2016)
09/30/2016 449 MOTION to Compel Testimony of Jeffrey Epstein. Document filed by
09/30/2016 450 DECLARATION of Jeffrey S. Pagliuca in Support re: 449 MOTION to
Compel Testimony of Jeffrey Epstein.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
09/30/2016 451 JOINT MOTION re: 13 Scheduling Order, Amended Proposed Discovery and
Case Management Deadlines and Request to Modify Pretrial Scheduling
Order. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.(Menninger, Laura) (Entered:
09/30/2016)
10/03/2016 452 ORDER re: 444 LETTER MOTION for Leave to File a less-redacted version
of Professor Dershowitzs Reply Declaration addressed to Judge Robert W.
Sweet from Andrew G. Celli dated 9/26/2016. Proposed Intervenor Alan M.
Dershowitz's September 26, 2016 letter motion for leave to publicly file a less-
redacted version of Dershowitz's Reply Declaration shall be heard at noon on
Thursday, October 13, 2016 in Courtroom 18C, United States Courthouse, 500
6.1. Motion Hearing set for 10/13/2016 at 12:00 PM in Courtroom 18C, 500
Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Robert W. Sweet. (Signed by
10/03/2016 453 ORDER terminating 441 Letter Motion for Discovery. Hearing vacated as
moot. So ordered. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 10/3/2016) (cf)
(Entered: 10/03/2016)
A-60
10/03/2016 454 NOTICE of Withdrawal of Opposition to DE 444 re: 444 LETTER MOTION
for Leave to File a less-redacted version of Professor Dershowitzs Reply
Declaration addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Andrew G. Celli dated
9/26/2016., 452 Order Setting Hearing on Motion,,. Document filed by
10/03/2016 455 ORDER granting 451 Motion. So ordered. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet
on 10/3/2016) (cf) (Entered: 10/03/2016)
10/03/2016 Set/Reset Deadlines: Deposition due by 11/30/2016. Motions due by
2/24/2017. Pretrial Order due by 2/10/2017. Responses due by 1/31/2017
Replies due by 2/10/2017. (cf) (Entered: 10/03/2016)
10/03/2016 456 ORDER: Defendant's motion to compel the testimony of Jeffrey Epstein shall
be heard at noon on Thursday, October 20, 2016 in Courtroom 18C, United
States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street. All papers shall be served in accordance
with Local Civil Rule 6.1. Motion Hearing set for 10/20/2016 at 12:00 PM in
10/03/2016)
10/06/2016 457 LETTER addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from David A. Lebowitz dated
October 6, 2016 re: Plaintiff's Proposed Order Granting Leave to File Less
Redacted Declaration. Document filed by Alan M. Dershowitz.(Lebowitz,
David) (Entered: 10/06/2016)
10/11/2016 459 LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply addressed to
Judge Robert W. Sweet from Jack Goldberger dated October 5, 2016.
Document filed by Jeffrey Epstein.(Goldberger, Jack) (Entered: 10/11/2016)
10/11/2016 460 JOINT LETTER MOTION to Continue addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet
from Jack Goldberger dated October 11, 2016. Document filed by Jeffrey
10/11/2016 461 ORDER GRANTING DERSHOWITZ'S SEPTEMBER 26, 2016, LETTER
MOTION TO PUBLICALLY FILE A LESS REDACTED VERSION OF
DERSHOWITZ'S REPLY DECLARATION. Proposed Intervenor Alan M.
Dershowitz's Motion to re-file Dershowitz's Reply Declaration with all
references to paragraphs 20 and 21 of Mr. Cassell's declaration unredacted and
not under seal is GRANTED: Proposed Intervenor Alan M. Dershowitz is
directed to re-file Dershowitz' s Reply Declaration with all references to
paragraphs 20 and 21 of Mr. Cassell' s declaration unredacted and not under
seal. The hearing scheduled for Thursday, October 13, 2016, is hereby vacated.
It is so ordered. Granting 444 LETTER MOTION for Leave to File a less-
redacted version of Professor Dershowitzs Reply Declaration addressed to
Judge Robert W. Sweet from Andrew G. Celli dated 9/26/2016. Document
filed by Alan M. Dershowitz. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on
10/6/2016) (rjm) (Entered: 10/11/2016)
10/11/2016
A-61
Transmission to Sealed Records Clerk. Transmitted re: 461 Order on Motion

for Leave to File Document to the Sealed Records Clerk for the sealing or
unsealing of document or case. (rjm) (Entered: 10/11/2016)
10/11/2016 462 LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 449
MOTION to Compel Testimony of Jeffrey Epstein., 459 LETTER MOTION
for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply addressed to Judge Robert W.
Sweet from Jack Goldberger dated October 5, 2016. addressed to Judge Robert
W. Sweet from Sigrid McCawley dated October 11, 2016. Document filed by
Response/Reply re 449 MOTION to Compel Testimony of Jeffrey Epstein: So
ordered. Responses due by 10/17/2016. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on
10/7/2016) (tn) (Entered: 10/11/2016)
10/12/2016 464 ORDER: Defendant's motion to compel the testimony of Jeffrey Epstein
previously scheduled for October 20 shall instead be heard at noon on
Thursday, November 3, 2016 in Courtroom 18C, United States Courthouse,
500 Pearl Street. (Set Deadlines/Hearing as to 449 MOTION to Compel
Testimony of Jeffrey Epstein. : Motion Hearing set for 11/3/2016 at 12:00 PM
Robert W. Sweet.) (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 10/12/2016) (cla)
(Entered: 10/12/2016)
Response/Reply as to 449 MOTION to Compel Testimony of Jeffrey Epstein.,
459 LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply
addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Jack Goldberger dated October 5,
2016. addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Sigrid McCawley dated
October 11, 2016. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. So ordered. (Signed
by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 10/12/2016) (rjm) (Entered: 10/13/2016)
10/14/2016 466 MOTION to Reopen Defendant's Deposition Based on Defendant's Late
Production of New, Key Documents. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
Sealed Composite, # 2 Exhibit Sealed Composite, # 3 Exhibit Sealed)
10/14/2016 468 MOTION to Compel Ghislaine Maxwell to Produce Data from Undisclosed
Email Account and for an Adverse Inference Instruction. Document filed by
Ghislaine Maxwell to Produce Data from Undisclosed Email Account and for
an Adverse Inference Instruction.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit Sealed Composite
A-62
Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit Sealed Exhibit 3)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered:

10/14/2016)
10/17/2016 470 RESPONSE to Motion re: 449 MOTION to Compel Testimony of Jeffrey
Epstein. . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered:
10/17/2016)
Testimony of Jeffrey Epstein.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed Composite)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered:
10/17/2016)
10/17/2016 472 ORDER: Plaintiff's motion to reopen Defendant's deposition and motion to
compel shall be heard at noon on Thursday, November 3, 2016 in Courtroom
accordance with Local Civil Rule 6.1. (Set Deadlines/Hearing as to 468
MOTION to Compel Ghislaine Maxwell to Produce Data from Undisclosed
Email Account and for an Adverse Inference Instruction., 466 MOTION to
Reopen Defendant's Deposition Based on Defendant's Late Production of New,
Key Documents. : Motion Hearing set for 11/3/2016 at 12:00 PM in Courtroom
18C, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Robert W. Sweet.)
10/17/2016 473 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 449 MOTION to Compel Testimony
of Jeffrey Epstein. . Document filed by Jeffrey Epstein. (Goldberger, Jack)
(Entered: 10/17/2016)
10/17/2016 474 DECLARATION of Jack Goldberger in Opposition re: 449 MOTION to
Compel Testimony of Jeffrey Epstein.. Document filed by Jeffrey Epstein.
(Goldberger, Jack) (Entered: 10/17/2016)
10/20/2016 475 MOTION for Martin G. Weinberg to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $
(Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Good Standing, # 2 Proposed Order)
(Weinberg, Martin) (Entered: 10/20/2016)
Document No. 475 MOTION for Martin G. Weinberg to Appear Pro Hac
10/20/2016)
10/20/2016 476 LETTER addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Eric J. Feder dated
10/20/2016 re: Request to Publish Redacted Opinion (See Dkt 440). Document
filed by Sharon Churcher.(Feder, Eric) (Entered: 10/20/2016)
10/21/2016 477 ORDER FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE granting 475 Motion for Martin
G. Weinberg to Appear Pro Hac Vice. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on
10/21/2016) (rjm) (Entered: 10/21/2016)
10/24/2016 478
A-63
NOTICE of Plaintiff's Notice of Nadia Marcinkova's Failure to Appear at Her

Deposition. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit
1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 10/24/2016)
10/24/2016 479 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 468 MOTION to Compel Ghislaine
Inference Instruction. . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger,
Compel Ghislaine Maxwell to Produce Data from Undisclosed Email Account
and for an Adverse Inference Instruction.. Document filed by Ghislaine
10/24/2016)
Reopen Defendant's Deposition Based on Defendant's Late Production of New,
Key Documents.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)
10/24/2016 483 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 449 MOTION to Compel Testimony of
Jeffrey Epstein. . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 10/24/2016)
10/26/2016 484 ORDER. Non-party Sharon Churcher's request for issuance of the redacted
version of the Court's opinion shall be treated as a motion and heard on
Thursday, November 3, 2016 in Courtroom 18C, United States Courthouse,
Rule 6.1. It is so ordered. (Oral Argument set for 11/3/2016 at 12:00 PM in
10/26/2016)
10/27/2016 485 ORDER: Defendant's letter dated October 26, 2016 shall be designated as
confidential pursuant to the Protective Order. It is so ordered. (Signed by Judge
10/27/2016 486 ORDER: Non-party Sharon Churcher's request for issuance of the redacted
version of the Court's opinion, previously scheduled to be heard on November
3, shall instead heard at noon on Thursday, November 10, 2016 in Courtroom
18C, United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street. It is so ordered. (Oral
Argument set for 11/10/2016 at 12:00 PM in Courtroom 18C, 500 Pearl Street,
10/27/2016 487 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Erica Tamar Dubno on behalf of Nadia
Marcinko. (Dubno, Erica) (Entered: 10/27/2016)
A-64
Pagliuca dated 10/26/2016 re: writing to request the Court continue the hearing
currently scheduled on November 3, 2016 to November 10, 2016 because
counsel for Ms. Maxwell are unavailable on November 3, 2016.
10/27/2016) (kl) (Entered: 10/27/2016)
10/28/2016 490 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 468 MOTION to Compel Ghislaine
Inference Instruction. REDACTED. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
Ghislaine Maxwell to Produce Data from Undisclosed Email Account and for
an Adverse Inference Instruction.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit REDACTED, # 3 Exhibit REDACTED,
10/28/2016 492 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 466 MOTION to Reopen Defendant's
Deposition Based on Defendant's Late Production of New, Key Documents.
REDACTED. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Schultz, Meredith)
(Entered: 10/28/2016)
Pagliuca dated 10/28/2016 re: I am writing to request the Court continue the
deadline to submit one of the defense rebuttal expert opinions by one business
day from October 28, 2016 to October 31, 2016. ENDORSEMENT: So
10/31/2016)
11/07/2016 497 ORDER: The portions of the November 2, 2016 Opinion pertaining to ECF
No. 354 were issued in error and are hereby withdrawn. It is so ordered.
Argument held on 11/10/2016 re: 451 JOINT MOTION re: 13 Scheduling
Order, Amended Proposed Discovery and Case Management Deadlines and
Request to Modify Pretrial Scheduling Order filed by Ghislaine Maxwell, 468
MOTION to Compel Ghislaine Maxwell to Produce Data from Undisclosed
Email Accountand for an Adverse Inference Instruction filed by Virginia L.
Giuffre, 449 MOTION to CompelTestimony of Jeffrey Epstein. filed by
A-65
Ghislaine Maxwell, 466 MOTION to Reopen Defendant's Deposition Based on

Defendant's Late Production of New, Key Documents filed by Virginia L.
Giuffre. (Court Reporter Martha Martin) Motion to compel discovery pending.
11/16/2016 500 FILING ERROR - NO ORDER SELECTED FOR APPEAL - NOTICE OF
INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL. Document filed by Alan M. Dershowitz. Filing
fee $ 505.00, receipt number 0208-12994142. Form C and Form D are due
within 14 days to the Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. (Celli, Andrew)
Modified on 11/17/2016 (tp). (Entered: 11/16/2016)
11/17/2016 ***NOTICE TO ATTORNEY REGARDING DEFICIENT APPEAL.
Notice to attorney Celli, Andrew to RE-FILE Document No. 500 Notice of
Interlocutory Appeal. The filing is deficient for the following reason(s): the
order/judgment being appealed was not selected. Re-file the appeal using
the event type Corrected Notice of Appeal found under the event list
Appeal Documents - attach the correct signed PDF - select the correct
named filer/filers - select the correct order/judgment being appealed. (tp)
(Entered: 11/17/2016)
11/17/2016 501 ORDER: Defendant's motion for reconsideration of portions of the Court's
November 2, 2016 opinion shall be heard at noon on Thursday, December 8,
2016 in Courtroom 18C, United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street. All papers
shall be served in accordance with Local Civil Rule 6.1. IT IS SO ORDERED.,
( Oral Argument set for 12/8/2016 at 12:00 PM in Courtroom 18C, 500 Pearl
Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Robert W. Sweet.) (Signed by
Judge Robert W. Sweet on 11/17/2016) (ama) (Entered: 11/17/2016)
11/21/2016 502 NOTICE of Filing Under Seal Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration or
Clarification of Portions of Court's November 2, 2016 Order. Document filed
11/21/2016 503 [REDACTED] SEALED OPINION # 106882 re: 215 MOTION to Quash
subpoena of Sharon Churcher , filed by Sharon Churcher. Upon the
conclusions set forth above, the motion of Churcher is granted and the
Subpoena is quashed. The parties are directed to jointly file a proposed
redacted version of this Opinion consistent with the Protective Order or notify
the Court that none are necessary within two weeks of the date of receipt of
this Opinion. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 9/1/16) (cla) (Entered:
11/21/2016)
Dershowitz. Form C and Form D are due within 14 days to the Court of
Appeals, Second Circuit. (tp) (Entered: 11/23/2016)
11/23/2016 Appeal Fee Paid electronically via Pay.gov: for 504 Notice of Appeal. Filing
fee $ 505.00. Pay.gov receipt number 0208-12994142, paid on 11/16/2016. (tp)
(Entered: 11/23/2016)
11/23/2016 Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Certified Copy of Docket Sheet to US
Court of Appeals re: 504 Notice of Appeal. (tp) (Entered: 11/23/2016)
A-66
11/23/2016 Appeal Record Sent to USCA (Electronic File). Certified Indexed record on
Appeal Electronic Files for 504 Notice of Appeal filed by Alan M. Dershowitz
were transmitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals. (tp) (Entered: 11/23/2016)
11/30/2016 505 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Meredith L.
Schultz dated 11/28/2016 re: This is an agreed letter motion to extend the time
to file the Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for
Reconsideration to Monday, December 5, 2016. ENDORSEMENT: So
ordered. (Responses due by 12/5/2016) (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on
11/29/2016) (rjm) (Entered: 11/30/2016)
11/30/2016 506 ORDER. Defendant's motion for reconsideration previously scheduled to be
heard on December 8, 2016 shall instead be taken on submission. It is so
ordered. The following hearing(s) was terminated: Oral Argument. (Signed by
12/05/2016 507 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Sigrid S.
McCawley dated 11/30/2016 re: We request permission to conclude the
Defendant's expert depositions on Friday December 2, 2016.
12/1/2016) (kgo) (Entered: 12/05/2016)
Menninger dated 12/7/2016 re: agreed letter motion to extend the time to file
the Defendant's Reply in Support of her Motion for Reconsideration or
Clarification of Portion of Court's November 2, 2016 Order to December 14,
2016. ENDORSEMENT: So ordered. (Replies due by 12/14/2016.) (Signed by
12/09/2016 509 MOTION for Sanctions Based on Plaintiff's Intentional Destruction of
Evidence. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.(Menninger, Laura) (Entered:
12/09/2016)
Sanctions Based on Plaintiff's Intentional Destruction of Evidence.. Document
Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 12/09/2016)
January 19, 2017 in Courtroom 18C, United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl
Street. All papers shall be served in accordance with Local Civil Rule 6.1., Set
Deadlines/Hearing as to 509 MOTION for Sanctions Based on Plaintiff's
Intentional Destruction of Evidence. :( Motion Hearing set for 1/19/2017 at
Judge Robert W. Sweet.) (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 12/13/2016)
(lmb) (Entered: 12/13/2016)
A-67
12/16/2016 514 DECLARATION of Meredith Schultz in Opposition re: 509 MOTION for
filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed 1, # 2 Exhibit
Sealed 2, # 3 Exhibit Sealed 3, # 4 Exhibit Sealed 4, # 5 Exhibit Sealed 5, # 6
Exhibit Sealed Composite 6)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 12/16/2016)
12/20/2016 515 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 509 MOTION for Sanctions Based on
Plaintiff's Intentional Destruction of Evidence. . Document filed by Ghislaine
filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit E, # 2 Exhibit F, # 3
Menninger dated 12/19/2016 re: Letter Motion to file the Reply in Support of
Defendant's Motion for Sanctions to and including December 20, 2016.
12/24/2016) (cla) (Entered: 01/03/2017)
Pagliuca dated 12/29/2016 re: I am writing to request the Court to extend the
deposition deadline of Plaintiff's designated expert Dianne Flores from
December 29, 2016 to January 5, 2017. ENDORSEMENT: So ordered.
(Deposition due by 1/5/2017.) (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 1/4/2016)
(rjm) (Entered: 01/05/2017)
01/05/2017 520 MOTION in Limine To Exclude Expert Testimony and Opinion of Chris
Anderson. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.(Menninger, Laura) (Entered:
01/05/2017)
01/05/2017 521 DECLARATION of Jeffrey S. Pagliuca in Support re: 520 MOTION in Limine
To Exclude Expert Testimony and Opinion of Chris Anderson.. Document filed
C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9
Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered:
01/05/2017)
01/05/2017)
To Exclude Expert Testimony and Opinions of William F. Chandler..
01/05/2017 524 MOTION in Limine To Exclude Expert Testimony and Opinion of Professor
Terry Coonan, J.D.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.(Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 01/05/2017)
A-68
To Exclude Expert Testimony and Opinion of Professor Terry Coonan, J.D...
01/05/2017 526 MOTION in Limine To Exclude Expert Testimony and Opinion of Dianne C.
Flores. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.(Menninger, Laura) (Entered:
01/05/2017)
To Exclude Expert Testimony and Opinion of Dianne C. Flores.. Document
(Entered: 01/05/2017)
01/05/2017)
To Exclude Expert Testimony and Opinion of Dr. Bernard Jansen.. Document
Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G)
01/05/2017 530 MOTION in Limine To Exclude Expert Testimony and Opinion of Doctor
Gilbert Kliman. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.(Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 01/05/2017)
To Exclude Expert Testimony and Opinion of Doctor Gilbert Kliman..
01/06/2017 532 ORDER. The motion to quash filed by Bradley J. Edwards in the Southern
District of Florida under case number 16-mc-61292-JG has been transferred to
this Court. Therefore, the motion, which was originally filed June 13, 2016,
shall be heard at noon on Thursday, February 2, 2017 in Courtroom 18C,
United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street. All papers shall be served in
accordance with Local Civil Rule 6.1. It is so ordered. (Oral Argument set for
1/6/2017) (rjm) (Entered: 01/06/2017)
01/06/2017 533 MOTION in Limine and Incorporated Memorandum of Law. Document filed
and Incorporated Memorandum of Law.. Document filed by Virginia L.
Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed 1, # 2 Exhibit Sealed 2, # 3 Exhibit
01/06/2017 535 MOTION in Limine and Incorporated Memorandum of Law. Document filed
A-69
Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Redacted 1, # 2 Exhibit Redacted 2, # 3
Exhibit Redacted 3, # 4 Exhibit Redacted 4, # 5 Exhibit Redacted 5)
01/06/2017 537 NOTICE of Motion for Summary Judgment. Document filed by Ghislaine
MOTION for Summary Judgment . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
(Menninger, Laura) Modified on 1/9/2017 (db). (Entered: 01/06/2017)
Laura A. Menninger in Support re: 538 MOTION for Summary Judgment ..
Exhibit G-KK, # 8 Exhibit LL, # 9 Exhibit MM)(Menninger, Laura) Modified
on 1/9/2017 (db). (Entered: 01/06/2017)
Document 538 MOTION for Summary Judgment . Use the event type
Memorandum in Support of Motion found under the event list Replies,
Opposition and Supporting Documents. ***REMINDER*** - Refile the
537 Notice AS THE MOTION for Summary Judgment, then file and link
any supporting documents. (db) (Entered: 01/09/2017)
01/09/2017 540 MOTION for Summary Judgment . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
01/09/2017 541 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 540 MOTION for Summary
Judgment . . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 01/09/2017)
Summary Judgment .. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: #
1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6
Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G-KK, # 8 Exhibit LL, # 9 Exhibit MM)(Menninger,
Thursday, February 9, 2017 in Courtroom 18C, United States Courthouse, 500
6.1. (Motion Hearing set for 2/9/2017 at 12:00 PM in Courtroom 18C, 500
A-70
Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Robert W. Sweet.) (Signed by
Judge Robert W. Sweet on 1/11/2017) (cla) (Entered: 01/12/2017)
01/12/2017 545 ORDER: Plaintiff's motions in limine shall be heard at noon on Thursday,
February 2, 2017 in Courtroom 18C, United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl
Street. All papers shall be served in accordance with Local Civil Rule 6.1.
(Motion Hearing set for 2/2/2017 at 12:00 PM in Courtroom 18C, 500 Pearl
01/18/2017 548 ORDER: Defendant's motions in limine shall be heard at noon on Thursday,
February 2, 2017 in Courtroom 18C, United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl
Street. All papers shall be served in accordance with Local Civil Rule 6.1.
(Motion Hearing set for 2/2/2017 at 12:00 PM in Courtroom 18C, 500 Pearl
01/19/2017 550 MOTION to Intervene and Unseal. Document filed by Michael Cernovich
01/19/2017 551 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 550 MOTION to Intervene and
Unseal. . Document filed by Michael Cernovich d/b/a Cernovich Media.
01/19/2017 552 DECLARATION of Michael Cernovich in Support re: 550 MOTION to
Intervene and Unseal.. Document filed by Michael Cernovich d/b/a Cernovich
Media. (Wolman, Jay) (Entered: 01/19/2017)
01/19/2017 553 ORDER: The letters regarding page limits shall be treated as a motion and
heard at noon on Thursday, January 26, 2017 in Courtroom 18C, United States
Local Civil Rule 6.1. Motion Hearing set for 1/26/2017 at 12:00 AM in
01/19/2017)
01/19/2017 555 MEMO ENDORSEMENT denying 509 Motion for Sanctions.
ENDORSEMENT: Spoliation has not been established at the time of the
Plaintiff's acts and the motion is denied. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on
1/19/2017) (kgo) Modified on 1/20/2017 (kgo). (Entered: 01/20/2017)
01/19/2017 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Robert W. Sweet: Motion
Hearing held on 1/19/2017 re: 509 MOTION for Sanctions Based on Plaintiff's
Intentional Destruction of Evidence filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Court
Reporter Jennifer Thun) (Chan, Tsz) (Entered: 01/23/2017)
A-71
01/20/2017 554 MOTION for John E. Stephenson, Jr. to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $
reviewed by Clerk's Office staff. Document filed by Sarah Vickers.
(Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of John E. Stephenson, Jr., # 2 Certificate of Good
Standing, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Stephenson, John) (Entered:
01/20/2017)
Document No. 554 MOTION for John E. Stephenson, Jr. to Appear Pro
has been reviewed and there are no deficiencies. (ma) (Entered: 01/20/2017)
Defendant's motions in limine, and Plaintiff's motions in limine, previously
scheduled for February 2, and the argument for Defendant's motion for
summary judgment, previously scheduled for February 9, shall instead be heard
at noon on Thursday, February 16, 2017 in Courtroom 18C, United States
Local Civil Rule 6.1. Motion Hearing set for 2/16/2017 at 12:00 PM in
Courtroom 18B, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Robert
01/20/2017)
1/23/2017) (anc) (Entered: 01/23/2017)
01/23/2017 558 ORDER: The sealed letter motion submitted by Plaintiff on January 20, 2017
shall be heard at noon on Thursday, February 2, 2017 in Courtroom 18C,
United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street. The motion to intervene filed
January 19, 2017 shall be heard at noon on Thursday, February 16, 2017 in
Courtroom 18C, United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street. All papers shall be
served in accordance with Local Civil Rule 6.1. (Motion Hearing set for
10007 before Judge Robert W. Sweet. Motion Hearing set for 2/16/2017 at
Judge Robert W. Sweet.) (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 1/23/2017)
(cla) (Entered: 01/23/2017)
01/24/2017 559 ORDER. Per the Agreed Letter Motion filed by the parties, the hearing
scheduled to take place on Thursday, January 26, 2017 is hereby vacated. The
Plaintiff is granted leave to file a response in opposition to the Defendant's
motion for summary judgment that is the same page length as the Defendant's
motion on the same. It is so ordered. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on
1/24/2017) (rjm) (Entered: 01/24/2017)
01/25/2017 560 NOTICE of of Withdrawal. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
01/27/2017 561
A-72
MOTION in Limine to Exclude Defendant's Designations of Deposition

Excerpts of Alan Dershowitz. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
to Exclude Defendant's Designations of Deposition Excerpts of Alan
Dershowitz.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit
1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit Sealed 3, # 4 Exhibit Sealed 4)(McCawley, Sigrid)
(Entered: 01/27/2017)
01/27/2017 563 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Defendant's Designations of Deposition
Excerpts of Virginia Giuffre in an Unrelated Case. Document filed by Virginia
L. Giuffre.(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 01/27/2017)
to Exclude Defendant's Designations of Deposition Excerpts of Virginia
Giuffre in an Unrelated Case.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
01/27/2017 565 NOTICE of Filing Plaintiff's Objections to Defendant's Deposition
Designations and Plaintiff's Cross Designations. Document filed by Virginia L.
01/27/2017 567 MOTION in Limine to Exclude In Toto Certain Depositions Designated By
Plaintiff for Use at Trial. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.(Menninger,
01/27/2017 568 DECLARATION of Laura A. Menninger in Support re: 567 MOTION in
Limine to Exclude In Toto Certain Depositions Designated By Plaintiff for Use
at Trial.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A,
# 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 01/27/2017)
01/30/2017 569 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 530 MOTION in Limine To Exclude
Expert Testimony and Opinion of Doctor Gilbert Kliman. . Document filed by
01/30/2017 570 DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in Opposition re: 530 MOTION in
Limine To Exclude Expert Testimony and Opinion of Doctor Gilbert Kliman..
Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed 1, # 2
Exhibit Sealed 2, # 3 Exhibit Sealed 3, # 4 Exhibit Sealed 4, # 5 Exhibit Sealed
01/30/2017 571 ORDER: Plaintiff's and Defendant's motions in limine filed January 27, 2017,
and all issues related to deposition designations, shall be heard at noon on
Thursday, February 23, 2017 in Courtroom 18C, United States Courthouse,
Rule 6.1. (Motion Hearing set for 2/23/2017 at 12:00 PM in Courtroom 18C,
500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Robert W. Sweet.)
A-73
Expert Testimony and Opinion of Professor Terry Coonan, J.D.. . Document
Limine To Exclude Expert Testimony and Opinion of Professor Terry Coonan,
J.D... Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed
1, # 2 Exhibit Sealed 2, # 3 Exhibit Sealed 3, # 4 Exhibit Sealed 4, # 5 Exhibit
Expert Testimony and Opinions of William F. Chandler. . Document filed by
Limine To Exclude Expert Testimony and Opinions of William F. Chandler..
Exhibit Sealed 2, # 3 Exhibit Sealed 3)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered:
01/30/2017)
01/30/2017 576 NOTICE of Letter Reply in Support of Plaintiff's Letter Motion to Add New
Witness re: 558 Order Setting Hearing on Motion,,. Document filed by
Expert Testimony and Opinion of Dianne C. Flores. . Document filed by
Limine To Exclude Expert Testimony and Opinion of Dianne C. Flores..
Expert Testimony and Opinion of Chris Anderson. . Document filed by
Limine To Exclude Expert Testimony and Opinion of Chris Anderson..
Exhibit Sealed 2, # 3 Exhibit Sealed 3, # 4 Exhibit Sealed 4)(McCawley,
Expert Testimony and Opinion of Dr. Bernard Jansen. . Document filed by
Limine To Exclude Expert Testimony and Opinion of Dr. Bernard Jansen..
01/31/2017 583
A-74
RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 535 MOTION in Limine and

Incorporated Memorandum of Law. Regarding Gregory B. Taylor and Kyle D.
Jacobson. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 01/31/2017)
01/31/2017 584 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 533 MOTION in Limine and
Incorporated Memorandum of Law. Regarding Dr. Phillip Esplin. Document
01/31/2017 585 DECLARATION of Jeffrey S. Pagliuca in Opposition re: 533 MOTION in
Limine and Incorporated Memorandum of Law.. Document filed by Ghislaine
Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered:
01/31/2017)
01/31/2017 586 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 540 MOTION for Summary
Judgment . . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1
Appendix Rule 56.1 Statement of Facts, # 2 Exhibit Declaration, # 3 Exhibit
Redacted 1-50)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 01/31/2017)
Judge Robert W. Sweet. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Jennifer Thun, (212) 805-
(Entered: 02/02/2017)
02/02/2017 589 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 550 MOTION to Intervene and
Unseal. . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered:
02/02/2017)
Intervene and Unseal.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: #
1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 02/02/2017)
Argument held on 2/2/2017 re: 591 LETTER MOTION to Reopen re: 576
Notice (Other), 558 Order Setting Hearing on Motion,, Discovery re New
Witness (original filed 1/19/17) addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from
Sigrid S. McCawley dated 01/19/17. filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Court
Reporter Khris Sellin)The Court resolved the motion and granted limited
discovery as to depose the third person witness. (Chan, Tsz) (Entered:
02/03/2017)
A-75
02/03/2017 591 LETTER MOTION to Reopen re: 576 Notice (Other), 558 Order Setting
Hearing on Motion,, Discovery re New Witness (original filed 1/19/17)
addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Sigrid S. McCawley dated 01/19/17.
02/03/2017)
02/03/2017 592 NOTICE of Filing Defendant's Counter-Designations to Plaintiff's Deposition
Designations. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 02/03/2017)
02/07/2017 595 FILING ERROR - DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY - MOTION for Ty Gee
to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number 0208-13289811.
Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff.
Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed
Order Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing)(Menninger,
Laura) Modified on 2/8/2017 (wb). (Entered: 02/07/2017)
Ty Gee in Support re: 595 MOTION for Ty Gee to Appear Pro Hac Vice .
Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number 0208-13289811. Motion and supporting
papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff.. Document filed by Ghislaine
Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura) Modified on 2/8/2017 (wb). (Entered:
02/07/2017)
02/08/2017 >>>NOTICE REGARDING DEFICIENT MOTION TO APPEAR PRO
HAC VICE. Notice to RE-FILE Document No. 595 MOTION for Ty Gee
to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number 0208-
staff., 596 Declaration in Support of Motion,.. The filing is deficient for the
following reason(s): Pursuant to rule 1.3. please attach and affadavit or
Declaration of the Attorney;. Re-file the motion as a Motion to Appear Pro
Hac Vice - attach the correct signed PDF - select the correct named
filer/filers - attach valid Certificates of Good Standing issued within the
past 30 days - attach Proposed Order.. (wb) (Entered: 02/08/2017)
02/08/2017 597 MOTION for Ty Gee to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Motion and supporting
papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff. Document filed by Ghislaine
Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration, # 2 Exhibit Certificate of
Good Standing, # 3 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Menninger,
Document No. 597 MOTION for Ty Gee to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Motion
and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff.. The
document has been reviewed and there are no deficiencies. (bcu) (Entered:
02/08/2017)
A-76
and Incorporated Memorandum of Law. . Document filed by Virginia L.
Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed 1, # 2 Exhibit Composite Sealed 2, #
02/09/2017 601 NOTICE of of Intent to Offer Statements Under, If Necessary, The Residual
Hearsay Rule. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (McCawley, Sigrid)
(Entered: 02/09/2017)
and Incorporated Memorandum of Law. . Document filed by Virginia L.
Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed 1, # 2 Exhibit Composite Sealed 2, #
02/09/2017 604 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 550 MOTION to Intervene and Unseal. .
(Entered: 02/09/2017)
02/09/2017 605 DECLARATION of Jay M. Wolman in Support re: 550 MOTION to Intervene
and Unseal.. Document filed by Michael Cernovich d/b/a Cernovich Media.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Daily Mail Article, # 2 Exhibit 2 - Palm Beach
Daily News Article, # 3 Exhibit 3 - Silenced Cast)(Wolman, Jay) (Entered:
02/09/2017)
In Toto Certain Depositions Designated By Plaintiff for Use at Trial. .
02/10/2017)
at Trial.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit
Sealed 1, # 2 Exhibit Sealed 2, # 3 Exhibit Sealed 3)(McCawley, Sigrid)
(Entered: 02/10/2017)
02/10/2017 608 MOTION in Limine to Present Testimony From Jeffrey Epstein for Purposes
of Obtaining an Adverse Inference. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
to Present Testimony From Jeffrey Epstein for Purposes of Obtaining an
Adverse Inference.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1
02/10/2017 610
A-77
MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 550 MOTION to Intervene and

Unseal. . Document filed by Alan M. Dershowitz. (Lebowitz, David) (Entered:
02/10/2017)
Testimony and Opinion of Chris Anderson. . Document filed by Ghislaine
Testimony and Opinions of William F. Chandler. . Document filed by
To Exclude Expert Testimony and Opinion of Professor Terry Coonan, J.D...
Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit C, # 2
Exhibit D, # 3 Exhibit E)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 02/10/2017)
Testimony and Opinion of Dianne C. Flores. . Document filed by Ghislaine
To Exclude Expert Testimony and Opinion of Dianne C. Flores.. Document
filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit B)(Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 02/10/2017)
Testimony and Opinion of Doctor Gilbert Kliman. . Document filed by
To Exclude Expert Testimony and Opinion of Doctor Gilbert Kliman..
Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit D, # 2
Exhibit E)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 02/10/2017)
02/10/2017 620 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 540 MOTION for Summary Judgment . .
Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Rule 56.1
Statement of Facts)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 02/10/2017)
Summary Judgment .. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: #
1 Exhibit NN, # 2 Exhibit OO, # 3 Exhibit PP, # 4 Exhibit QQ, # 5 Exhibit RR)
02/10/2017 622 JOINT PRETRIAL STATEMENT . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
A-78
02/13/2017 623 ORDER FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE granting 597 Motion for Ty Gee
to Appear Pro Hac Vice. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 2/10/2017)
(jwh) (Entered: 02/13/2017)
Pagliuca dated 2/10/17 re: Counsel writes to request a five day, unopposed,
extension of time to respond to Plaintiff's Motions. ENDORSEMENT: So
ordered. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 2/13/2017) (mro) (Entered:
02/14/2017)
Pagluica dated 2/10/2017 re: extension of the page limit for Ms. Maxwell's
Reply in Support of Summary Judgment. ENDORSEMENT: So ordered.
02/14/2017 626 ORDER: Plaintiff's motion in limine filed February 10, 2017 shall be heard at
noon on Thursday, February 23, 2017 in Courtroom 18C, United States
Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street. Any opposition shall be filed by February 16,
2017; any reply shall be filed by February 20 2017. ( Oral Argument set for
2/13/2017) (mro) (Entered: 02/14/2017)
02/14/2017 Set/Reset Deadlines: Responses due by 2/16/2017 Replies due by 2/20/2017.
(mro) (Entered: 02/14/2017)
Defendant's Designations of Deposition Excerpts of Alan Dershowitz. .
02/15/2017)
Defendant's Designations of Deposition Excerpts of Virginia Giuffre in an
Unrelated Case. . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 02/15/2017)
Argument held on 2/16/2017 re: 524 MOTION in Limine To Exclude Expert
Testimony and Opinion of Professor Terry Coonan, J.D. filed by Ghislaine
Maxwell, 540 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Ghislaine Maxwell,
533 MOTION in Limine and Incorporated Memorandum of Law filed by
Virginia L. Giuffre, 526 MOTION in Limine To Exclude Expert Testimony
and Opinion of Dianne C. Flores filed by Ghislaine Maxwell, 522 MOTION in
Limine To Exclude Expert Testimony and Opinions of William F. Chandler
filed by Ghislaine Maxwell, 550 MOTION to Intervene and Unseal filed by
Michael Cernovich d/b/a Cernovich Media, 528 MOTION in Limine To
Exclude Expert Testimony and Opinion of Dr. Bernard Jansen filed by
Ghislaine Maxwell, 535 MOTION in Limine and Incorporated Memorandum
of Law filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Court Reporter Eve Giniger)Decision
A-79
reserve on the motion for Summary Judgment and Intervene + Unseal. (Chan,
Tsz) (Entered: 02/16/2017)
02/17/2017 630 NOTICE of Plaintiff's Objections to Defendant's Counter Designations.
02/17/2017)
Certain Depositions Designated By Plaintiff for Use at Trial. . Document filed
at Trial.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit F)
02/17/2017 633 Objection to Plaintiff's Cross Designation of Deposition Testimony. Document
Judge Robert W. Sweet. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Khristine Sellin, (212)
805-0300. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased
02/21/2017 636 ORDER: Plaintiff's motion in limine filed February 10, 2017 and previously
scheduled to be heard February 23, 2017 shall instead be heard at noon on
Thursday, March 9, 2017 in Courtroom 18C, United States Courthouse, 500
Pearl Street. Opposition papers shall be due February 24, 2017 and reply
papers shall be due by March 2, 2017. (Oral Argument set for 3/9/2017 at
Judge Robert W. Sweet.) Set Deadlines/Hearing as to 608 MOTION in Limine
Adverse Inference. (Responses due by 2/24/2017, Replies due by 3/2/2017.)
02/22/2017 637 MOTION to Compel Philip Barden to To Produce All Work Product and
Attorney Client Communications . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
Philip Barden to To Produce All Work Product and Attorney Client
A-80
Communications .. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1

Exhibit Composite Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit Sealed 2, # 3 Exhibit Sealed 3, # 4
02/22/2017)
Pagluica dated 2/21/2017 re: requesting that the Court vacate the hearing to
rule on deposition objections currently scheduled for Thursday, February 23,
2017. ENDORSEMENT: So ordered. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on
2/22/2017) (jwh) Modified on 2/28/2017 (jwh). (Entered: 02/22/2017)
02/22/2017 640 MOTION for Protective Order for Non-Party Witness. Document filed by John
Protective Order for Non-Party Witness.. Document filed by Sarah Ransome.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed 1, # 2 Exhibit Sealed 2)(Pottinger, John)
(Entered: 02/22/2017)
02/23/2017 642 ORDER: Plaintiff's motion to compel and the non-party witness's motion for a
protective order, both filed February 22, 2017, shall be heard at noon on
Thursday, March 9, 2017 in Courtroom 18C, United States Courthouse, 500
Pearl Street. Opposition papers shall be due March 2, 2017, and reply papers
shall be due March 7, 2017. (Motion Hearing set for 3/9/2017 at 12:00 PM in
W. Sweet.), (Responses due by 3/2/2017, Replies due by 3/7/2017.) (Signed by
02/23/2017 643 JOINT MOTION re: 455 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, 13
Scheduling Order, Amended Second Proposed Discovery and Case
Management Deadlines and Request to Modify Pretrial Scheduling Order.
02/23/2017)
Testimony From Jeffrey Epstein for Purposes of Obtaining an Adverse
Inference. . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 02/24/2017)
02/24/2017 645 DECLARATION of Laura A. Menninger in Opposition re: 608 MOTION in
Limine to Present Testimony From Jeffrey Epstein for Purposes of Obtaining
an Adverse Inference.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: #
1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 02/24/2017)
02/24/2017 646 RESPONSE re: 601 Notice (Other) Response to Plaintiffs Notice Of Intent To
Offer Statements Under, If Necessary, The Residual Hearsay Rule. Document
02/27/2017 648 AMENDED SECOND DISCOVERY AND CASE MANAGEMENT
DEADLINES AND REQUEST TO MODIFY PRETRIAL SCHEDULING
A-81
ORDER granting 643 Motion: The jury trial scheduled for March 13, 2017 is
rescheduled to begin on May 15, 2017 and is anticipated to last four weeks;
Motions in Limine/other motions shall be filed by March 3, 2017; March 9,
2017, hearing on Plaintiff Giuffre's Motion to Present Testimony from Jeffrey
Epstein for Purposes of Obtaining an Adverse Inference, ECF #608, hearing on
Plaintiff's Motion to Compel all Work Product and Attorney Client
Communications with Philip Barden, ECF #637, hearing on outstanding
motions including Motion to Quash Edwards Subpoena, filed in the Southern
District of Florida on June 13, 2016 under case number 16-mc-61262, and
March 23, 2017, hearing on 702 Motions ECF #520, 522, 524, 526, 528, 530,
533, 535 and motions in limine. April 6, 2017, hearing on objections to
deposition designations. May 4, 2107, Pre-trial Conference to address any
outstanding issues including confidentiality. So ordered. (Signed by Judge
02/27/2017 Set/Reset Deadlines: Revised Joint Pretrial Order due by 4/15/2017. (jwh)
(Entered: 03/03/2017)
03/02/2017 649 LETTER MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages addressed to Judge Robert
W. Sweet from Sigrid McCawley dated March 2, 2017. Document filed by
Adverse Inference. . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (McCawley,
Adverse Inference.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1
03/02/2017)
03/02/2017 653 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 637 MOTION to Compel Philip
Barden to To Produce All Work Product and Attorney Client
Communications . . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 03/02/2017)
Compel Philip Barden to To Produce All Work Product and Attorney Client
Communications .. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit A)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 03/02/2017)
03/02/2017 655 MOTION to Compel Non-Party Witness to Produce Documents, Respond to
Deposition Questions, and Response to Motion for Protective Order.
03/02/2017)
03/02/2017 656
A-82
DECLARATION of Laura A. Menninger in Support re: 655 MOTION to

Compel Non-Party Witness to Produce Documents, Respond to Deposition
Questions, and Response to Motion for Protective Order.. Document filed by
03/03/2017 657 MOTION to Quash . Document filed by Jeffrey Epstein.(Weinberg, Martin)
(Entered: 03/03/2017)
03/03/2017 658 ORDER granting 649 Letter Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages: So
ordered. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 3/3/2017) (jwh) (Entered:
03/03/2017)
03/03/2017 659 SECOND MOTION to Compel Ghislaine Maxwell to Disclose Data from
Defendant's Undisclosed Email Account and for An Adverse Inference
Instruction . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.(McCawley, Sigrid)
(Entered: 03/03/2017)
03/03/2017 660 DECLARATION of Meredith Schultz in Support re: 659 SECOND MOTION
to Compel Ghislaine Maxwell to Disclose Data from Defendant's Undisclosed
Email Account and for An Adverse Inference Instruction .. Document filed by
Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Composite Exhibit 1, # 2
03/03/2017 661 ORDER: Motions shall be heard on the following dates: Thursday, March 9:
Motions corresponding to ECF Nos. 608, 637, 640, and the motion to quash in
Bradley v. Maxwell, 17-mc-00025. Thursday, March 23: Motions
corresponding to ECF Nos. 520, 522, 524, 526, 528, 530, 533, 535, 561, 563,
and 567. Thursday, March 30: Defendant's motion to compel filed March 2,
2017 and all motions filed March 3, 2017. Wednesday, April 5: Objections to
deposition designations. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 3/3/2017) (jwh)
(Entered: 03/03/2017)
03/03/2017 662 MOTION to Bifurcate Trial Relating to Punitive Damages and Exclusion of
any Reference to Defendants Financial Information in the Liability Phase.
03/03/2017)
03/03/2017 663 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Complaint and Settlement Agreement in Jane
Doe 102 v. Jeffrey Epstein. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.(Menninger,
03/03/2017 664 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Late Disclosed Supplemental Report of Dr.
James Jansen and Video Trial Exhibit of Dr. Gilbert Kliman. Document filed
03/03/2017 665 MOTION in Limine to Prohibit Questioning Regarding Defendants Adult
Consensual Sexual Activities. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
03/03/2017 666
A-83
MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence Barred as a Result of Plaintiffs

Summary Judgment Concessions. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
03/03/2017 667 MOTION in Limine to Exclude FBI 302 Statement of Plaintiff. Document filed
Limine to Exclude FBI 302 Statement of Plaintiff.. Document filed by
03/03/2017)
03/03/2017 669 MOTION in Limine to Exclude References to Crime Victims Rights Act
Litigation. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.(Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 03/03/2017)
Limine to Exclude References to Crime Victims Rights Act Litigation..
Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)
03/03/2017 671 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Jeffrey Epstein Plea and Non-Prosecution
Agreement and Sex Offender Registration. Document filed by Ghislaine
Limine to Exclude Jeffrey Epstein Plea and Non-Prosecution Agreement and
Sex Offender Registration.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered:
03/03/2017)
Marcinkova or Any Witness Invoking Their Fifth Amendment Privilege.
03/03/2017)
Limine Exclude Deposition Testimony of Sarah Kellen and Nadia Marcinkova
or Any Witness Invoking Their Fifth Amendment Privilege.. Document filed by
03/03/2017)
03/03/2017 675 MOTION in Limine to Permit Questioning Regarding Plaintiffs Sexual History
and Reputation. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.(Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 03/03/2017)
Limine to Permit Questioning Regarding Plaintiffs Sexual History and
Reputation.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit
A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F)
03/03/2017 677
A-84
MOTION in Limine to Exclude Police Reports and Other Inadmissible

Hearsay. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.(Menninger, Laura) (Entered:
03/03/2017)
to Exclude Police Reports and Other Inadmissible Hearsay.. Document filed
03/03/2017 679 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Unauthenticated Hearsay Document from a
Suspect Source. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.(Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 03/03/2017)
to Exclude Unauthenticated Hearsay Document from a Suspect Source..
Limine to Exclude Victim Notification Letter.. Document filed by Ghislaine
Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)
03/03/2017 683 MOTION in Limine PLAINTIFFS MOTION IN LIMINE TO ADMIT THE
BLACK BOOK AS EVIDENCE AT TRIAL. Document filed by Virginia L.
03/03/2017 684 DECLARATION of Sigrid S. McCawley in Support re: 683 MOTION in
Limine PLAINTIFFS MOTION IN LIMINE TO ADMIT THE BLACK BOOK
AS EVIDENCE AT TRIAL.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 (Filed Under Seal), # 2 Exhibit 2 (Filed Under
DEFENDANT FROM CALLING PLAINTIFFS ATTORNEYS AS WITNESSES
AT TRIAL. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.(Schultz, Meredith)
(Entered: 03/03/2017)
03/03/2017 686 MOTION in Limine PLAINTIFF MS. GIUFFRES MEMORANDUM OF LAW
IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRESENT ALL EVIDENCE
OF DEFENDANTS INVOLVEMENT IN EPSTEIN SEXUAL ABUSE AND SEX
TRAFFICKING. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.(Schultz, Meredith)
(Entered: 03/03/2017)
Limine PLAINTIFF MS. GIUFFRES MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN
TRAFFICKING.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit 1 (Filed Under Seal))(Schultz, Meredith) (Entered: 03/03/2017)
A-85
03/03/2017 689 MOTION in Limine to Present Testimony for Purpose of Obtaining an
Adverse Inference Instruction. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
to Present Testimony for Purpose of Obtaining an Adverse Inference
Instruction.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit
Composite Exhibit 1)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 03/03/2017)
03/03/2017 691 MOTION in Limine Omnibus. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
03/03/2017)
03/03/2017 693 MOTION to Exclude Evidence Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). Document
Exclude Evidence Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 404(b).. Document filed by
addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Sigrid McCawley dated March 3,
03/06/2017 696 ORDER: An evidentiary hearing to determine the admissibility of the
documents relied upon by proposed expert witness Dianne Flores, and to
discuss the handling of Protective Order material at trial, shall be held on
Thursday, March 16, 2017 at 1:00 PM in Courtroom 18C, United States
Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street. (Evidentiary Hearing set for 3/16/2017 at 01:00
PM in Courtroom 18C, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge
Robert W. Sweet.) (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 3/6/2017) (jwh)
(Entered: 03/06/2017)
Communications . . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (McCawley,
Communications .. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1
A-86
Exhibit Sealed 1, # 2 Exhibit Composite Sealed 2)(McCawley, Sigrid)

(Entered: 03/07/2017)
W. Sweet from Meredith Schultz dated March 7, 2017. Document filed by
03/07/2017 700 ***STRICKEN DOCUMENT. Deleted document number 700 from the
case record. The document was stricken from this case pursuant to 718
Order on Motion to Seal Document, . (jwh) REPLY MEMORANDUM OF
LAW in Support re: 640 MOTION for Protective Order for Non-Party Witness.
and Opposition to [DE 655] MOTION to Compel Non-Party Witness to
Produce Documents, and Respond to Deposition Questions. Document filed by
John Stanley Pottinger. (Pottinger, John) Modified on 3/15/2017 (jwh).
(Entered: 03/07/2017)
03/07/2017 701 DECLARATION of J. Stanley Pottinger in Support re: 640 MOTION for
Protective Order for Non-Party Witness.. Document filed by John Stanley
Pottinger. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed 1, # 2 Exhibit Sealed 2)(Pottinger,
03/08/2017 702 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: CONFERENCE held on 2/16/2017 before
Judge Robert W. Sweet. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Eve Giniger, (212) 805-
(Entered: 03/08/2017)
that an official transcript of a CONFERENCE proceeding held on 2/16/17 has
addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Meredith Schultz dated March 7,
Argument held on 3/9/2017 re: 640 MOTION for Protective Order for Non-
Party Witness filed by John Stanley Pottinger, Sarah Ransome, 655 MOTION
to Compel Non-Party Witness to Produce Documents, Respond to Deposition
Questions, and Response to Motion for Protective Order filed by Ghislaine
Maxwell, 637 MOTION to Compel Philip Barden to To Produce All Work
Product and Attorney Client Communications filed by Virginia L. Giuffre, 608
MOTION in Limine to Present Testimony From Jeffrey Epstein for Purposes
of Obtaining an Adverse Inference filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Court
A-87
Reporter Kelly Surina)Doc #608 Motion Reserved.Doc #637 Motion

Reserved.Doc #655 Motion was on for 3-30-17 is now set for 3-16-17 at 12:00
p.m.Motion to quash 17 Mc-00025 will be heard on 3-16-17 (Part).Doc #640
Motion resolved. (Chan, Tsz) (Entered: 03/10/2017)
03/10/2017 705 NOTICE of Reply Notice of Intent to Offer Statements Under, If Necessary,
the Residual Hearsay Rule re: 601 Notice (Other). Document filed by Virginia
03/10/2017 706 NOTICE of Sigrid McCawley Declaration in Support of Reply Notice of Intent
to Offer Statements Under, If Necessary, the Residual Hearsay Rule re: 705
Notice (Other). Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1
03/10/2017)
Protective Order for Non-Party Witness., 655 MOTION to Compel Non-Party
Witness to Produce Documents, Respond to Deposition Questions, and
Response to Motion for Protective Order. [RE-FILED W/ ADD'L
REDACTION/REPLACE DE 700. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
03/13/2017 708 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document 700 Reply Memorandum of Law in
Support of Motion, [Replace DE 700 w/ Redacted DE 707] addressed to Judge
Robert W. Sweet from Meredith Schultz dated 03/13/17. Document filed by
Protective Order for Non-Party Witness., 655 MOTION to Compel Non-Party
Response to Motion for Protective Order. [RE-FILED W/ADD'L
REDACTION/REPLACE DE 700]. Document filed by John Stanley Pottinger.
(Pottinger, John) (Entered: 03/13/2017)
03/13/2017 710 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document 707 Reply Memorandum of Law in
Support of Motion, 708 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document 700 Reply
Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion, [Replace DE 700 w/ Redacted DE
707] addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Meredith Schultz dated
03/13/17., 709 Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion, 700 Reply
Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion, addressed to Judge Robert W.
Sweet from J. Stanley Pottinger dated 3/13/17. Document filed by Sarah
Ransome.(Pottinger, John) (Entered: 03/13/2017)
03/14/2017 711 ***STRICKEN DOCUMENT. Deleted document number 711 from the
case record. The document was stricken from this case pursuant to 765
Order on Motion to Strike . (jwh) NOTICE of Supplemental Authority.
Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (McCawley, Sigrid) Modified on
3/22/2017 (jwh). (Entered: 03/14/2017)
03/14/2017 712 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 657 MOTION to Quash . . Document
03/14/2017 713
A-88
DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in Opposition re: 657 MOTION to

Quash .. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit
03/14/2017 714 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 655 MOTION to Compel Non-Party
Response to Motion for Protective Order. . Document filed by Ghislaine
Compel Non-Party Witness to Produce Documents, Respond to Deposition
Questions, and Response to Motion for Protective Order.. Document filed by
Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit J, # 2 Exhibit K)(Menninger,
Unauthenticated Hearsay Document from a Suspect Source. . Document filed
Limine to Exclude Unauthenticated Hearsay Document from a Suspect
Source.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit
03/15/2017 718 ORDER withdrawing 708 Motion to Seal Document ; granting 710 Motion to
Seal Document: So ordered. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 3/15/2017)
(jwh) (Entered: 03/15/2017)
03/15/2017 719 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from J. Stanley
Pottinger dated 3/13/2017 re: request a one-week continuance of the hearing on
Defendant's Motion to Compel Non-Party Witness to Produce Documents and
Respond to Depositions Questions (Doc. 655 ) and Motion for Protective Order
for Non-Party Witness (Doc. 640 ). ENDORSEMENT: So ordered. (Signed by
03/15/2017 720 ENDORSED LETTER re: 659 SECOND MOTION to Compel Ghislaine
Maxwell to Disclose Data from Defendant's Undisclosed Email Account and
for An Adverse Inference Instruction , addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet
from Laura A. Menninger dated 3/10/2017 re: a one-week extension of time in
which to file a Response to Plaintiff's Renewed Motion to Compel.
ENDORSEMENT: So ordered. (Set Deadlines/Hearing as to 659 SECOND
MOTION to Compel Ghislaine Maxwell to Disclose Data from Defendant's
Undisclosed Email Account and for An Adverse Inference Instruction :
Responses due by 3/17/2017) (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on
3/13/2017) (jwh) (Entered: 03/15/2017)
03/15/2017 721 NOTICE of Notice of Intent to Redact Transcript of Proceedings re: 702
Transcript,,. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit
Transcript (Filed Under Seal))(Schultz, Meredith) (Entered: 03/15/2017)
Hearing held on 3/16/2017. (Court Reporter Martha Martin)Decision on
hearing pending. (Chan, Tsz) (Entered: 03/17/2017)
A-89
03/17/2017 722 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 673 MOTION in Limine Exclude
Invoking Their Fifth Amendment Privilege. . Document filed by Virginia L.
Limine Exclude Deposition Testimony of Sarah Kellen and Nadia Marcinkova
or Any Witness Invoking Their Fifth Amendment Privilege.. Document filed by
Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed 1)(McCawley, Sigrid)
(Entered: 03/17/2017)
Complaint and Settlement Agreement in Jane Doe 102 v. Jeffrey Epstein. .
03/17/2017)
Proceedings. Document filed by Michael Cernovich d/b/a Cernovich Media.
Late Disclosed Supplemental Report of Dr. James Jansen and Video Trial
Exhibit of Dr. Gilbert Kliman. . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
Limine to Exclude Late Disclosed Supplemental Report of Dr. James Jansen
and Video Trial Exhibit of Dr. Gilbert Kliman.. Document filed by Virginia L.
References to Crime Victims Rights Act Litigation. . Document filed by
Virginia L. Giuffre. (Edwards, Bradley) (Entered: 03/17/2017)
03/17/2017 729 DECLARATION of Bradley Edwards in Opposition re: 669 MOTION in
Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit,
# 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit)(Edwards, Bradley) (Entered:
03/17/2017)
FBI 302 Statement of Plaintiff. . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
(Edwards, Bradley) (Entered: 03/17/2017)
03/17/2017 731 DECLARATION of Bradley Edwards in Opposition re: 667 MOTION in
Limine to Exclude FBI 302 Statement of Plaintiff.. Document filed by Virginia
L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Edwards, Bradley) (Entered:
03/17/2017)
Victim Notification Letter. . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
A-90

Limine to Exclude Victim Notification Letter.. Document filed by Virginia L.
03/17/2017 734 FILING ERROR - ELECTRONIC FILING OF NON-ECF DOCUMENT
- CONSENT MOTION to Vacate 433 Endorsed Letter,, STIPULATION AND
[PROPOSED] ORDER VACATING CIVIL CONTEMPT FINDING AND
ORDER AS TO NON-PARTY NADIA MARCINKOVA. Document filed by
Nadia Marcinko.(Dubno, Erica) Modified on 3/21/2017 (db). (Entered:
03/17/2017)
03/17/2017 735 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 693 MOTION to Exclude Evidence
Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed 1, # 2 Exhibit Sealed 2, #
03/17/2017 737 LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply addressed to
Judge Robert W. Sweet from Sigrid McCawley dated March 17, 2017.
03/17/2017)
Questioning Regarding Plaintiffs Sexual History and Reputation. . Document
03/17/2017 739 DECLARATION of Meredith Schultz in Opposition re: 675 MOTION in
Limine to Permit Questioning Regarding Plaintiffs Sexual History and
Reputation.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit
Sealed 1, # 2 Exhibit Sealed 2, # 3 Exhibit Sealed 3, # 4 Exhibit Sealed 4)
Jeffrey Epstein Plea and Non-Prosecution Agreement and Sex Offender
Registration. . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (McCawley, Sigrid)
(Entered: 03/17/2017)
Sex Offender Registration.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed 1, # 2 Exhibit Sealed 2)(McCawley, Sigrid)
(Entered: 03/17/2017)
03/17/2017 742 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 683 MOTION in Limine
PLAINTIFFS MOTION IN LIMINE TO ADMIT THE BLACK BOOK AS
EVIDENCE AT TRIAL. . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger,
03/17/2017 743
A-91
DECLARATION of Jeffrey S. Pagliuca in Opposition re: 683 MOTION in

Limine PLAINTIFFS MOTION IN LIMINE TO ADMIT THE BLACK BOOK
AS EVIDENCE AT TRIAL.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
03/17/2017 744 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 686 MOTION in Limine PLAINTIFF
MS. GIUFFRES MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION
IN LIMINE TO PRESENT ALL EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANTS
03/17/2017)
Limine PLAINTIFF MS. GIUFFRES MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN
TRAFFICKING.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)
Testimony for Purpose of Obtaining an Adverse Inference Instruction. .
03/17/2017)
Police Reports and Other Inadmissible Hearsay. . Document filed by Virginia
Instruction.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit
A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Menninger,
03/17/2017)
03/17/2017 750 DECLARATION of Meredith Schultz in Opposition re: 677 MOTION in
Limine to Exclude Police Reports and Other Inadmissible Hearsay.. Document
Sealed 2, # 3 Exhibit Sealed 3, # 4 Exhibit Composite Sealed 4, # 5 Exhibit
Sealed 5, # 6 Exhibit Sealed 6, # 7 Exhibit Sealed 7, # 8 Exhibit Composite
Limine Omnibus.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6
Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16
A-92
Exhibit P, # 17 Exhibit Q, # 18 Exhibit R, # 19 Exhibit S)(Menninger, Laura)

(Entered: 03/17/2017)
03/17/2017 752 MOTION to Strike Document No. 711 Plaintiff's Supplemental Authority.
03/17/2017)
Strike Document No. 711 Plaintiff's Supplemental Authority.. Document filed
by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 03/17/2017)
03/17/2017 754 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 637 MOTION to
Compel Philip Barden to To Produce All Work Product and Attorney Client
Communications . Defendant's Surreply. Document filed by Ghislaine
Judge Robert W. Sweet. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Kelly Surina, (212) 805-
03/20/2017 757 STIPULATION AND ORDER VACATING CIVIL CONTEMPT FINDING
AND ORDER AS TO NADIA MARCINKOVA: THEREFORE, IT IS
HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and among the parties through
their undersigned counsel, that the Plaintiff's Motion for a Finding of Civil
Contempt against Nadia Marcinkova shall be withdrawn without costs to any
party; and IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and among the
parties, subject to the Order of the Court, that the Order dated September 15,
2016 [Docket No. 433], as to Nadia Marcinkova shall be vacated in its entirety.
Menninger dated March 17, 2017 re: To exceed page limit. ENDORSEMENT:
So ordered. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 3/20/2017) (ap) (Entered:
03/20/2017)
03/20/2017 759 ENDORSED LETTER re: 659 SECOND MOTION to Compel, 685 MOTION
in Limine; addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Jeffrey S. Pagliuca dated
3/17/2017 re: a one week extension to file responses to Docket Entry # 659 and
A-93
Docket Entry # 685 . ENDORSEMENT: So ordered. (Set Deadlines/Hearing as

to 659 SECOND MOTION to Compel Ghislaine Maxwell to Disclose Data ,
685 MOTION in Limine PLAINTIFFS MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE
DEFENDANT FROM CALLING PLAINTIFFS ATTORNEYS AS WITNESSES
AT TRIAL : Responses due by 3/23/2017) (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet
on 3/20/2017) (jwh) (Entered: 03/20/2017)
Response/Reply re 666 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence Barred as a
Result of Plaintiffs Summary Judgment Concessions, 665 MOTION in Limine
to Prohibit Questioning Regarding Defendants Adult Consensual Sexual
Activities, 662 MOTION to Bifurcate Trial Relating to Punitive Damages and
Exclusion of any Reference to Defendants Financial Information in the
Liability Phase. So ordered Responses due by 3/22/2017. (Signed by Judge
03/21/2017 761 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 657 MOTION to Quash . . Document filed
by Jeffrey Epstein. (Weinberg, Martin) (Entered: 03/21/2017)
03/21/2017 762 LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time addressed to Judge Robert W.
Sweet from Sigrid McCawley dated March 21, 2017. Document filed by
Evidence Barred as a Result of Plaintiffs Summary Judgment Concessions. .
03/21/2017)
03/22/2017 765 ORDER granting 752 Motion to Strike Document No. 711 : The Defendant's
motion to strike the Plaintiff's Notice of Supplemental Authority, ECF No. 711,
is granted. The cited authority is inadmissible, and has been submitted
previously in connection with Plaintiff's motion seeking financial information
from the Defendant. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 3/22/2017) (jwh)
(Entered: 03/22/2017)
03/22/2017 766 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 662 MOTION to Bifurcate Trial
Relating to Punitive Damages and Exclusion of any Reference to Defendants
Financial Information in the Liability Phase. . Document filed by Virginia L.
03/22/2017 767 ORDER granting 762 Letter Motion for Extension of Time. SO ORDERED.
(Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 3/22/2017) (ras) (Entered: 03/22/2017)
Questioning Regarding Defendants Adult Consensual Sexual Activities. .
03/22/2017)
Limine to Prohibit Questioning Regarding Defendants Adult Consensual
A-94
Sexual Activities.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1

03/22/2017)
03/23/2017 770 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 689 MOTION in Limine to Present
Testimony for Purpose of Obtaining an Adverse Inference Instruction. [Re
Kellen/Marcinkova]. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit Comp 1 (Sealed), # 2 Exhibit 2 (Sealed))(Schultz, Meredith) (Entered:
03/23/2017)
Argument held on 3/23/2017 re: 524 MOTION in Limine To Exclude Expert
Testimony and Opinion of Professor Terry Coonan, J.D. filed by Ghislaine
Maxwell, 561 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Defendant's Designations of
Deposition Excerpts of Alan Dershowitz filed by Virginia L. Giuffre, 533
MOTION in Limine and Incorporated Memorandum of Law filed by Virginia
L. Giuffre, 520 MOTION in Limine To Exclude Expert Testimony and
Opinion of Chris Anderson filed by Ghislaine Maxwell, 526 MOTION in
Limine To Exclude Expert Testimony and Opinion of Dianne C. Flores filed
by Ghislaine Maxwell, 567 MOTION in Limine to Exclude In Toto Certain
Depositions Designated By Plaintiff for Use at Trial filed by Ghislaine
Maxwell, 522 MOTION in Limine To Exclude Expert Testimony and
Opinions of William F. Chandler filed by Ghislaine Maxwell, 563 MOTION in
Limine to Exclude Defendant's Designations of Deposition Excerpts of
Virginia Giuffre in an Unrelated Case filed by Virginia L. Giuffre, 528
MOTION in Limine To Exclude Expert Testimony and Opinion of Dr. Bernard
Jansen filed by Ghislaine Maxwell, 530 MOTION in Limine To Exclude
Expert Testimony and Opinion of Doctor Gilbert Kliman filed by Ghislaine
Maxwell, 535 MOTION in Limine and Incorporated Memorandum of Law
filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Court Reporter Lisa Fellis) Documents
#520,522,524,526,528,530,533,and 535 are taken on submission. Document
#563 The Court will deal with this on trial. Document #567 Will be heard on
April 5, 2017 at 12:00 p.m. Document #640, 655 Resolved in open court,
partially granted and partially denied.(Chan, Tsz) (Entered: 03/23/2017)
Instruction.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit
Composite 1 (Sealed), # 2 Exhibit 2 (Sealed))(Schultz, Meredith) (Entered:
03/23/2017)
03/23/2017 772 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 685 MOTION in Limine
PLAINTIFFS MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE DEFENDANT FROM
CALLING PLAINTIFFS ATTORNEYS AS WITNESSES AT TRIAL. . Document
03/23/2017 773 DECLARATION of Jeffrey S. Pagliuca in Opposition re: 685 MOTION in
Limine PLAINTIFFS MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE DEFENDANT
FROM CALLING PLAINTIFFS ATTORNEYS AS WITNESSES AT TRIAL..
A-95
Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J)(Menninger, Laura)

(Entered: 03/23/2017)
EVIDENCE AT TRIAL. . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (McCawley,
EVIDENCE AT TRIAL.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments:
# 1 Exhibit Composite Sealed 1)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 03/24/2017)
Pagliuca dated 3/22/17 re: Ms. Maxwell respectfully requests that she be
permitted to submit her reply by March 31, 2017. ENDORSEMENT:
Extension to 3/30 is granted. So ordered. ( Replies due by 3/30/2017.) (Signed
by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 3/24/2017) (mro) (Entered: 03/24/2017)
Menninger dated 3/23/17 re: This Court issued a sealed opinion today, March
23, 2017, that ordered additional briefing and a hearing on the issues related to
the search of any email accounts, on dates to be decided by the parties. In light
of this Court's Order, defendant requests that any response be combined in the
upcoming briefing schedule. ENDORSEMENT: So ordered. (Signed by Judge
PLAINTIFF MS. GIUFFRES MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF
HER MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRESENT ALL EVIDENCE OF
TRAFFICKING. . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (McCawley, Sigrid)
(Entered: 03/24/2017)
PLAINTIFF MS. GIUFFRES MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF
HER MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRESENT ALL EVIDENCE OF
TRAFFICKING.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit Sealed 1, # 2 Exhibit Composite Sealed 2, # 3 Exhibit Sealed 3, # 4
03/24/2017 783 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 667 MOTION in Limine to Exclude FBI
302 Statement of Plaintiff. . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
A-96
03/24/2017 784 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 669 MOTION in Limine to Exclude
References to Crime Victims Rights Act Litigation. . Document filed by
Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix A, # 2 Appendix B)
Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit B, # 2
Exhibit C)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 03/24/2017)
03/24/2017 786 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 664 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Late
Disclosed Supplemental Report of Dr. James Jansen and Video Trial Exhibit of
Dr. Gilbert Kliman. . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger,
Limine to Exclude Late Disclosed Supplemental Report of Dr. James Jansen
and Video Trial Exhibit of Dr. Gilbert Kliman.. Document filed by Ghislaine
03/24/2017)
03/24/2017 788 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 671 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Jeffrey
Epstein Plea and Non-Prosecution Agreement and Sex Offender Registration. .
03/24/2017)
Sex Offender Registration.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit C, # 2 Exhibit D)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered:
03/24/2017)
03/24/2017 790 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 675 MOTION in Limine to Permit
Questioning Regarding Plaintiffs Sexual History and Reputation. . Document
Notification Letter. . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger,
Limine to Exclude Victim Notification Letter.. Document filed by Ghislaine
Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit D)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered:
03/24/2017)
Transcript addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Meredith Schultz dated
March 27, 2017. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.(Schultz, Meredith)
(Entered: 03/27/2017)
General Purpose Computing Devices to the Courthouse . Document filed by
Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Plaintiffs
A-97
Motion for Leave to Bring Personal Electronic Device and General Purpose
Computing Devices to the Courthouse)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered:
03/27/2017)
03/27/2017 795 LETTER MOTION for Oral Argument for March 31st Hearing to Start at
10:00am addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Meredith Schultz dated
March 27, 2017. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.(Schultz, Meredith)
(Entered: 03/27/2017)
03/27/2017 796 NOTICE of Notice of Intent to Redact 03/09/17 Transcript of Proceedings [DE
756] re: 756 Notice of Filing Transcript,,. Document filed by Virginia L.
Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 (Filed Under Seal))(Schultz, Meredith)
(Entered: 03/27/2017)
W. Sweet from Sigrid McCawley. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
Omnibus. . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (McCawley, Sigrid)
(Entered: 03/27/2017)
Composite Sealed 1, # 2 Exhibit Sealed 2, # 3 Exhibit Sealed 3)(McCawley,
03/28/2017 800 AMENDED MOTION Motion leave to bring Personal Electronic Devices and
General Purpose Computing Device into the Courthouse re: 794 MOTION
Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to Bring Personal Electronic Device and General
Purpose Computing Devices to the Courthouse . . Document filed by Virginia
L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order STANDING ORDER
M10-468, AS REVISED)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 03/28/2017)
03/28/2017)
Deposition Designations. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (McCawley,
Designations for Use at Trial. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
03/28/2017 805 MOTION for Leave to Bring Personal Electronic Devices and General
Purpose Computing Devices Into the Courthouse. Document filed by Ghislaine
03/28/2017)
A-98
03/28/2017 806 Objection to Production of (Blank) Submitted for in Camera Review.

03/28/2017)
Evidence Barred as a Result of Plaintiffs Summary Judgment Concessions. .
03/28/2017)
03/29/2017 809 ENDORSED LETTER re: 673 MOTION in Limine, 663 MOTION in Limine,
693 MOTION to Exclude Evidence Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 404(b), 677
MOTION in Limine, addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Jeffrey S.
Pagliuca dated 3/24/2017 re: an extension to file replies to Motions at Dockets
663 , 673 , 677 , and 693 . ENDORSEMENT: So ordered. (Set
Deadlines/Hearing as to 673 MOTION in Limine Exclude Deposition
Testimony of Sarah Kellen and Nadia Marcinkova or Any Witness Invoking
Their Fifth Amendment Privilege, 663 MOTION in Limine to Exclude
MOTION to Exclude Evidence Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 404(b), 677
MOTION in Limine to Exclude Police Reports and Other Inadmissible
Hearsay: Replies due by 3/30/2017.) (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on
3/28/2017) (jwh) (Entered: 03/29/2017)
03/29/2017 810 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 763 MOTION to Strike
Document No. 725 . . Document filed by Michael Cernovich d/b/a Cernovich
Media. (Wolman, Jay) (Entered: 03/29/2017)
03/29/2017 811 LETTER RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion addressed to Judge Robert W.
Sweet from Movant-Intervenor Michael Cernovich d/b/a Cernovich Media
dated March 29, 2017 re: 793 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Portions
of February 16, 2017 Hearing Transcript addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet
from Meredith Schultz dated March 27, 2017. . Document filed by Michael
03/29/2017 812 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 665 MOTION in Limine to Prohibit
Questioning Regarding Defendants Adult Consensual Sexual Activities. .
03/29/2017)
Summary Judgment. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1
03/30/2017 814 LETTER MOTION to Continue addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from
Martin G. Weinberg dated 3/30/17. Document filed by Jeffrey Epstein.
(Weinberg, Martin) (Entered: 03/30/2017)
03/30/2017 815 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 677 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Police
Reports and Other Inadmissible Hearsay. . Document filed by Ghislaine
A-99
to Exclude Police Reports and Other Inadmissible Hearsay.. Document filed
by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit D, # 2 Exhibit E, # 3 Exhibit
F, # 4 Exhibit G)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 03/30/2017)
03/30/2017 817 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 673 MOTION in Limine Exclude
Invoking Their Fifth Amendment Privilege. . Document filed by Ghislaine
Complaint and Settlement Agreement in Jane Doe 102 v. Jeffrey Epstein. .
03/30/2017)
Limine to Exclude Complaint and Settlement Agreement in Jane Doe 102 v.
Jeffrey Epstein.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 03/30/2017)
03/30/2017 820 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 693 MOTION to Exclude Evidence
Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit J, # 2 Exhibit K, # 3 Exhibit L)
03/30/2017 823 NOTICE of of Intent to Request Redaction of Sealed Opinion. Document filed
by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed 1)(McCawley, Sigrid)
(Entered: 03/30/2017)
Argument held on 3/30/2017 re: 671 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Jeffrey
Epstein Plea and Non-Prosecution Agreement and Sex Offender Registration
filed by Ghislaine Maxwell, [667 MOTION in Limine to Exclude FBI 302
Statement of Plaintiff filed by Ghislaine Maxwell, 675 MOTION in Limine to
Permit Questioning Regarding Plaintiffs Sexual History and Reputation filed
by Ghislaine Maxwell, 681 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Victim
Notification Letter filed by Ghislaine Maxwell, 664 MOTION in Limine to
Exclude Late Disclosed Supplemental Report of Dr. James Jansen and Video
Trial Exhibit of Dr. Gilbert Kliman filed by Ghislaine Maxwell, 669 MOTION
in Limine to Exclude References to Crime Victims Rights Act Litigation filed
by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Court Reporter Khris Sellin)Motion pending. (Chan,
Tsz) (Entered: 04/03/2017)
03/31/2017
A-100
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Robert W. Sweet: Oral
Argument held on 3/31/2017 re: 677 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Police
Reports and Other Inadmissible Hearsay filed by Ghislaine Maxwell, 673
MOTION in Limine Exclude Deposition Testimony of Sarah Kellen and Nadia
Marcinkova or Any Witness Invoking Their Fifth Amendment Privilege filed
by Ghislaine Maxwell, 662 MOTION to Bifurcate Trial Relating to Punitive
Damages and Exclusion of any Reference to Defendants Financial Information
in the Liability Phase filed by Ghislaine Maxwell, 691 MOTION in Limine
Omnibus filed by Virginia L. Giuffre, 689 MOTION in Limine to Present
Testimony for Purpose of Obtaining an Adverse Inference Instruction filed by
Virginia L. Giuffre, 666 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence Barred as a
Result of Plaintiffs Summary Judgment Concessions filed by Ghislaine
Maxwell. (Court Reporter Ellen Simone and Khris Sellin)Motion pending.
04/03/2017 824 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: Conference held on 3/16/2017 before Judge
Robert W. Sweet. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Martha Martin, (212) 805-0300.
of Transcript Restriction set for 7/3/2017.(Siwik, Christine) (Entered:
04/03/2017)
that an official transcript of a Conference proceeding held on 3/16/17 has been
after 90 calendar days...(Siwik, Christine) (Entered: 04/03/2017)
04/03/2017 826 Objection to Plaintiff's Deposition Designations (AMENDED). Document filed
CALLING PLAINTIFFS ATTORNEYS AS WITNESSES AT TRIAL. . Document
CALLING PLAINTIFFS ATTORNEYS AS WITNESSES AT TRIAL.. Document
filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed Exhibit 1, # 2
Exhibit Sealed Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit Sealed Exhibit 3)(McCawley, Sigrid)
(Entered: 04/03/2017)
04/03/2017 829 LETTER RESPONSE to Motion addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Ty
Gee dated April 3, 2017 re: 793 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document
Portions of February 16, 2017 Hearing Transcript addressed to Judge Robert
W. Sweet from Meredith Schultz dated March 27, 2017. . Document filed by
A-101
04/04/2017 830 OPPOSITION BRIEF re: 806 Objection (non-motion) and Second Motion to
Compel Defendant to Produce Documents. Document filed by Virginia L.
04/05/2017 831 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: Conference held on 3/23/2017 before Judge
Robert W. Sweet. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Lisa Picciano Fellis, (212) 805-
5/8/2017. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/5/2017.(Siwik, Christine)
(Entered: 04/05/2017)
that an official transcript of a Conference proceeding held on 3/23/17 has been
04/05/2017 833 OPPOSITION BRIEF re: 813 Notice (Other) . Document filed by Michael
Cernovich d/b/a Cernovich Media.(Wolman, Jay) (Entered: 04/05/2017)
04/05/2017 834 ORDER: A hearing on ECF No. 806 shall be held on Thursday, April 13, 2017
at noon in Courtroom 18C, United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street.
Defendant's reply papers shall be due April 11, 2017. ( Status Conference set
for 4/13/2017 at 12:00 PM in Courtroom 18C, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY
4/5/2017) (mro) (Entered: 04/05/2017)
Argument held on 4/5/2017 re: 685 MOTION in Limine PLAINTIFFS
MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE DEFENDANT FROM CALLING
PLAINTIFFS ATTORNEYS AS WITNESSES AT TRIAL filed by Virginia L.
Giuffre, 567 MOTION in Limine to Exclude In Toto Certain Depositions
Designated By Plaintiff for Use at Trial filed by Ghislaine Maxwell, 657
MOTION to Quash filed by Jeffrey Epstein. (Court Reporter Paula Speer and
Sonia Ketter)Deposition designations take on submission.ECF No. 567
Partially resolved.ECF No. 657 Granted.ECF No. 685 Decision Reserved.
04/07/2017 837 ORDER denying as moot 804 Motion for request for the Court to Rule on
outstanding motions: The Defendant's motion for the Court to rule on
outstanding motions, ECF No. 804, is denied as moot. ECF No. 231 was
resolved by sealed opinion dated August 30, 2016, and ECF No. 354 was
A-102
resolved by sealed opinion sent to the parties April 4, 2017. (Signed by Judge
Defendant's Failure to Comply with This Court's Order to Produce Her
Electronic Documents and Communications. Document filed by Virginia L.
04/07/2017 839 NOTICE of Declaration in Support of Plaintiff's Briefing on an Adverse
Inference Instruction Regarding Defendant's Failure to Comply with This
Courts Orders to Produce Her Electronic Documents and Communications re:
838 Notice (Other),. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1
4, # 5 Exhibit Sealed 5, # 6 Exhibit Sealed Composite 6)(McCawley, Sigrid)
(Entered: 04/07/2017)
Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed 1)
04/11/2017 841 REPLY re: 806 Objection (non-motion) to Production of (Blank) Submitted for
in Camera Review. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 04/11/2017)
04/11/2017 842 DECLARATION of Jeffrey S. Pagliuca in Support re: 806 Objection (non-
motion). Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)
Denying Defendant's Motion to Compel and Motion for Sanctions. Document
filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed 1)(McCawley,
04/11/2017 844 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 837 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous
Relief, Defendant's Motion Requesting Ruling on Her Outstanding Motions.
Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix A, # 2
Appendix B)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 04/11/2017)
04/11/2017 845 MOTION to Appoint Special Master to Preside Over Third Deposition of
Defendant. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.(Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 04/11/2017)
Appoint Special Master to Preside Over Third Deposition of Defendant..
Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)
04/12/2017 847 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: argument held on 3/31/2017 before Judge
Robert W. Sweet. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Khristine Sellin, (212) 805-
A-103
5/15/2017. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/11/2017.(Siwik,

that an official transcript of a argument proceeding held on 3/31/17 has been
04/12/2017 849 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: argument held on 3/30/2017 before Judge
Robert W. Sweet. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Khristine Sellin, (212) 805-
5/15/2017. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/11/2017.(Siwik,
that an official transcript of a argument proceeding held on 3/30/17 has been
04/12/2017 851 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: motion held on 3/31/2017 before Judge
Robert W. Sweet. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Ellen Simone, (212) 805-0300.
of Transcript Restriction set for 7/11/2017.(Siwik, Christine) (Entered:
04/12/2017)
that an official transcript of a motion proceeding held on 3/31/17 has been filed
by the court reporter/transcriber in the above-captioned matter. The parties
have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request
Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be
made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90
calendar days...(Siwik, Christine) (Entered: 04/12/2017)
04/12/2017 853 ORDER denying 844 Motion for Reconsideration; terminating 230 Motion for
Reopen Deposition of Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre: The Defendant's motion for
reconsideration, ECF No. 844, is denied. The sealed opinion dated August 30,
2016 resolving ECF No. 230 also resolved ECF No. 231. ECF No. 231, the
Defendant's motion for sanctions, was denied. (Signed by Judge Robert W.
Sweet on 4/12/2017) (jwh) Modified on 4/27/2017 (jwh). (Entered:
04/12/2017)
A-104
Argument held on 4/13/2017 re: 659 SECOND MOTION to Compel Ghislaine
Maxwell to Disclose Data from Defendant's Undisclosed Email Account and
for An Adverse Inference Instruction filed by Virginia L. Giuffre, 806
Objection (non-motion) filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Court Reporter Karen
Gorlaski and Steve Griffing)Decision Reserved. (Chan, Tsz) (Entered:
04/14/2017)
04/14/2017 854 NOTICE of Filing Under Seal The Declaration of Experts K.Gus Dimitrelos
and Steven A. Williams re: 838 Notice (Other),. Document filed by Virginia L.
04/17/2017 855 LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to Exchange Exhibit List and
Submit the Revised Joint Pre-Trial Order addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet
from Sigrid McCawley dated April 17, 2017. Document filed by Virginia L.
04/18/2017 856 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 845 MOTION to Appoint Special
Master to Preside Over Third Deposition of Defendant. . Document filed by
04/18/2017 857 ORDER granting 855 Letter Motion for Extension of Time: So ordered.
(Pretrial Order due by 4/18/2017.) (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on
4/18/2017) (jwh) (Entered: 04/18/2017)
04/18/2017 858 NOTICE of Filing Response to Proposed Intervenor Michael Cernovich
Opposition to Notice of Plaintiff's Proposed Redactions to This Court's Order
Denying Summary Judgment re: 833 Opposition Brief. Document filed by
04/18/2017 859 JOINT PRETRIAL STATEMENT . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.
Denying Bradley edwards Motion to Quash. Document filed by Virginia L.
Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed 1)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered:
04/18/2017)
04/18/2017 861 ORDER of USCA (Certified Copy) as to 504 Notice of Appeal filed by Alan
M. Dershowitz. USCA Case Number 16-3945. The parties in the above-
referenced case have filed a stipulation withdrawing this appeal pursuant to
Local Rule 42.1. The stipulation is hereby "So Ordered". Catherine O'Hagan
Wolfe, Clerk USCA for the Second Circuit. Certified: 04/18/2017. (nd)
(Entered: 04/19/2017)
04/20/2017 863 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 845 MOTION to Appoint Special Master to
Preside Over Third Deposition of Defendant. . Document filed by Ghislaine
04/20/2017 864 FILING ERROR - DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY - MOTION to Compel
Non-Party Witness to Produce Documents and Respond to Deposition
A-105
Questions and to Complete Search of ESI. Document filed by Ghislaine

Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Laura Menninger, # 2 Exhibits
A-F)(Menninger, Laura) Modified on 5/2/2017 (db). (Entered: 04/20/2017)
04/24/2017 866 JOINT LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time addressed to Judge Robert
W. Sweet from Sigrid McCawley dated April 24, 2017. Document filed by
04/25/2017 867 ORDER: granting 866 Letter Motion for Extension of Time. So ordered.
(Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 4/25/2017) (ap) (Entered: 04/25/2017)
"Defendant") has moved for the appointment of a special master to preside
over her final deposition. The motion is denied. The final deposition of
Maxwell will be limited to three (3) hours and will be held in Courtroom 18C
at 500 Pearl Street, on a date and time on which the parties and the Court agree.
The deposition will be supervised by the Court. (Signed by Judge Robert W.
04/26/2017 870 ORDER: The motion to compel filed April 20, 2017 shall be heard on
Wednesday, May 3, 2017 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 18C, United States
Local Civil Rule 6.1. ( Oral Argument set for 5/3/2017 at 11:00 AM in
W. Sweet.) (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 4/24/2017) (mro) (Entered:
04/26/2017)
04/26/2017 871 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 864 MOTION to Compel Non-Party
Witness to Produce Documents and Respond to Deposition Questions and to
Complete Search of ESI. . Document filed by John Stanley Pottinger.
(Pottinger, John) (Entered: 04/26/2017)
04/27/2017 872 OPINION: Because of the existence of triable issues of material fact rather
than opinion and because the pre-litigation privilege is inapplicable, the motion
for summary judgment is denied. For the reasons set forth above, the motion
for summary judgment is denied. The parties are directed to jointly file a
proposed redacted version of this Opinion consistent with the Protective Order
or notify the Court that none are necessary within one week of the date of
receipt of this Opinion. Motions terminated: denying 540 MOTION for
Summary Judgment, filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Signed by Judge Robert W.
Sweet on 4/27/2017) (ap) Modified on 4/28/2017 (ap). (Entered: 04/27/2017)
04/28/2017 873 NOTICE of Errata. Document filed by Jeffrey Epstein. (Goldberger, Jack)
(Entered: 04/28/2017)
04/28/2017)
04/28/2017 875
A-106
NOTICE of Pursuant to Rule 415 Of Similiar Acts Evidence. Document filed

04/28/2017 876 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 864 MOTION to Compel Non-Party
Witness to Produce Documents and Respond to Deposition Questions and to
Complete Search of ESI. . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger,
Compel Non-Party Witness to Produce Documents and Respond to Deposition
Questions and to Complete Search of ESI.. Document filed by Ghislaine
Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit F)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered:
04/28/2017)
04/28/2017 878 MOTION to Exclude Undisclosed Witnesses and Exhibits Pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 37(c) . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.(Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 04/28/2017)
Exclude Undisclosed Witnesses and Exhibits Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37
(c) .. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2
04/28/2017 880 PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
Sigrid McCawley in Support re: 882 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Philip
Barden.. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit
Sealed 1, # 2 Exhibit Sealed Composite 2, # 3 Exhibit Sealed 3)(McCawley,
Sigrid) Modified on 5/2/2017 (db). (Entered: 05/01/2017)
05/01/2017 884 PROPOSED VOIR DIRE QUESTIONS. Document filed by Ghislaine
Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Defendant's Proposed Jury
Questionnaire)(Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 05/01/2017)
Document 882 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Philip Barden. Use the
event type Miscellaneous Relief found under the event list Motion(s). (db)
(Entered: 05/02/2017)
DOCKET ENTRY ERROR. Notice to Attorney Sigrid S. McCawley to
A-107
05/02/2017 885 MOTION to Exclude Philip Barden from Testifying at Trial, to Exclude
Defenses Based Upon Certain Documents and for Adverse Inference Jury
Instruction . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.(McCawley, Sigrid)
(Entered: 05/02/2017)
05/02/2017 886 DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in Support re: 885 MOTION to Exclude
Philip Barden from Testifying at Trial, to Exclude Defenses Based Upon
Certain Documents and for Adverse Inference Jury Instruction .. Document
Composite Sealed 2, # 3 Exhibit Sealed 3)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered:
05/02/2017)
05/02/2017 888 REDACTION Declaration of Jack Goldberger by Jeffrey Epstein(Goldberger,
Jack) (Entered: 05/02/2017)
05/02/2017 889 ORDER: The Defendant's motion filed April 28, 2017 shall be heard on
Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 18C, united States
Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, All papers shall be served in accordance with
Local Civil Rule 6.1. (Oral Argument set for 5/10/2017 at 11:00 AM in
W. Sweet.) (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 5/2/2017) (ap) (Entered:
05/02/2017)
Menninger dated 5/1/2017 re: request for a one-day extension of time to submit
Ms. Maxwell's financial affidavit. ENDORSEMENT: So ordered. (Signed by
Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 18C, United States
Local Civil Rule 6.1. (Set Deadlines/Hearing as to 885 MOTION to Exclude
Philip Barden from Testifying at Trial, to Exclude Defenses Based Upon
Certain Documents and for Adverse Inference Jury Instruction : Motion
Hearing set for 5/10/2017 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 18C, 500 Pearl Street,
05/03/2017 892 OPINION re: 793 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Portions of February
16, 2017 Hearing Transcript addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from
Meredith Schultz dated March 27, 2017 filed by Virginia L. Giuffre, 763
MOTION to Strike Document No. 725 filed by Virginia L. Giuffre, 550
MOTION to Intervene and Unseal filed by Michael Cernovich d/b/a Cernovich
Media: This opinion resolves ECF Nos. 550, 763, and 793. The motion of the
Intervenor to intervene is granted. The motion to modify the Protective Order
is denied. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 5/2/2017) (jwh) (Entered:
05/03/2017)
05/03/2017 893
A-108
RESPONSE re: 875 Notice (Other) in Opposition to Plaintiffs Notice Pursuant

to Rule 415 of Similar Acts Evidence. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
Transcripts. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit
05/03/2017 895 DECLARATION of Laura A. Menninger in Support re: 893 Response.
05/04/2017 Set/Reset Hearings: Oral Argument set for 5/10/2017 at 12:00 PM before
Judge Robert W. Sweet. Pretrial Conference set for 5/10/2017 at 12:00 PM
before Judge Robert W. Sweet.(As per chambers the hearings have been
rescheduled) (lb) (Entered: 05/04/2017)
05/04/2017 Set/Reset Deadlines as to 885 MOTION to Exclude Philip Barden from
Testifying at Trial, to Exclude Defenses Based Upon Certain Documents and
for Adverse Inference Jury Instruction . Motion Hearing set for 5/10/2017 at
12:00 PM before Judge Robert W. Sweet. (lb) (Entered: 05/04/2017)
Exhibits Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c) .. Motion Hearing set for 5/10/2017
at 12:00 PM before Judge Robert W. Sweet. (lb) (Entered: 05/04/2017)
05/04/2017 896 MOTION to Compel Non-Party Witness to Produce Documents and Respond
to Deposition Questions and to Complete Search of ESI (Refiled). Document
Compel Non-Party Witness to Produce Documents and Respond to Deposition
Questions and to Complete Search of ESI (Refiled).. Document filed by
Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-F)(Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 05/04/2017)
05/04/2017 898 LETTER addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Eric J. Feder dated
5/4/2017 re: Public Access to Judicial Proceedings. Document filed by NYP
Holdings, Inc.,, Daily News, L.P..(Feder, Eric) (Entered: 05/04/2017)
05/04/2017 899 LETTER addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Jay M. Wolman dated
5/4/17 re: Joinder to Request of NYP Holdings, Inc., and Daily News, L.P.
898 . Document filed by Michael Cernovich d/b/a Cernovich Media.(Wolman,
Jay) (Entered: 05/04/2017)
05/05/2017 900 MOTION for Order to Show Cause and to Enforce Court's March 22, 2017
Order. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered:
05/05/2017)
05/05/2017 901 DECLARATION of Meredith Schultz in Support re: 900 MOTION for Order
to Show Cause and to Enforce Court's March 22, 2017 Order.. Document filed
by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed 1)(McCawley, Sigrid)
(Entered: 05/05/2017)
A-109
05/05/2017 902 MOTION Plaintiff's Motion for LEave to Permit Magna Legal Services to
Bring Personal Electronic Devices and Video Equipment to Courthouse .
Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1)
Judge Robert W. Sweet. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Sonya Ketter Huggins,
(212) 805-0300. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or
purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for
Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through
PACER. Redaction Request due 5/26/2017. Redacted Transcript Deadline set
for 6/5/2017. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/3/2017.(McGuirk,
W. Sweet from Meredith Schultz dated May 5, 2017. Document filed by
05/05/2017 906 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 878 MOTION to Exclude
Undisclosed Witnesses and Exhibits Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c) . .
05/05/2017)
Exclude Undisclosed Witnesses and Exhibits Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37
(c) .. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed
1, # 2 Exhibit Sealed 2, # 3 Exhibit Sealed 3, # 4 Exhibit Sealed 4, # 5 Exhibit
Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre.(Edwards, Bradley) (Entered:
05/05/2017)
Directing the FBI to Produce Photographs to the Court .. Document filed by
Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed A, # 2 Exhibit Sealed B)
(Edwards, Bradley) (Entered: 05/05/2017)
05/08/2017 910 JOINT LETTER MOTION to Adjourn Conference addressed to Judge Robert
W. Sweet from Sigrid McCawley and Jeff Pagliuca dated May 8, 2017.
05/08/2017)
A-110
05/08/2017)
Argument set for 5/25/2017 at 12:00 PM before Judge Robert W. Sweet.
Pretrial Conference set for 5/25/2017 at 12:00 PM before Judge Robert W.
Sweet.) (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 5/9/2017) (jwh) (Entered:
05/09/2017)
05/09/2017 Set/Reset Deadlines as to 885 MOTION to Exclude Philip Barden from
Testifying at Trial, to Exclude Defenses Based Upon Certain Documents and
for Adverse Inference Jury Instruction ; 878 MOTION to Exclude Undisclosed
Witnesses and Exhibits Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c): Motion Hearing set
for 5/25/2017 at 12:00 PM before Judge Robert W. Sweet. (jwh) (Entered:
05/09/2017)
05/10/2017 913 JOINT LETTER MOTION to Adjourn Conference addressed to Judge Robert
W. Sweet from Sigrid McCawley and Jeff Pagliuca dated May 10, 2017.
05/10/2017)
05/11/2017 914 ORDER granting 913 Letter Motion to Adjourn Conference: So ordered.
05/19/2017 915 NOTICE OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL from 892 Memorandum &
Opinion,,. Document filed by Alan M. Dershowitz. Form C and Form D are
due within 14 days to the Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. (Lebowitz, David)
(Entered: 05/19/2017)
05/19/2017 Appeal Fee Due: for 915 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal. $505.00 Appeal fee
due by 6/2/2017. (nd) (Entered: 05/19/2017)
Court of Appeals re: 915 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal. (nd) (Entered:
05/19/2017)
Appeal Electronic Files for 915 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal filed by Alan
M. Dershowitz were transmitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals. (nd) (Entered:
05/19/2017)
05/24/2017 916 STIPULATION OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL It is hereby stipulated and
agreed by and between the parties and/or their respective counsel(s) that the
above-captioned action is voluntarily dismissed, with prejudice against the
defendant(s) Ghislaine Maxwell and without costs to either party pursuant to
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Document filed
by Virginia L. Giuffre.(Edwards, Bradley) (Main Document 916 replaced on
5/25/2017) (ama). (Main Document 916 replaced on 5/26/2017) (tn). (Main
Document 916 replaced on 5/30/2017) (tn). (Entered: 05/24/2017)
05/25/2017
A-111
USCA Case Number 17-1625 from the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
assigned to 915 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal filed by Alan M. Dershowitz.
(nd) (Entered: 05/25/2017)
05/25/2017 918 LETTER addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Andrew G. Celli, Jr. dated
May 25, 2017 re: Request for Leave to File a Letter Under Seal. Document
filed by Alan M. Dershowitz.(Celli, Andrew) (Entered: 05/25/2017)
05/25/2017 ***DELETED DOCUMENT. Deleted document number 917 Joint
Stipulation for Voluntary Dismissal. The document was incorrectly filed in
this case. (tn) (Entered: 05/26/2017)
05/25/2017 919 JOINT STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL: that this action shall be
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, with each party to bear its own attorneys'
fees and costs. Ghislaine Maxwell terminated. (Signed by Judge Robert W.
Sweet on 5/25/2017) (tn) (tn). Modified on 5/30/2017 (tn). (Entered:
05/30/2017)
05/31/2017 920 NOTICE OF APPEAL from 892 Memorandum & Opinion,,. Document filed
by Michael Cernovich d/b/a Cernovich Media. Filing fee $ 505.00, receipt
number 0208-13725473. Form C and Form D are due within 14 days to the
Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. (Wolman, Jay) (Entered: 05/31/2017)
Court of Appeals re: 920 Notice of Appeal. (tp) (Entered: 05/31/2017)
Appeal Electronic Files for 920 Notice of Appeal, filed by Michael Cernovich
d/b/a Cernovich Media were transmitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals. (tp)
(Entered: 05/31/2017)
06/06/2017 Appeal Fee Paid electronically via Pay.gov: for 915 Notice of Interlocutory
Appeal. Filing fee $ 505.00. Pay.gov receipt number 0208-13685185, paid on
05/19/2017. [USCA Case Number 17-1625]. (nd) (Entered: 06/06/2017)
06/21/2017 922 LETTER addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Andrew G. Celli. Jr. dated
June 21, 2017 re: Confidentiality Designations. Document filed by Alan M.
Dershowitz. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4
Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6)(Celli, Andrew) (Entered: 06/21/2017)
10/03/2017 924 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Submitted by Proposed Intervenors
Jeffrey Epstein and Lesley Groff addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from
Michael C. Miller dated October 3, 2017. Document filed by Jeffrey Epstein.
(Miller, Michael) (Entered: 10/03/2017)
A-112
10/06/2017 927 ORDER: The motion for leave to intervene and to modify the protective order
by proposed Intervenors Jeffrey Epstein and Lesley Groff shall be heard at
11:00 AM on Wednesday, November 8, 2017 in Courtroom 18C, United States
Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street. Motion Hearing set for 11/8/2017 at 11:00 AM in
10/06/2017)
10/19/2017 928 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 924 LETTER MOTION to Seal
Document Submitted by Proposed Intervenors Jeffrey Epstein and Lesley Groff
addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Michael C. Miller dated October 3,
2017. . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered:
10/19/2017)
Argument held on 11/8/2017 re: 924 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document
Submitted by Proposed Intervenors Jeffrey Epstein and Lesley Groff addressed
to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Michael C. Miller dated October 3, 2017. filed
by Jeffrey Epstein. (Court Reporter Pamela Utter)Motion pending. (Chan, Tsz)
(Entered: 11/09/2017)
Judge Robert W. Sweet. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Pamela Utter, (212) 805-
11/28/2017 933 NOTICE of Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of November 8 2017
Hearing Transcript. Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit 1 Redacted)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 11/28/2017)
02/20/2018 934 ORDER of USCA (Certified Copy) as to 504 Notice of Appeal filed by Alan
M. Dershowitz, 920 Notice of Appeal, filed by Michael Cernovich d/b/a
Cernovich Media, 915 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal filed by Alan M.
Dershowitz. USCA Case Number 16-3945 (L), 17-1625 (Con), 17-1722 (Con).
Appellee moves to file her appellate brief under seal. Upon due consideration,
it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. See Lugosch v.
A-113
Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 126 (2d Cir. 2006). To the extent that
they have not yet done so, the parties are also hereby instructed to brief for the
merits panel the question of appellate jurisdiction in this case. See, e.g., Nosik
v. Singe, 40 F.3d 592, 59667 (2d Cir. 1994). Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
USCA for the Second Circuit. Certified: 2/20/2018. (nd) (Entered: 02/20/2018)
04/06/2018 935 MOTION to Intervene ., MOTION to Unseal Document . Document filed by
Julie Brown, Miami Herald Media Company.(Walz, Christine) (Entered:
04/06/2018)
MOTION to Unseal Document . . Document filed by Julie Brown, Miami
04/09/2018 937 ORDER: The motion to intervene and unseal brought by proposed intervenors
Julie Brown and the Miami Herald Media Company shall be heard at 12:00 PM
on Wednesday, May 9th, 2018 in Courtroom 18C, United States Courthouse,
Rule 6.1. Set Deadlines/Hearing as to 935 MOTION to Intervene; MOTION to
Unseal Document: ( Motion Hearing set for 5/9/2018 at 12:00 PM in
W. Sweet.) (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 4/9/2018) (mro) (Entered:
04/09/2018)
04/10/2018 938 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Christine Walz on behalf of Julie Brown,
Miami Herald Media Company. (Walz, Christine) (Entered: 04/10/2018)
04/10/2018 939 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Sanford Lewis Bohrer on behalf of Julie
Brown, Miami Herald Media Company. (Bohrer, Sanford) (Entered:
04/10/2018)
04/10/2018 940 RULE 7.1 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. Identifying Other
Affiliate McClatchy Company for Miami Herald Media Company. Document
filed by Miami Herald Media Company.(Walz, Christine) (Entered:
04/10/2018)
MOTION to Unseal Document . . Document filed by Michael Cernovich d/b/a
Cernovich Media. (Wolman, Jay) (Entered: 04/20/2018)
Menninger dated 4/19/2018 re: Defendant's response is currently due April 20,
2018. Defendant seeks a one week extension up to and including April 27,
2018. Counsel for Intervenors Christine Walz do not oppose this request.
ENDORSEMENT: SO ORDERED., ( Responses due by 4/27/2018) (Signed
by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 4/20/2018) (ama) (Entered: 04/20/2018)
04/23/2018 943 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Sigrid
McCawley, Esq. dated 4/20/2018 re: Plaintiff seeks a one week extension up to
and including April 27, 2018. ENDORSEMENT: So ordered. (Responses due
by 4/27/2018.) (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 4/23/2018) (anc)
(Entered: 04/23/2018)
A-114
04/27/2018 944 RESPONSE to Motion re: 935 MOTION to Intervene . MOTION to Unseal
Document . . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura)
(Entered: 04/27/2018)
04/27/2018 945 RESPONSE to Motion re: 935 MOTION to Intervene . MOTION to Unseal
Document . . Document filed by Virginia L. Giuffre. (McCawley, Sigrid)
(Entered: 04/27/2018)
05/04/2018 946 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 935 MOTION to
Intervene . MOTION to Unseal Document . . Document filed by Miami Herald
Media Company. (Walz, Christine) (Entered: 05/04/2018)
May 8, 2018 re: Pending application of Julie Brown and the Miami Herald
Media Company to intervene and unseal. Document filed by Alan M.
Dershowitz. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - June 2017 Letter (Redacted))(Celli,
Andrew) (Entered: 05/08/2018)
Argument held on 5/10/2018 re: 935 MOTION to Intervene. MOTION to
Unseal Document filed by Julie Brown, Miami Herald Media Company. (Court
Reporter Kelly SurinaMotion Pending. (Chan, Tsz) (Entered: 05/10/2018)
Judge Robert W. Sweet. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Kelly Surina, (212) 805-
(Entered: 06/01/2018)
08/21/2018 951 LETTER addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Christine N. Walz dated
August 21, 2018 re: status of pending motion. Document filed by Julie Brown,
Miami Herald Media Company.(Walz, Christine) (Entered: 08/21/2018)
U.S.D.J. dated 8/22/2018 re: The motion is under advisement.
ENDORSEMENT: Dear Ms. Walz, Thank you for your letter of August 21,
2018. The motion is under advisement. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on
8/22/2018) (ne) (Entered: 08/23/2018)
08/27/2018 953
A-115
OPINION: re: 935 MOTION to Intervene . MOTION to Unseal Document .

filed by Julie Brown, Miami Herald Media Company. Based on the facts and
conclusions set forth above, the Intervenors' motion to intervene is granted, and
this motion to unseal is denied and the action is closed. It is so ordered. (Signed
by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 8/27/2018) (js) (Entered: 08/27/2018)
09/25/2018 954 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Madelaine Jane Woolfrey Harrington on
behalf of Julie Brown, Miami Herald Media Company. (Harrington,
Madelaine) (Entered: 09/25/2018)
09/26/2018 955 NOTICE OF APPEAL from 953 Memorandum & Opinion,. Document filed by
Julie Brown, Miami Herald Media Company. Filing fee $ 505.00, receipt
number 0208-15620549. Form C and Form D are due within 14 days to the
Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. (Walz, Christine) (Entered: 09/26/2018)
Court of Appeals re: 955 Notice of Appeal,. (nd) (Entered: 09/26/2018)
Appeal Electronic Files for 955 Notice of Appeal, filed by Julie Brown, Miami
Herald Media Company were transmitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals. (nd)
(Entered: 09/26/2018)
December 3, 2018 re: Giuffre Unsealing After Herald Article. Document filed
12/04/2018 957 MOTION for Order to Show Cause re Protective Order. Document filed by
12/04/2018 958 DECLARATION of Ty Gee in Support re: 957 MOTION for Order to Show
Cause re Protective Order.. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)
PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt
12/06/2018 11:25:08
I
PACER Login: teamrpacc
I IClient Code:
IDescription: IIDocket Report ISearch Criteria: 1:15-cv-07433-RWS
IBillable Pages: II30 ICost: 3.00
A-116
United States District Court

Plaintiff, CASE NO:_____________________
v.
GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
Defendant.
________________________________/
COMPLAINT
Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP

575 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10022
(212) 446-2300
1

A-117
Plaintiff, VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE, formerly known as Virginia Roberts
(“Giuffre”), for her Complaint against Defendant, GHISLAINE MAXWELL (“Maxwell”), avers
upon personal knowledge as to her own acts and status and otherwise upon information and
belief:
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. This suit arises out of Defendant Maxwell’s defamatory statements against
Plaintiff Giuffre. As described below, Giuffre was a victim of sexual trafficking and abuse while
she was a minor child. Defendant Maxwell not only facilitated that sexual abuse but, most
recently, wrongfully subjected Giuffre to public ridicule, contempt and disgrace by, among other
things, calling Giuffre a liar in published statements with the malicious intent of discrediting and
further damaging Giuffre worldwide.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2. This is an action for damages in an amount in excess of the minimum
jurisdictional limits of this Court.
3. This Court has jurisdiction over this dispute pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332
(diversity jurisdiction) as Giuffre and Maxwell are citizens of different states and the amount in
controversy exceeds seventy-five thousand ($75,000), exclusive of interest and costs.
4. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Maxwell. Maxwell resides in New York
City, and this action arose, and defamatory statements were made, within the Southern District of
New York.
5. Venue is proper in this Court as the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of
this Court.
2

A-118
PARTIES
6. Plaintiff Giuffre is an individual who is a citizen of the State of Colorado.
7. Defendant Maxwell, who is domiciled in the Southern District of New York, is
not a citizen of the state of Colorado.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
8. Virginia Giuffre became a victim of sex trafficking and repeated sexual abuse
after being recruited by Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein when Giuffre was under the age
of eighteen.
9. Between 1999 and 2002, with the assistance and participation of Maxwell,
Epstein sexually abused Giuffre at numerous locations including his mansions in West Palm
Beach, Florida, and in this District. Between 2001 and 2007, with the assistance of numerous
co-conspirators, Epstein abused more than thirty (30) minor underage girls, a fact confirmed by
state and federal law enforcement.
10. As part of their sex trafficking efforts, Epstein and Maxwell intimidated Giuffre
into remaining silent about what had happened to her.
11. In September 2007, Epstein entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement (“NPA”)
that barred his prosecution for numerous federal sex crimes in the Southern District of Florida.
12. In the NPA, the United States additionally agreed that it would not institute any
federal criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein.
13. As a co-conspirator of Epstein, Maxwell was consequently granted immunity in
the Southern District of Florida through the NPA.
14. Epstein ultimately pled guilty to procuring a minor for prostitution, and is now a
registered sex offender.
3

A-119
15. Rather than confer with the victims about the NPA, the U.S. Attorney’s Office
and Epstein agreed to a “confidentiality” provision in the Agreement barring its disclosure to
anyone—including Epstein’s victims. As a consequence, the victims were not told about the
NPA.
16. On July 7, 2008, a young woman identified as Jane Doe No. 1, one of Jeffrey
Epstein’s victims (other than Giuffre), filed a petition to enforce her rights under the Crime
Victims’ Rights Act (“CVRA”), 18 U.S.C. ¶ 3771, alleging that the Government failed to
provide her the rights promised in the CVRA with regard to the plea arrangement with Epstein.
The litigation remains ongoing.
17. On or about May 4, 2009, Virginia Giuffre—identified then as Jane Doe No.
102—filed a complaint against Jeffrey Epstein in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida. The complaint included allegations made by Giuffre that pertained
to Maxwell.
18. In pertinent part, the Jane Doe No. 102 complaint described in detail how
Maxwell recruited Giuffre (who was then a minor girl) to become a victim of sex trafficking by
introducing Giuffre to Jeffrey Epstein. With the assistance of Maxwell, Epstein was able to
sexually abuse Giuffre for years until Giuffre eventually escaped.
19. The Jane Doe No. 102 complaint contained the first public allegations made on
behalf of Giuffre regarding Maxwell.
20. As civil litigation against Epstein moved forward on behalf of Giuffre and many
other similarly-situated victims, Maxwell was served with a subpoena for deposition. Her
testimony was sought concerning her personal knowledge and role in Epstein’s abuse of Giuffre
and others.
4

A-120
21. To avoid her deposition, Maxwell claimed that her mother fell deathly ill and that
consequently she was leaving the United States for London with no plans of ever returning. In
fact, however, within weeks of using that excuse to avoid testifying, Maxwell had returned to
New York.
22. In 2011, two FBI agents located Giuffre in Australia—where she had been hiding
from Epstein and Maxwell for several years—and arranged to meet with her at the U.S.
Consulate in Sidney. Giuffre provided truthful and accurate information to the FBI about
Epstein and Maxwell’s sexual abuse.
23. Ultimately, as a mother and one of Epstein’s many victims, Giuffre believed that
she should speak out about her sexual abuse experiences in hopes of helping others who had also
suffered from sexual trafficking and abuse.
24. On December 23, 2014, Giuffre incorporated an organization called Victims
Refuse Silence, Inc., a Florida not-for-profit corporation.
25. Giuffre intended Victims Refuse Silence to change and improve the fight against
sexual abuse and human trafficking. The goal of her organization was, and continues to be, to
help survivors surmount the shame, silence, and intimidation typically experienced by victims of
sexual abuse. Giuffre has now dedicated her professional life to helping victims of sex
trafficking.
26. On December 30, 2014, Giuffre moved to join the on-going litigation previously
filed by Jane Doe 1 in the Southern District of Florida challenging Epstein’s non-prosecution
agreement by filing her own joinder motion.
5

A-121
27. Giuffre’s motion described Maxwell’s role as one of the main women who
Epstein used to procure under-aged girls for sexual activities and a primary co-conspirator and
participant in his sexual abuse and sex trafficking scheme.
28. In January, 2015, Maxwell undertook a concerted and malicious campaign to
discredit Giuffre and to so damage her reputation that Giuffre’s factual reporting of what had
happened to her would not be credited.
29. As part of Maxwell’s campaign she directed her agent, Ross Gow, to attack
Giuffre’s honesty and truthfulness and to accuse Giuffre of lying.
30. On or about January 3, 2015, speaking through her authorized agent, Maxwell
issued an additional false statement to the media and public designed to maliciously discredit
Giuffre. That statement contained the following deliberate falsehoods:
(a) That Giuffre’s sworn allegations “against Ghislaine Maxwell are untrue.”
(b) That the allegations have been “shown to be untrue.”
(c) That Giuffre’s “claims are obvious lies.”
31. Maxwell’s January 3, 2015, statement incorporated by reference “Ghislaine
Maxwell’s original response to the lies and defamatory claims remains the same,” an earlier
statement that had falsely described Giuffre’s factual assertions as “entirely false” and “entirely
untrue.”
32. Maxwell made the same false and defamatory statements as set forth above, in the
Southern District of New York and elsewhere in a deliberate effort to maliciously discredit
Giuffre and silence her efforts to expose sex crimes committed around the world by Maxwell,
Epstein, and other powerful persons. Maxwell did so with the purpose and effect of having
6

A-122
others repeat such false and defamatory statements and thereby further damaged Giuffre’s
reputation.
33. Maxwell made her statements to discredit Giuffre in close consultation with
Epstein. Maxwell made her statements knowing full well they were false.
34. Maxwell made her statements maliciously as part of an effort to conceal sex
trafficking crimes committed around the world by Maxwell, Epstein and other powerful persons.
35. Maxwell intended her false and defamatory statements set out above to be
broadcast around the world and to intimidate and silence Giuffre from making further efforts to
expose sex crimes committed by Maxwell, Epstein, and other powerful persons.
36. Maxwell intended her false statements to be specific statements of fact, including
a statement that she had not recruited an underage Giuffre for Epstein’s abuse. Maxwell’s false
statements were broadcast around the world and were reasonably understood by those who heard
them to be specific factual claims by Maxwell that she had not helped Epstein recruit or sexually
abuse Giuffre and that Giuffre was a liar.
37. On or about January 4, 2015, Maxwell continued her campaign to falsely and
maliciously discredit Giuffre. When a reporter on a Manhattan street asked Maxwell about
Giuffre’s allegations against Maxwell, she responded by saying: “I am referring to the statement
that we made.” The New York Daily News published a video of this response by Maxwell
indicating that she made her false statements on East 65th Street in Manhattan, New York, within
the Southern District of New York.
7

A-123
COUNT I
DEFAMATION
1. Plaintiff Giuffre re-alleges paragraphs 1 - 37 as if the same were fully set forth
herein. Maxwell made her false and defamatory statements deliberately and maliciously with the
intent to intimidate, discredit and defame Giuffre.
2. In January 2015, and thereafter, Maxwell intentionally and maliciously released to
the press her false statements about Giuffre in an attempt to destroy Giuffre’s reputation and
cause her to lose all credibility in her efforts to help victims of sex trafficking.
3. Maxwell additionally released to the press her false statements with knowledge
that her words would dilute, discredit and neutralize Giuffre’s public and private messages to
sexual abuse victims and ultimately prevent Giuffre from effectively providing assistance and
advocacy on behalf of other victims of sex trafficking, or to expose her abusers.
4. Using her role as a powerful figure with powerful friends, Maxwell’s statements
were published internationally for the malicious purpose of further damaging a sexual abuse and
sexual trafficking victim; to destroy Giuffre’s reputation and credibility; to cause the world to
disbelieve Giuffre; and to destroy Giuffre’s efforts to use her experience to help others suffering
as sex trafficking victims.
5. Maxwell, personally and through her authorized agent, Ross Gow, intentionally
and maliciously made false and damaging statements of fact concerning Giuffre, as detailed
above, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere.
6. The false statements made by Gow were all made by him as Maxwell’s
authorized agent and were made with direct and actual authority from Maxwell as the principal.
8

A-124
7. The false statements that Maxwell made personally, and through her authorized
agent Gow, not only called Giuffre’s truthfulness and integrity into question, but also exposed
Giuffre to public hatred, contempt, ridicule, and disgrace.
8. Maxwell made her false statements knowing full well that they were completely
false. Accordingly, she made her statements with actual and deliberate malice, the highest
degree of awareness of falsity.
9. Maxwell’s false statements constitute libel, as she knew that they were going to
be transmitted in writing, widely disseminated on the internet and in print. Maxwell intended her
false statements to be published by newspaper and other media outlets internationally, and they
were, in fact, published globally, including within the Southern District of New York.
10. Maxwell’s false statements constitute libel per se inasmuch as they exposed
Giuffre to public contempt, ridicule, aversion, and disgrace, and induced an evil opinion of her in
the minds of right-thinking persons.
11. Maxwell’s false statements also constitute libel per se inasmuch as they tended to
injure Giuffre in her professional capacity as the president of a non-profit corporation designed
to help victims of sex trafficking, and inasmuch as they destroyed her credibility and reputation
among members of the community that seeks her help and that she seeks to serve.
12. Maxwell’s false statements directly stated and also implied that in speaking out
against sex trafficking Giuffre acted with fraud, dishonesty, and unfitness for the task.
Maxwell’s false statements directly and indirectly indicate that Giuffre lied about being recruited
by Maxwell and sexually abused by Epstein and Maxwell. Maxwell’s false statements were
reasonably understood by many persons who read her statements as conveying that specific
intention and meaning.
9

A-125
13. Maxwell’s false statements were reasonably understood by many persons who
read those statements as making specific factual claims that Giuffre was lying about specific
facts.
14. Maxwell specifically directed her false statements at Giuffre’s true public
description of factual events, and many persons who read Maxwell’s statements reasonably
understood that those statements referred directly to Giuffre’s account of her life as a young
teenager with Maxwell and Epstein.
15. Maxwell intended her false statements to be widely published and disseminated
on television, through newspapers, by word of mouth and on the internet. As intended by
Maxwell, her statements were published and disseminated around the world.
16. Maxwell coordinated her false statements with other media efforts made by
Epstein and other powerful persons acting as Epstein’s representatives and surrogates. Maxwell
made and coordinated her statements in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere with
the specific intent to amplify the defamatory effect those statements would have on Giuffre’s
reputation and credibility.
17. Maxwell made her false statements both directly and through agents who, with
her general and specific authorization, adopted, distributed, and published the false statements on
Maxwell’s behalf. In addition, Maxwell and her authorized agents made false statements in
reckless disregard of their truth or falsity and with malicious intent to destroy Giuffre’s
reputation and credibility; to prevent her from further disseminating her life story; and to cause
persons hearing or reading Giuffre’s descriptions of truthful facts to disbelieve her entirely.
Maxwell made her false statements wantonly and with the specific intent to maliciously damage
Giuffre’s good name and reputation in a way that would destroy her efforts to administer her
10

A-126
non-profit foundation, or share her life story, and thereby help others who have suffered from
sexual abuse.
18. As a result of Maxwell’s campaign to spread false, discrediting and defamatory
statements about Giuffre, Giuffre suffered substantial damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
19. Maxwell’s false statements have caused, and continue to cause, Giuffre economic
damage, psychological pain and suffering, mental anguish and emotional distress, and other
direct and consequential damages and losses.
20. Maxwell’s campaign to spread her false statements internationally was unusual
and particularly egregious conduct. Maxwell sexually abused Giuffre and helped Epstein to
sexually abuse Giuffre, and then, in order to avoid having these crimes discovered, Maxwell
wantonly and maliciously set out to falsely accuse, defame, and discredit Giuffre. In so doing,
Maxwell’s efforts constituted a public wrong by deterring, damaging, and setting back Giuffre’s
efforts to help victims of sex trafficking. Accordingly, this is a case in which exemplary and
punitive damages are appropriate.
21. Punitive and exemplary damages are necessary in this case to deter Maxwell and
others from wantonly and maliciously using a campaign of lies to discredit Giuffre and other
victims of sex trafficking.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Giuffre respectfully requests judgment against Defendant
Maxwell, awarding compensatory, consequential, exemplary, and punitive damages in an
amount to be determined at trial, but in excess of the $75,000 jurisdictional requirement; costs of
suit; attorneys’ fees; and such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
11

A-127
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all causes of action asserted within this
pleading.
Dated September 21, 2015.
/s/ David Boies

David Boies
333 Main Street
Armonk, NY 10504
/s/ Sigrid McCawley

Sigrid McCawley
(Pro Hac Vice Pending)
401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
(954) 356-0011
/s/ Ellen Brockman

Ellen Brockman
575 Lexington Ave
(212) 446-2300
12

A-128

--------------------------------------------------X
...............................................
Plaintiff,
15-cv-07433-RWS
v.
GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
Defendant.
--------------------------------------------------X
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER
Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, through undersigned counsel, moves this Court for the
entry of a Protective Order pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In
support of this motion, Ms. Maxwell states as follows:
Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 26(c) this Court “may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a
party…from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense…” The nature
of this case concerns highly personal and sensitive information from both parties. In this action,
both parties have sought and will seek confidential information in the course of discovery from
the other party and from non-party witnesses. Release of such confidential information outside
of the litigation could expose the parties to “annoyance, embarrassment, [and] oppression” and
result in significant injury to one or more of the parties’ business or privacy interests.
Plaintiff seeks to take the deposition of defendant Ghislaine Maxwell. Based on written
discovery requests served to date, it is anticipated that Plaintiff will seek to question Ms.
Maxwell concerning her personal and professional relationships as well matters concerning her
A-129
private affairs. Furthermore, Plaintiff has served Ms. Maxwell with document requests that seek
information of a sensitive and confidential nature. Dissemination of such information to third
parties could be significantly harmful to Ms. Maxwell’s business and personal privacy interests.
Good cause exists for entry of this Protective Order.
WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court grant her Motion for
Protective Order in this matter in the form attached as Exhibit A to Declaration of Laura
Menninger in Support of Defendant’s Motion for a Protective Order.
Dated: March 2, 2016.
s/ Laura A. Menninger
Laura A. Menninger (LM-1374)
Denver, CO 80203
Phone: 303.831.7364
Fax: 303.832.2628
lmenninger@hmflaw.com
Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell
2
A-130
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on March 2, 2016, I electronically filed this Defendant’s Motion for a
Protective Order with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification
to all counsel of record including the following:
Sigrid S. McCawley
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Ste. 1200
smccawley@bsfllp.com
s/ Brenda Rodriguez
Brenda Rodriguez
3
A-131
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 39-1 Filed 03/02/16 Page 2 of 7

Southern District Of New York,-r""::-
--------------------------------------------------X
Plaintiff,
v. 15-cv-07433-RWS
Ghislaine Maxwell,
Defendant.
-----------------------------------------------X
PROTECTIVE ORDER
Upon a showing of good cause in support of the entry of a protective order to
protect the discovery and dissemination of confidential information or information which
will improperly annoy, embarrass, or oppress any party, witness, or person providing
discovery in this case, IT IS ORDERED:
1. This Protective Order shall apply to all documents, materials, and information,
including without limitation, documents produced, answers to interrogatories,
responses to requests for admission, deposition testimony, and other
information disclosed pursuant to the disclosure or discovery duties created by
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
2. As used in this Protective Order, "document" 1s defined as provided in
FE0.R.C1v.P. 34(a). A draft or non-identical copy 1s a separate document
within the meaning of this term.

A-132
3. Information designated "CONFIDENTIAL" shall be information that is
confidential and implicates common law and statutory privacy interests of (a)
plaintiff Virginia Roberts Giuffre and (b) defendant Ghislaine Maxwell.
4. CONFIDENTIAL information shall not be disclosed or used for any purpose
except the preparation and trial of this case.
5. CONFIDENTIAL documents, materials, and/or information (collectively
"CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION") shall not, without the consent of the
party producing it or further Order of the Court, be disclosed except that such
information may be disclosed to:
a. attorneys actively working on this case;
b. persons regularly employed or associated with the attorneys actively
working on this case whose assistance is required by said attorneys in the
preparation for trial, at trial, or at other proceedings in this case;
c. the parties;
d. expert witnesses and consultants retained in connection with this
proceeding, to the extent such disclosure is necessary for preparation, trial
or other proceedings in this case;
e. the Court and its employees ("Court Personnel") in this case;
f. stenographic reporters who are engaged in proceedings necessarily incident
to the conduct of this action;
g. deponents, witnesses, or potential witnesses; and
2
A-133
h. other persons by written agreement of the parties.
6. Prior to disclosing any CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION to any person
listed above (other than counsel, persons employed by counsel, Court
Personnel and stenographic reporters), counsel shall provide such person with
a copy of this Protective Order and obtain from such person a written
acknowledgment stating that he or she has read this Protective Order and
agrees to be bound by its provisions. All such acknowledgments shall be
retained by counsel and shall be subject to in camera review by the Court if
good cause for review is demonstrated by opposing counsel.
7. Documents are designated as CONFIDENTIAL by placing or affixing on them
(in a manner that will not interfere with their legibility) the following or other
appropriate notice: "CONFIDENTIAL." Discovery material designated
CONFIDENTIAL shall be identified by Bates number. To the extent practical,
the respective legend shall be placed near the Bates number.
8. Designation of a document as CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION shall
constitute a representation that such document has been reviewed by an
attorney for the designating party, that there is a valid and good faith basis for
such designation, made at the time of disclosure or production to the receiving
party, and that disclosure of such information to persons other than those
permitted access to such material would cause a privacy harm to the
designating party.
3
A-134
9. Whenever a deposition involves the disclosure of CONFIDENTIAL
INFORMATION, the deposition or portions thereof shall be designated as
CONFIDENTIAL and shall be subject to the provisions of this Protective
Order. Such designation shall be made on the record during the deposition
whenever possible, but a party may designate portions of depositions as
CONFIDENTIAL after transcription, provided written notice of the
designation is promptly given to all counsel of record within thirty (30) days
after notice by the court reporter of the completion of the transcript, and until
the expiration of such thirty (30) days after notice by the court reporter of the
completion of the transcript, no party or counsel for any such party may share
the contents of the deposition outside the limitations of this Protective Order.
10. Whenever a party seeks to file any document or material containing
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION with the Court in this matter, it shall be
accompanied by a Motion to Seal pursuant to Section 6.2 of the Electronic
Case Filing Rules & Instructions for the Southern District of New York.
11. A party may object to the designation of particular CONFIDENTIAL
INFORMATION by giving written notice to the party designating the disputed
information. The written notice shall identify the information to which the
objection is made. If the parties cannot resolve the objection within ten (10)
business days after the time the notice is received, it shall be the obligation of
the party designating the information as CONFIDENTIAL to file an
4
A-135
appropriate motion requesting that the Court determine whether the disputed
information should be subject to the terms of this Protective Order. If such a
motion is timely filed, the disputed information shall be treated as
CONFIDENTIAL under the terms of this Protective Order until the Court rules
on the motion. If the designating party fails to file such a motion within the
prescribed time, the disputed information shall lose its designation as
CONFIDENTIAL and shall not thereafter be treated as CONFIDENTIAL in
accordance with this Protective Order. In connection with a motion filed under
this provision, the party designating the information as CONFIDENTIAL shall
bear the burden of establishing that good cause exists for the disputed
information to be treated as CONFIDENTIAL.
12. At the conclusion of this case, unless other arrangements are agreed upon, each
document and all copies thereof which have been designated as
CONFIDENTIAL shall be returned to the party that designated it
CONFIDENTIAL, or the parties may elect to destroy CONFIDENTIAL
documents. Where the parties agree to destroy CONFIDENTIAL documents,
the destroying party shall provide all parties with an affidavit confirming the
destruction.
13. This Protective Order shall have no force and effect on the use of any
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION at trial in this matter.
5
A-136
14. This Protective Order may be modified by the Court at any time for good cause
shown following notice to all parties and an opportunity for them to be heard.
f;-17-/G
6
A-137
P. 02
APR-lS-2016 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 100 FAX
FRI 09:22 AM HADDON FOREMAN Filed
NO. 04/15/16 Page 1 of 2
3038321015
Hoddon, Morgan cind Foreman, t.c

Laura A, Menninger
ti A D D O N 150 East 10th Avenue

MOllGA!-1 JUDGE SWEET CHAMBERS PH
Denver, Colorodo 80203
303,831.7364 FX 303.832.2628
FOllEM~N
www.hmflow.com
lmenninger@hm flow.com
April 15, 2016
Via Facsimile (212) 805-7925
Hon. Robert W. Sweet

United States District Judge
Daniel Patrick Moynihan Courthouse
500 Pearl Street, Room 1940
New York, New York 10007-1312
Re: Giuffre v. Maxwell. 15-c.:v-07433-RWS
Dear Judge Sweet:
Plaintiffs counsel contends that Defendant's Reply in Support of Motion to

Compel Responses to Defendant's First Set of Discovery Requests (Doc. #92)
contains at page 9 information designated "Confidential" pursuant to this Court's
Protective Order (Doc. #62).
While we disagree, and contend that Plaintiff has waived any Confidentiality
by making representations to the Court in her publicly filed Response regarding her
medical records and the contents thereat: we nevertheless are requesting that the
Reply be placed under seal and that we substitute for public filing a Reply which
omits words from page 9 about which Plaintiff complains.
Thank you for your consideration and we apologize to the Court for the
inconvenience this disagreement has caused.
Sincerely,
S~ Isl Laura A. Menninger

t:./ ,/ J ': / b Laura A. Menninger
A-138
APR-15-2016Case
. FRI 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 100 Filed
09:23 AM HADDON FOREMAN FAX NQ04/15/16 Page 2 of 2
3038321015 P. 03

April 15, 2016
Page2
c/c:
Sigrid S. Mccawley
401 E. Las O1as Blvd., Suite 1200
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301-2211
A-139
B O I E S, S C H I L L E R & F L E X N E R L L P
401 EAST LAS OLAS BOULEVARD • SUITE 1200 • FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301 221 1 • PH. 954.356,00 1 • FAX 954.356.0022
Sigrid S. Mccawley, Esq.

April 25, 2016

Via CM/ECF
Honorable Judge Robert W. Sweet

District Court Judge
500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10007
Re: Giuffre v. Maxwell,

Case no. 15-cv-07433-RWS - Regarding Protective Order
Dear Judge Sweet:
This is a letter motion to file Ms. Giuffre's Non-Redacted Reply in Support of Motion for
Forensic Examination ("Reply Brief') and certain accompanying exhibits under seal pursuant to
this Court's March 18, 2016, Protective Order and the Southern District of New York Electronic
Case Filing Rules & Instructions 6.2.
The Protective Order states:
Whenever a party seeks to file any document or material containing CONFIDENTIAL

INFORMATION with the Court in this matter, it shall be accompanied by a Motion to
Seal pursuant to Section 6.2 of the Electronic Case Filing Rules & Instructions for the
Southern District of New York.
See Protective Order [DE 62] signed on March 17, 2016, at p. 4. Defendants have designated
certain documents as Confidential Information and have designated Defendant's entire
deposition testimony as confidential. Ms. Giuffre takes no position at this time on whether
Defendant's designations are proper. Because of the Protective Order, however, Ms. Giuffre
believes that she cannot presently produce or reference such documents in public court filings.
Accordingly, as Ms. Giuffre's Reply Brief contains material that Defendant has designated as
confidential, she seeks leave to file the Non-Redacted Reply Brief and certain related exhibits
under seal.
cc: Laura Menninger via CM/ECF
WWW.BSFLLP.COM
A-140
' B O I E S, S C H I L L E R & F L E X N E R L L P
401 EAST LAS OLAS BOULEVARD• SUITE 1200• F ORT LAUDERDALE FL 33301 - 221 1• PH. 954.356.00 11 • FAX 9543560022

May 4, 2016
ViaCM/ECF

500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10007
Re: GiuJ]re v. Maxwell,

Dear Judge Sweet:
This is a letter motion to file Ms. Giuffre's Brief in Support of the Privilege Claimed for
Her In Camera Submission ("Brief') and certain accompanying exhibits under seal pursuant to
this Court's May 2, 2016, Order (DE 134) directing Ms. Giuffre to submit a brief, and pursuant
to this Court's April 21, 2016, Order directing Ms. Giuffre to make an in camera submission.
Additionally, Ms. Giuffre designates the portions under seal as confidential, pursuant to this
Court's Protective Order (DE 62).

See Protective Order (DE 62) signed on March 17, 2016, at p. 4. Accordingly, as Ms. Giuffre's
Brief contains materials that were submitted for in camera review and that Ms. Giuffre
designates as confidential, she seeks leave to file the Non-Redacted Brief and certain related
exhibits under seal.
cc: Laura Menninger, Esq., via CM/ECF

Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq., via CM/ECF
WWW.BSFLLP.COM
A-141
B O I E S. S C H I L L E R & F L E X N E R L L P
401 EAST LAS OLAS BOULEVARD• SUITE 1200 • FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301- 22 I • PH. 954.356.0011 • FAX 954.356.0022

Email: smccawley@bsfll p.com
May 5, 2016
Via CM/ECF

500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10007

Dear Judge Sweet:
This is a letter motion to file Ms. Giuffre's Motion to Compel Defendant to Answer
Deposition Questions and certain accompanying exhibits under seal pursuant to this Court's
Protective Order (DE 62).

See Protective Order (DE 62) signed on March 17, 2016, at p. 4. Defendant has designated
Defendant's entire deposition testimony as confidential. Ms. Giuffre takes no position at this
time on whether Defendant's designations are proper. Because of the Protective Order, however,
Ms. Giuffre believes that she cannot presently produce or reference such documents in public
court filings. Accordingly, as Ms. Giuffre's Reply Brief contains material that Defendant has
designated as confidential, she seeks leave to file the Non-Redacted Reply Brief and certain
related exhibits under seal.
cc: Laura Menninger, via CM/ECF

~e~
Jeffrey Pagliuca, via CM/ECF
WWW.BSFLLP .COM
A-142
B O I E S, S C H I L 'L E R
k
& F L E X N ,E R l L P
C
<
'
<
USDCSDNY Sigrid S. Mccawley, Esq.

DOCUMENT Email: smccawlev@bstllp.c.o_rn
ELECfRONJCAI I Y FILED
LiOC #: ___ ·••-- ·-+--~- May 5, 2016
DATE flLED:

District Court Judge JUDGE SWEET CHAMBERS
500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10007
Re: Giuffre v. Maxwell, ,

Dear Judge Sweel:
This is a letter motion to file Ms. Giuffre's Motion to Compel Defendant to Ansvver
Deposition Questions and certain accompanying exhibits under seal pursuant to this Court's

Defendant' s entire deposition testimony as confidential. Ms. Giuffre takes no position at this
court filings. Accordingly, as Ms. Giuffre' s Reply Brief contains material that Defendant has

WWW.BSF L LP.COM
A-143
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document
Document 138
146 Filed
Filed 05/04/16
05/06/16 Page
Page 11 of
of 11
" ' - -
B O I E S, S CH I L,~ LE R ' & FL E ' X N E R L L P
L 3 33() i
May 4, 2016 JUDGE SWEET CHAMBERS

Via CM/ECF
Honorable Judge Robert W. Sweet USDCSDNY

District Court Judge DOCUMENT
United States District Court ELECTROMCAI J Y FILED
500 Pearl Street
New York, NY l 0007 DOC#: --
DATE FTLED:
I ii
5 (o Co
Re: GiuJJre v. Maxwell,
Dear Judge Sweet:
This is a letter motion to file Ms. Giuffre's Brief in Support of the Privilege Claimed for
Her In Camera Submission ("Brief') and ce11ain accompanying exhibits under seal pursuant to
this Court's May 2, 2016, Order (DE 134) directing Ms. Giuffre to submit a brief, and pursuant
to this Court' s April 21, 2016, Order directing Ms. Giuffre to make an in camera submission.
Additionally, Ms. Giuffre designates the portions under seal as confidential, pursuant to this

See Protective Order (DE 62) signed on March 17, 2016, at p. 4. Accordingly, as Ms. Giuffre's
Brief contains materials that were submitted for in camera review and that Ms. Giuffre
designates as confidential, she seeks leave to file the Non-Redacted Brief and certain related
~/-/
Sigrid S. McCa4 . Esq.
cc: Laura Menninger, Esq., via CM/ECF

Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq., via CM/ECF
WWW .BSF L l_P .COM

A-144
B O I E S , S C H I L L E R & F L E X N E R L L P
401 EAST LAS OLAS BOULEVARD• SUITE 1200 • FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301 - 2 21 I• PH. 954.356.00 • FAX 954.356.002 2

Email: smccawley@bstllp.com
May 11, 2016
Via CM/ECF

500 Pearl Street
New Yark, NY 10007
Re: Giuffre v. Ma.,,ywel!,

Case no. 15-cv-07433-RWS -Regarding Protective Order
Dear Judge Sweet:
This is a letter motion to file Ms. Giuffre's Reply In Support of her Motion to Compel
Defendant to Answer Deposition Questions and certain accompanying exhibits under seal
pursuant to this Court' s Protective Order (DE 62).

~ Esq
WWW.BSFLLP.COM
A-145
MAY-20-2018 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS
FRI 02:34 PM HADDON FOREMANDocument 158 FAX
Filed
NO,05/23/16 Page 1 of 2
3038321015 P. 02
.lADDON
MORGAN
POJt&.MAN
May 20, 2016
Via Facsimile (2 .12) 805-7925

f ~usitc· s1~NY
DOCUMENT
ELECfRONICALlY FILED
United States District Judge DOC #: - - .--+~r+-M--
United States District Court DATE FILED:
Danie] Patrick Moynihan Courthouse
Re: Giuffre v. Maxwell. 15-cv~07433-RWS
Dear Judge Sweet:
This is a Jetter motion to file Ms. Maxwe1l's exhibits E and J to the

Declaration in support of Motion to Compel Non~Privileged Documents
accompanying exhibits under seal pursuant to this Court's Protective Order (DE 62).
'Jbe Protective Order states:
Whenever a party seeks to file any document or material containing

See Protective Order (DE 62) signed on March 17, 2016, at p.4. The deposition has
been designated as Confidential. Accordingly, information contained in the exhibits E
and J to the Declaration in support of Defendant's Motion to Compel Documents is
confidential also.
Ms. Maxwell requests pcnnjssion to file the Confidential information Under Seal.
)(iri~-cP Sincerely,
~/
/- /
O~J ✓-
~~)..3 /C
A-146
MAY-20-2016Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS
FRI 02:34 Document 158 Filed
PM HADDON FOREMAN 05/23/16
FAX NO. Page 2 of 2
3038321015 P. 03
Hon. Robert W _Sweet

May 20, 2016
Pag;e2
Isl Laura A. A!_e~m_.in__,_g_,_e_r_ _ _ _ _ __

I ,aura A . Menninger
I certify that on May 20, 2016, I electronically served this LETTER MOTION
via ELECTRONIC MAIL on the following:
Sigrid S. McCawley Paul G. Cassell

Me1idith Schultz; S.J. Quinney College of Law, University of
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP Utah
401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Ste. 1200 383 S. University Street
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Salt Lake City, UT 84112
smccawley@bsfllp.com cassellp@law_utah.edu
mschultz@bstllp.com
Bradley J . Edwards
FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS,
FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
425 North Andrews Ave., Ste. 2
Ft Lauderdale, FL 33301
brad@pathtojustice.com
Isl Nicole Simmons
Nicole Simmons
- ----------
A-147
B O I E S, S CH I LL E R & F L E X N E R L L P
401 EAST LAS OLAS BOULEVARD• SUITE 1200 • FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301 - 221 1 •
PH. 954.356.00 I • FAX 954.356.00 22

Email: smccawley@bsfllp .com
May 25, 2016
Via CM/ECF

500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10007

Dear Judge Sweet:
This is a letter motion to file Ms. Giuffre's Motion for Leave to Serve Three Deposition
Subpoenas by Means Other than Personal Service and certain accompanyi ng exhibits under seal
pursuant to this Court' s Protective Order (DE 62).
Whenever a party seeks to file any document or material containing CONFIDEN TIAL
INFORMAT ION with the Court in this matter, it shall be accompanied by a Motion to
court filings. Accordingly , as Ms. Giuffre ' s Motion contains material that Defendant has
designated as confidential , she seeks leave to file the Non-Redact ed Motion and certain related
~ /
Sigrid S. Mc~ -ey, Esq.

WWW .BSFLLP .COM

A-148
""' < ' «, -
;, ·, B O I E S. : S C H I L L E R & F L £ X N E R L L P
"'❖ : ', ' ,..."' ,, ~ ~ ''\~
Sigrid S. McCawley, Esq.

Email: srnccawley@bs tllp .com
May 11, 2016

USDCSDNY
Via CM/ECF DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICAI.lY FILED:
Honorable Judge Robert W. Sweet DOC#: i . \
DATE FILED: '1 . Jv)I 1 (! -- ,
500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10007
Re: Giuffre v. Ma..-cwel!,

Dear Judge Sweet:
This is a letter motion to file Ms. Giuffre's Reply In Support of her Motion to Compel
Defendant to Answer Deposition Questions and certain accompanying exhibits under seal
pursuant to this Court ' s Protective Order (DE 62).

See Protective Order (DE 62) signed on March 17, 2016, at p . 4. Defendant has designated
~ ..
/ ? ~ ~------
Sigrid S. ~;Cawley, Esq.

W 1N 1N.GSFLL.P .COM
A-149
~AY-26-2016 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS
THU 05:01 PM HADDON FOREMANDocument 167 FAX
Filed
NU05/27/16 Page 1 of 2
3038321015 P. 02
HAOOON
MOJc.GAN
F ·O .R ll M A .N www.hmflaw.com
Jmenninger@hmflaw.com
May 26, 2016

USDCSDNY
Via Facsimile (212) 805-7925 DOCUMENT
Hon. Robert W. Sweet ELECTRONICALLY FILED
United States District Judge DOC#: ~ ·
United States District Court DATE FILED: J ) )/ t l--1
Re: Giuffre v. Maxwell, 15-cv-07433-RWS
Dear Judge Sweet:
This is a letter motion to file Ms. Maxwell's exhibits C, H, J and K to the

Declaration in support of Motion to Compel All Attorney-Client Communications
and Attorney Work Product Placed At Tssue by Plaintiff and Her Attorneys
accompanying exhibits under seal pursuant to this Court's Protective Order (Doc.
#62).

,r.,'ee Protective Order (Doc.# 62) signed on March 17, 2016, at 4. Exhibit C contains a
public pleading from which ce1tain paragraphs were stricken by U.S. District Court
Judge Marra in the S.D. Florida. The depositions in exhibits H and J have been
designated as Confidential.
Ms. Maxwell requests pennission to file the Confidential information Under Seal.
A-150
MAY-26-2016 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS
THU 05:02 PM HADDON FOREMANDocument 167 FAX
Filed
NO.05/27/16 Page 2 of 2
3038321015 P. 03

May 26, 2016
Page2
Is/ Laurl/ A . Mennin~er

Laura A. Menninger
I certify that on May 26, 2016, I electronicall y served this LE1TER MOTION
via ELECTRON IC MAIL on the following:

Meridith Schultz 383 S. University Street
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP Salt Lake City, UT 84112
401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Ste. 1200 cassellp@la w.utah.edu
smccawley@ hstllp.com
mschultz@b sfllp.com
Bradley J. Edwards
FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS ,
FJSTOS & LEHRMAN , P.L.
brad@pathto justice.com
Isl Nicole Simmons
Nicole Simmons
A-151
B O I E S. S C H I L L E. R ~- F L E X N E R L L P ". '
May 25, 2016
Via CM/F.CF
USDCSDNY
Honorable Judge Rohert W. Sweet DOCUMENT
District Court Judge ELECTRONJCALLY FILED
500 Pearl Street DOC #: ----,--""--+---
New York, NY 10007 DATE FILED:

Case no. l 5-cv-07433-RWS - Regarding Protective Order
Dear Judge Sweet:
This is a letter motion to file Ms. Giuffrc's Motion for Leave to Serve Three Deposition
Subpoenas by Means Other than Personal Service and certain accompanying exhibits under seal
pw-suant to this Court's Protective Order (DE 62).
Whenever a patty seeks to file any document or material containing CONFIDENTIAL

JNFORMA TION with the Court in this matter, it shall be accompanied by a Motion to
Defendant's entire deposition testimony as conudential. Ms. Giuffre takes no position at this
com1 filing s. Accordingly, as Ms. Giuffre's Motion contains material that Defendant has
designated as confidential, she seeks leave to file the Non-Redacted Motion and certain related

WWW .B5FLLP .COM

A-152
401 EAST LAS OLAS BOULEVARD SUITE 1200• FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301-221 1 • PH. 954 356.00 1 • FAX 954.356.00
22

May 27, 2016
Via CM/ECF

500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10007

Dear Judge Sweet:
This is a letter motion to file Ms. Giuffre's Motion to Exceed Presumptive Ten
Deposition Limit in Federal Rule Civil Procedure 30(A)(2)(a)(ii) and certain accompanying
exhibits under seal pursuant to this Court's Protective Order (DE 62).

court filings . Ms. Giuffre has designated a third-party witness deposition as confidential. As Ms.
Giuffre's Motion contains material that the parties have designated as confidential, she seeks
leave to file the Non-Redacted Motion and ce11ain related exhibits under seal.
~ wley,Esq.
cc : Laura Menninger, via CM/ECF
WWW .BSFLLP .COM

A-153
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document
Document171
178 Filed
Filed05/27/16
05/31/16 Page
Page11ofof11
401 EAST LAS OLA$ BOULEVARD• SUITE 1200 • FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301 · 2211 • PH. 954 356.001 • FAX 954.356.002 2

Ma
![))~©~ aw~~
ViaCM/ECF USDCSDNY
DOCUMENT
:YB~R©NIC,~.J 1 ,.,, FILED
~ MAY g 12016 ill)
Honorable Judge R
oc #: _ ·-·531~ ~
United States Distric
JUDGE SWEET CHAMBERS
500 Pearl Street DAifE BLED: ~
New York, NY 1000

Dear Judge Sweet:
This is a letter motion to file Ms. Giuffre's Motion to Exceed Presumptive Ten
Deposition Limit in Federal Rule Civil Procedure 30(A)(2)(a)(ii) and certain accompanying
exhibits under seal pursuant to this Court's Protective Order (DE 62).

court filings. Ms. Giuffre has designated a third-party witness deposition as confidential. As Ms.
Giuffre's Motion contains material that the parties have designated as confidential, she seeks
leave to file the Non-Redacted Motion and certain related exhibits under seal.
~ wley,Esq.

Jeffrey Pagliuca, via CM/ECF :S ,,; .rn ~ / v S'4_r-
/cY" s,--: /•/-6 ~
WW W.BSFLLP.C O M
A-154
401 EAST LAS OLAS BOULEVARD• SUITE 200 · FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301 - 2 2 I • PH. 954.356.001 I • FAX 954.356.002 2

June 1, 2016
Via CM/ECF

500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10007

Dear Judge Sweet:
This is a letter motion to file Ms. Giuffre's Response in Opposition to Defendant's

Motion to Compel Attorney-Client Communications and Attorney Work Product Materials and
certain accompanying exhibits under seal pursuant to this Court's Protective Order (DE 62).

Southern District ofNew York.
See Protective Order (DE 62) signed on March 17, 2016, at p. 4. The parties have designated
certain documents confidential pursuant to the Protective Order; accordingly, Ms. Giuffre seeks
leave to file the Response and certain related exhibits under seal.
J}~r;a-a.1~(#
Sigrid S. McCaw-re'{, Esq.

WWW.BSFLLP.COM
A-155
Case
1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document
Document183
177 Filed
Filed06/01/16
05/31/16 Page
Page11ofof11
--
B O I E S , S CH I L L E R & F L E X N E R L L P
401 EAST LAS OLAS BOULEVARD• SUITE 1200 • FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301 22 1 • PH. 954.356.001 • FAX 954 .356 .0022

ViaCM/ECF
Honorable Judge Robert W. Sw

500 Pearl Street
NewYork,NY 10007

Dear Judge Sweet:

Motion to Compel Non-Privileged Documents and certain accompanying exhibits under seal
pursuant to this Court's Protective Order (DE 62).

Seal pursuant to. Section 6.2 of the Electronic Case Filing Rules & Instructions for the
documents produced by Defendant as confidential. Ms. Giuffre takes no position at this time on
whether Defendant's designations are proper. Because of the Protective Order, however, Ms.
Giuffre believes that she cannot presently produce or reference such documents in public court
filings. Accordingly. she seeks leave to file the Response and certain related exhibits under seal.
~# cf?LLr<_

WWW.BSFLLP.COM
A-156
F L 333()i 22 . ;., ,-. - A .-.. •- ._ ,.,, ,.._
r-,.. y .-;;;,;. /; -.) ,- .. ,,.-
~~©~~w~
~
~~clt}~y, ~E'...I
Em ii: smccawley@bsfllp "Om
June I, 201 6 JUDGE SWEET CHAMBERS

ftst;r~;~~;;~~::- - .
I\nor1
Via C.M/ECF
Honorable Judge Robert W. Sweet ! ..., ........,•-.),·~v,r:N"'

1--·~iJ,;; '.ol.

I \ ELFC'TRONICALLY FILED
II
United States District Court _ l •· r··, #· \
Ji;3-t ~"I
' I i)u•._, • ---·· '
500 Pearl Street
New York, NY I 0007 DATE Fil ,ED:

Dear Judge Sweet:

Motion to Compel Attorney-Client Communications and Attorney Work Product Materials and
certain accompanying exhibits under seal pursuant to this Court's Protective Order (DE 62).

Resp~~tfully submiwtted,_
~)/ l;aa<. .{cj 1/

.{
1
, , , n Jl

A-157
Case
JUN-06-2016 HON 1:15-cv-07433-RWS
06:47 PH HADDON FOREMAN Document 196FAXFiled
NO. 06/07/16
3038321015Page 1 of 2 P. 02
H A D l) () N
M O k G A N
POltJlMAN
June 6, 2016
Via Facsimile (212) 805-7925
Hon. Robert W. Sweet USDCSDNY

United States District Judge DOCUMENT
United States District Cou.rt ELECTRONICALLY FILED
Daniel Patrick Moynihan Courthouse DOC#:
Southern District of New York DATEFI~L~ED-:-t---+--rHf-+--
Re: Giuffre v. Maxwell, l 5-cv-07433-R WS
Dear Judge Sweet:
This is a letter motion to file Ms. Maxwell's exhibit S to the Declaration in

support of Defendant's Reply In Support of Motion to Compel All Attorney-Client
Communications and Attorney Work Product Placed At Issue by Plaintiff and Her
Attomeys under seal pursuant to this Court's Protective Order (Doc.# 62).

See Protective Order (Doc.# 62) signed on March 17, 2016, al p.4. Information
contained in the exhibit S to the Declaration Jn Support of Defendant's Reply In
Support of Motion to Compel All Attorney-Client Communicatjons and Attorney
Work Product Placed At Jssue by Plaintiff and Her Attorneys has been marked
confidential.
Ms. Maxwell therefore requests permission to file the Confidential information under
seal.
A-158
Case
JUN-06-2016 MON 1:15-cv-07433-RWS
06:47 PM HADDON FOREMAN Document 196FAXFiled
NO. 06/07/16
3038321015Page 2 of 2 P. 03

June 6, 2016
Page 2
Sincerely,
Isl Laura A. Mennin~er

Laura A. Menninger
I certify that on June 6, 2016, I electronically served this LETTER MOTTON


Meridith Schultz S.J. Quinney College of Law, University of
BOIES, SCt-llLLER & FLEXNER, LLP Utah
srnccawley@bsfllp.com cassellp@law.utah.edu
mschultz@bsfllp.com
J. Stanley Pottinger
Bradley J. Edwards 49 Twin Lakes Rd.
FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSlNG, EDWARDS, South Salem, NY 10590
FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. StanPottinger@ao I.com
Isl Nicole Simmons
Nicole Simmons
A-159
JUN-06-2016 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS
MON 06:48 PM HADDON FOREMANDocument 197 FAX
Filed
NO.06/07/16 Page 1 of 2
3038321015 P. 06
'
HAX>t>ON 1 Easl l th Avenue
....,__ _ _ _.,,..De-n•v'e-r, Colo do 80203
MO~GAN
FO'llEMAN JUDGE SWEEf ~fv18~A~p3.a32.262a
'----------~~~~,'fi~:. flaw.com
menninger@hmflaw.com
June 6, 2016
Vin Facsimile (212) 805-7925 USDCSDNY

DOCU ME1'T"f
Hon. Robert W. Sweet ELECrRONlC:\I.'. v FILED
United States Di~trict Court
DOC#: '"' I
Daniel Patrick Moynihan Courthouse DATE.flLED: ~j7 .I Cn
Dear Judge Sweet:
This is a letter motion to file Ms. Maxwell's exhibit A to the Declaration In

Support of Defendant's Response in Opposition to Motion to Exceed Presumptive
Ten Deposition Limit under seal pursuant to this Court's Protective Order (Doc.#
62).

CONFIDENTTAL INFORMATION with the Court in this matter, it shall be
S'ee Protective Order (Doc. # 62) signed on March I 7, 2016, at p.4. The deposition
has been designated as ConfidentiaL
Ms. Maxwell requests permission to file the Confidential information under seal.
Sincerely,
'f v- HADDON, MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C.

A-160
Case06:48
JUN-06-2016 MON 1:15-cv-07433-RWS
PM HADDON FOREMANDocument 197 FAX
Filed
NO. 06/07/16 Page 2 of 2
3038321015 P. 07
Hon. Robert W . Sweet

June 6, 2016
Pagc2
Isl Laura_A. Menninf(er

Laura A. Menninger
I certify that on June 6, 2016, I electronically served this LF:TTER MOTION


Meridith Schultz S.J. Quinney College of Law, University of
Boms. SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP Utah
smccawley@bsfllp.com cassellp@1aw.utah.edu
mschultz@bsfllp.com
FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, South Salem, NY 10590
FTSTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. S tanPottinger@aoI.com
Isl Nicole Simmons
Nicole Simmons
A-161
B O I E S. S CH I L L E R & FL E X N E R L L P
401 EAST LAS OLAS BOULEVARD• SUITE 200• FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301 - 22 I • PH. 954.356 .00 1 • FA X 954.356 .0022
Meredith Schultz, Esq.

June 13, 2016
Via CM/ECF

500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10007
Re: Giuffre v. Maxwell

Dear Judge Sweet,
This is a letter motion to file Ms. Giuffre's Reply in support of her Motion to Exceed
Presumptive Ten Deposition Limit in Federal Rule Civil Procedure 30(A)(2)(a)(ii) and certain
accompanying exhibits under seal pursuant to this Comi's Protective Order (DE 62).

CONFIDENTI AL INFORMATIO N with the Court in this matter, it shall be
accompanie3d by a Motion to Seal pursuant to Section 6.2 of the Electronic Case
Filing Rules & Instructions for the Southern District of New York.
See Protective Order (DE 62) signed on March 17, 2016, at p. 4.
Various depositions have been marked as confidential in this case. As Ms. Giuffre's
Reply contains material that the parties have designated as confidential, she seeks leave to file
the Non-Redacted Reply and certain related exhibits m1dcr seal.
~/u/ ?$J Z.
SSM:sp
WWW.BSFLLP.COM
A-162
Case1:15-cv-07
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document202
433-RWS Document 209 Filed
Filed06/13/16
06/14/16 Page
Page11ofof11
40i EAST LAS OLAS BOULEVARD• SU!TE 200• FORT LAUDERDALE. Fl 33301-22 I• PH. 954.356.001 ' • FAX 954.356.0022

Email: mschultz(ti)bsfllp.com
June 13, 2016 IDJ~©~aw~rrr-

Via CM/ECF lN JUN 142016 lJdj
District Court Judge JUDGE SWEET CHAMBERS
500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10007

Dear Judge Sweet,
This is a letter motion to file Ms. Giuffre's Reply in support of her Motion to Exceed
Presumptive Ten Deposition Limit in Federal Rule Civil Procedure 30(A)(2)(a)(ii) and certain
accompanying exhibits under seal pursuant to this Court's Protective Order (DE 62).

Various depositions have been marked as confidential in this case. As Ms. Giuffre's
Reply contains material that the parties have designated as confidential, she seeks leave to file
the Non-Redacted Reply and certain related exhibits under seal.
USDCSDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICAT Ty FILED
DOC#: ·
DATE FILED: Meredith Schultz, Esq.
SSM:sp
WWW .BSF'LLP .COM

A-163
JUt!-20-2018 MON1:15-cv-07433-RWS
Case 01:13 PM HADDON FOREMAN
Document 236 Filed
FAX 06/21/16 Page 1 of 2
NO. 3038321015 P. 02
H A I) P O N
MORGAN
l'Okl!MA~
June 20, 2016
Via Facsimile {212) 805-7925

New York, New York l 0007-1312
Re: Giuffee v. Maxwell, 15-cv-07433-RWS.
Dear Judge Sweet:
This is a letter motion to file under seal the fo1l<)Wing Motions, as well as
Declarations and certain exhibits thereto, under seal pursuant to this Court's
Protective Order (Doc. # 62):
• Defendant's Combined Memorandum of Law In Opposition to

Extending Deadline to Complete Depositions and Motion fi.)r
Sanctions for Violations of Rule 45;
• Motion to Reopen Deposition of Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre;
• M<.)tion for Ruk 37(b) &(c) Sanctions for Failure to Comply with
Court Order and failure to Comply with Rule 26(a).

accompanied by a Motion to Seal pursuant to Section 6.2 of the blectronic
Case filing Rules & lnstructions for the Southern District of New York.
See Protective Order (Doc. #62) signe<l on March J 7, 2016 at 4. These Motions,
Declarations and Exhibits conLain content designated as Confidential by the parties
pursuant to the Protective Order.
A-164
JUN;20-2016Case
NON 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 236 Filed
01:13 PM HADDON FOREMAN 06/21/16
FAX NO. Page 2 of 2
3038321015
-· P. 03

June 20, 20 I 6
Page2
Ms. Maxwell therefore requests permission to file the Confidential information under
seaL
Sincerely,
HADDON, MORGAN AND ForlEMAN, P.C.
Isl Laura A. Mennin~er

Laura A. Menninger
I certify that on June 20, 2016, l electronically served this LE11'ER MOTION

Meridith Schultz 383 S. University Street
BOIES, SCHILLr-;R & Fl-EXNER; LLP Salt Lake City. UT 84112
401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Ste. 1200 cassellp@law.utah.edu
mschultz@bsfllp.com
FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, South Salem, NY I 0590
FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. . SLanPottinger@aol .com
brad@pathtojusticc.com
hi Nicole Simmons
Nicole S(1nmons
A-165
401 EAST LAS OLAS BOULEVARD SUITE 1200 FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301 22 • PH. 954,356.001 1 • FAX 954.356.002 2

June 22, 2016
Via CM/ECF

500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10007

Dear Judge Sweet:
This is a letter motion to file Ms. Giuffre's Reply in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to
Extend the Deadline to Complete Depositions and Opposition to Motion for Sanctions for
Violation of Rule 45 and certain accompanying exhibits under seal pursuant to this Court's

Respectfully submjtted,
>~·-;·,
,,_,,-
I 5f
~-,·

WWW.BSFLLP.COM
A-166

Plaintiff, Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS
v.
Ghislaine Maxwell,
Defendant.
______________________________/
DECLARATION OF SIGRID S. MCCAWLEY REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO

EXTEND THE DEADLINE TO COMPLETE DEPOSITIONS AND OPPOSITION TO
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS FOR VIOLATION OF RULE 45
I, Sigrid S. McCawley, declare that the below is true and correct to the best of my
knowledge as follows:
1. I am a Partner with the law firm of Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP and duly
licensed to practice in Florida and before this Court pursuant to this Court’s Order granting my
Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice.
2. I respectfully submit this Declaration in response to Defendant’s Opposition to
Motion to Extend Deadline to Complete Depositions and Motion for Sanctions for Violation of
Rule 45.
3. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1, is a true and correct copy of Sigrid McCawley’s
March 7, 2016 Correspondence to Martin G. Weinberg, Esquire.
4. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2, is a true and correct copy of Sigrid McCawley’s May
A-167
25, 2016 Correspondence to Martin G. Weinberg.
5. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3, is a true and correct copy of Sigrid McCawley’s May
23, 2016 Correspondence to Martin G. Weinberg.
6. Attached hereto as Exhibit 4,
7. Attached hereto as Exhibit 5, is a true and correct copy of Gregory Poe’s June 16,
2016 correspondence to Bradley Edwards.
8. Attached hereto Exhibit 6, is a true and correct copy of Sigrid McCawley’s March
31, 2016 Correspondence to Bruce Reinhart.
9. Attached hereto Exhibit 7, is a true and correct copy of Douglas G. Mercer’s
Affidavit of Service dated May 24, 2016.
10. Attached hereto as Exhibit 8, is a true and correct copy of Jack Goldberg’s May
23, 2016 Correspondence to Sigrid McCawley.
11. Attached hereto Exhibit 9, is a true and correct copy of Sigrid McCawley’s June
21, 2016 Correspondence to Bruce Reinhart.
12. Attached hereto Exhibit 10, is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s Notice of
Taking Videotaped Deposition of Jean Luc Brunel.
13. Attached hereto Composite Exhibit 11, is a true and correct copy of Brad Edwards
June 14, 2016 Correspondence to Ross Gow.
14. Attached hereto Exhibit 12, is a true and correct copy of transcript of May24, 2016
Phone Conference with Plaintiff’s Attorney, Defendant’s Attorney and Judge Robert Sweet.
1111
15. Attached hereto Exhibit 13,
A-168
- 16. Attached hereto Composite Exhibit 14,
17. Attached hereto Exhibit 15,
18. Attached hereto Exhibit 16, is a true and correct copy of Meredith Schultz June
13, 2016 Correspondence to Defendant’s Counsel.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
/s/ Sigrid McCawley

Sigrid McCawley
A-169
Dated: June 22, 2016
Respectfully Submitted,
By: /s/ Sigrid McCawley

Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice)
Meredith Schultz (Pro Hac Vice)
Tel: (954) 356-0011
David Boies
333 Main Street
Armonk, NY 10504
Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice)

Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of
Criminal Law
S.J. Quinney College of Law at the
University of Utah
383 S. University St.
(801) 585-5202 (phone)
(801) 585-2750 (fax)
Bradley Edwards (Pro Hac Vice)

Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards,
Fistos & Lehrman, P.L.
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Tel: (954) 524-2820
Fax: (954) 524-2822
Email: brad@pathtojustice.com
A-170
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on June 22, 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 Paliuca, Esq.
Tel: (303) 831-7364
Fax: (303) 832-2628
/s/ Sigrid S. McCawley

A-171
EXHIBIT 1
A-172
Sigrid Mccawley
From: Sigrid Mccawley

Sent: Monday, March 07, 2016 2:22 PM
To: marty@marti nwei nberg law.com
Subject: Giuffre v. Maxwell
Attachments: 2015-09-21 [DE 1] Complaint.pdf
Hello Marty,
I understand that you are one of the lawyer who represent Jeffrey Epstein. My firm is representing Virginia Giuffre in
her defamation action against Ghislaine Maxwell pending in federal court in New York- case number 15-cv-07433-RWS.
( If I am incorrect in my understanding that you represent Jeffrey Epstein kindly let me know.)
We would like to take the deposition of Jeffrey Epstein and want to confirm whether you will be willing to accept service
of a subpoena on his behalf. Kindly let me know and we can discuss a date for the deposition.
If you have any questions, I can be reached at (954) 356-0011. I have included a copy of the complaint for your review.
Thank you,
Sigrid
Sigrid S. McCav,,ley
Partner
OIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
Phone: 954-356-0011 ext. 4223
Fax: 954-356-0022
http://www.bsfllp.com
A-173
EXHIBIT 2
A-174
Sigrid Mccawley
From: Martin Weinberg <owlmgw@att.n et>

Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2016 1:18 PM
To: Sigrid Mccawley; Martin Weinberg
Subject: Epstein - Deposition and Service
Sigrid, I will forward you a copy of the 4-11 email later today. I will not have any answer on the
threshold question of whether or not I am authorized to accept service until after the holiday weekend
i.e. on Tuesday May 31st. If I am authorized by Mr. Epstein to accept service, we can talk then about
dates, terms, specifics etc. Marty
Martin G. Weinberg , Esq .
20 Park Plaza
Suite 1000
Boston, MA 02116
(617) 227 -3700 - Office
(617) 901-3472 - Celi
----------- ----------- ----------- -This Electronic Message contains information from the
Law Office of Martin G. Weinberg, P.C., and may be privileged. The information is intended for the
use of the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, please note that any disclosure, copying ,
distribution, or use of the contents of this message is prohibited.
A-175
EXHIBIT 3
A-176
Sigrid Mccawley

Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 9:30 AM
To: marty@martinweinberglaw.com
Cc: Meredith Schultz
Subject: Service on Jeffrey Epstein
Attachments: 2016-05-13 Amended Subpoena for Deposition for Jeffrey Epstein (June 14, .... pdf
Hello Marty,
As you are aware we initially reached out to you back on March 7, 2016 to inquire as to whether you would accept
service on your client, Jeffrey Epstein's behalf. You did not agree to accept service so we proceeded with numerous
service attempts on Jeffrey Epstein. I am attaching above the latest subpoena that we have been attempting service
of. Please confirm whether you will accept service of this subpoena on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein or whether we will be
required to seek court intervention for alternative service. As I mentioned previously, if you accept service, we can work
with you and your client on a the date and location of the deposition to make it convenient for the parties.
Thank you,
Sigrid
Sigrid S. McCawle)
Partner
:BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEx_NER LLP
Phone: 954-356-0011 ext. 4223
Fax: 954-356-0022
http: //v,.:\vw.bsf1lp.com
A-177
/10 8~A (Rev. 12/13) Subpoena to Testify at a Deposition in a C iv il Action

for the
Southern District ofNew York
_ ________ Virginie: L. Giuffre )

P!aintiJJ )
v. ) Civil Action No. 15-CV-D7433-RWS
Ghislaine Maxwell )
)
Defendant )
SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY AT A DEPOSJTmN JN A CIVIL ACTION
To: JEFFREY EPSTEIN
fl Testimony: YOlJ ARE COMMANDED to appear at the time, date, and place set f011h below to testify at a
deposition to be taken in this civil action. If you are an organization, you must designate one or more oJTicers, directors,
or managing agents, or designate other persons who consent to testify on your behalf about the following matters, or
those set fmth in an attachment:
l''i°;;~e: Boies, Schiller & Fl&xner LLP, 575 Lexington
[
Avenue, New York, NY "!0022; 954-356-0011
_ ______ _ 06/14/2016 at 9:00 a.m . _J
The deposition will he recorded by this method : --~deograp_h..:..y_a_n_d_S_t_e_n_o.::.g_ra....:.p_h..:.y_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
./ Production: You, or your representatives, must also bring with you to the deposition the following documents,
electronically stored information, or ohjects, and must pem1it inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of the
material: PLEASE SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT A.
The following provisions offed. R. Civ. P. 45 are attached- Rule 45(c), relating to the place of compliance;
Rule 45(d), relating to your protection as a person subject to a subpoena; and Rule 45( c) and {g), relating to your duty to
respond to this subpoena and the potential consequences of not doing so.
Date: 05/13/2016
ClFRK OF COURT
OR ~ - - - -
Signature of Clerk or Depwy Clerk
The rnrne, address, e-mail addi'cSS, and telephone r•Lm1ber of the attorney r~presenting (name ,1l,,1y) Vir~inia Giuffre
______________ .... _______ , who issues or requests this subpoena, are:
Sigrid S. Mccawley, BSF, LLP, 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., #1200, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, 33301; 954-356-0011;
Notice to the person who issues or requests this subpoena
If this subpoena commands the production of documents, electTOnically stored info1mation, or tangible things, a notice
and a copy of the subpoena must be served on each party in this case before it is served on the person to whom it is
directed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(4).
A-178
AO 88A (Rev. 12/13) Subpoena to Testily at a Deposition in a Civil Actio:1 (Page 2)
Civil Action No. 15-CV-07433-RWS
PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 45.)
l received this subpoena for (name of individual and title, if any)

on (date)
0 I served the subpoena by delivering a copy to the named individual as follows:
on (dare) ; or
0 I returned the subpoena unexecuted because:
Unless the subpoena was issued on behalf of thi;: United States, or one of its officers or agents, I have also
tendered to the witness the fees for one day's attendance, and the mileage allowed by law, in the amount of
$
My fees are$ for travel and S for services, for a total of$ 0.00
l declare under penalty of perjury that thi s information is true.
Date:
Server's signature
Printed name and tirle
Ser,•er ·s address
Additional information regarding attempted service, etc ..

A-179
AO 88A (Rev. 12/J3) Subpoena Lo Testify at a Deposition in a Civil Action (Page 3)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 (c), (d), (e), and (g) (Effective 12/1/13)
(ri Plac.r of Compliance. (i) disclosing a trade secret or other confidential research, development,
or co111111crcial information; or
( l) For a Tri(l/, Hearing, or Deposition. A subpoetrn may command a (ii) disclosing an unretained expe1t's opinion or information that does
person 10 attend a trial , hearing, or deposition only as follows : not describe specific occurrences in dispute and results from the expc1t's
(A) within 100 miles of1,vhere the person resides, is employed, or study that was not requested by a party.
regularly transacts husiness in person; or (C) Specifving Condi/Ions as an Alternative. ln the circumstances
(B) within the state where the person resides, is employed, or rcgl1larly described in Rule 45(d)(3)(B), the court may, instead of quashing or
transacts business in person, if the person modifying a subpoena, order appearance or production under specified
(i) is a party or a party's officer; or conditions if the serving party:
(ii) is commanded lo attend a trial and would nlll incur substantial (i) shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that cannot be
expense. otherwise met without undue hardship; and
(ii) ensures that the subpoenaed person will be reasonably compensated.
(2) For Other Discovery. A subpoena may command:
(A) production of documents, electronically stored information, or (e) Duties in Responding to a Snhpoena.
tangible thuigs at a place within 100 miles of where the person resides, i,
employed, or regularly transacts business in person: and (J} Producing Docunumts or Electro11icully Sfored J,rform11tio11. These
(B) inspection of premises at the premises to be inspected. procedures apply to producing documents or electronically stored
infom1ation:
(d) Protecting~ Person Subject to a Subpoena; Enforcement. (A) Documents. A person responding to a subpoena to produce documents
must produce them as they are kept in the ordinary course ofb11siness or
(l) Avoidi11g U11d11e Burden or .Expe11se.; Sanctions. A party Dr nttorney nmst organize and label them to conespond to the categories in the demand.
responsible for issuing and serving a subpoena must take reasonable steps (B) Form/or Producing Elec:tronically Stored Information Not Specified
to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the lf a subpoena does not specify a form for producing electronically stored
subpoena. The court for the district where compliance is required must information, the person responding must produce it in a fom1 or forms in
~nfon;e this duly and impose an appropriMe sanction-which may include which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or forms.
Jost earnings and reasonable attorney's fees-on a party or attorney who (C) Electronically Stored llljormalion Produced in Only One Form. The
foils to comply. person responding need not produce the same electronically stored
information in more than one form.
(2) Command to Produce Materials or Permit In.1pectio11. (D) Inaccessible Electronical!v Slored Informallon. The person
(A) Appearance Not Required. A person commanded to produce responding need not provide discove,y of electronically stored information
documents, electronically stored information. or tangible things, or to from sources that the person identifies as not reasonably accessible because
permit the inspection of premises, need not appear in person al the place of of undue burden or cost. On motion to compel discovery or for a protective
production or inspection unless also commanded to appear for a deposition, order, the person rcspo11ding must show that the information is not
hcarin ct, or !rial. reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. If that showing is
(B) Objections. A person commanded to produce document, or tangible made, the court may nonetheless order discovery from such sources it'Lhe
things or to permit inspection may serve on the party or altnrncy tlesignated requesting party shows good cause, considering the limitations of Rule
in the subpoena a written objection to inspecting, copying, testing, or 26(b)(2)(C). The court may specify conditions for the discovecy.
sampling any or all of the materials or to inspecting the premises-or to
producing electronically stored information in the form or forms requested. (2) Claiming Privilege or Protection.
The objection must be served before the earlier of the time specified for (A) Information Withheld A person withholding subpoenaed information
compliance or 14 days after the subpoena is served. lf~n objection is made. under a claim that it is privileged or subject to protection as trial-preparation
the following mies apply: material must:
(i) At any time, on notice to the commanded person, the serving p11rly (i) expressly make the claim; and
may move the cou,1 for the diWict where compliance is required for an (ii) describe the nature of lhe withheld documents, communications, or
order c,)mpelling producLion or inspection. tangible things in II manner that, without revealing information itself
(ii) These acts may be required only as directed in the order, and the priviltged or protected, will enable the parties to assess the claim.
order must protect a person who is neither a party nor a party's officer from (U) Information Produced. If infonnation produced in response to a
sit,'Tlificant expense resulting from compliance. subpoena is subject lo a claim of privilege or of protection as
trial-preparation nrnterial, the person making the claim may notify any party
(3) Quashing or Mod/fyillg tt Subpoena. that received the infomiation oftllc claim and the basis for it. After being
notified, a party must promptly return, sequester, or destroy the specified
(A) When Required On timely motion, the court for lhe district whae infonnation and any cupi~s it has; must not use or disclose the infonnacion
compliance is required must quash or modify a subpoena that: until the claim is resolved; must take reasonable steps to retrieve the
information if the party disclosed it before being notified; and may promptly
(i) foils to allow a reasonable time to comply; present the information under seal to the court for the district where
(ii) requires a person to comply beyond the geographical limits compliance is required for a determination of the claim. The person who
specified in Rule 45(c); produced the infonnation must preserve the infornrntion until the claim is
(iii) requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no resolved.
exception or waiver applies; or
(i 1') subjects a 1ierson to undue burden. (g) Contempt.
(8) When Permilled To protect a person subject to or ~ffectcd by a The court for the district where compliance is required-and also, after a
subpoena, the court for the district where compliance is required ,nay, on motion is transferred, the issuing court--may hold in contempt a person
motion, c1uash or modify the subpoena if it requires: who, having been served, fails without adequate excuse to obey the
subpoena or 11n order related to it.
For access to sl1bpoe@ materials, sec FeJ. R. Civ. P. 45(a) Committee Note {2013).
A-180
Jeffrey Epstein
EXHIBIT A
DEFIJ\7'TTONS
Wherever they hereafter appear the following words and phrases have the following
meanings:
l. "Agent" shall mean any agent_, employee, officer, director, attorney, independent
contractor or any other person acting, or purporting to act, at the discretion of or on behalf of
another.
2. "Correspondence" or "communication" shall mean all written or verbal
communications, by any and all methods, including without limitation, letters, memoranda,
and/or electronic mail, by which information, in whatever form, is stored, transmitted or
received; and, includes every manner or means of disclosure, transfer or exchange, and every
disclosure, transfer or exchange of information whether orally or by Document or otherwise,
face-to-face, by telephone, telecopies, e-mail, text, modem transmission, computer generated
message, mail, personal delivery or otherwise.
3. "Plaintiff' in the above captioned action shall mean the plaintiff Virginia Giuffre
formerly known as Virginia Roberts.
4. "Defendant" in the above captioned action shall mean the defendant Ghislaine
Maxwell and her employees, representatives or agents.
5. "Document'' shall mean all written and graphic matter, however produced or
reproduced, and each and every thing from which information can be processed, transcribed,
transmitted, restored, recorded, or memorialized in any way, by any means, regardless of
technology or form. It includes, without limitation, correspondence, memoranda, notes,
notations, diaries, papers, books, accounts, newspaper and magazine articles, adve11isements,
photographs, videos, notebooks, ledgers, letters, telegrams, cables, telex messages, facsimiles,
2
A-181
Jeffrey Epstein
KXHIBIT A
contracts, offers, agreements, reports, objects, tangible things, work papers, transcripts, minutes,
reports and recordings of telephone or other conversations or communications, or of interviews
or conferences, or of other meetings, occurrences or transactions, affidavits, statements,
summaries, opinions, tests, experiments, analysis, evaluations, journals, balance sheets, income
statements, statistical records, desk calendars, appointment books, lists, tabulations, sound
recordings, data processing input or output, microfilms, checks, statements, receipts, summaries,
computer printouts, computer programs, text messages, e-mails, information kept in computer
hard drives, other computer drives of any kind, computer tape back-up, CD-ROM, other
computer disks of any kind, teletypes, telecopics, invoices, worksheets, printed matter of every
kind and description, graphic and oral records and representations of any kind, and electronic
"writings" and "recordings" as set forth in the Federal Rules of Evidence, including but not
limited to, originals or copies where originals are not available. Any Document with any marks
such as initials, comments or notations of any kind of not deemed to be identical with one
without such marks and is produced as a separate Document. Where there is any question about
whether a tangible item otherwise described in these requests falls within the definition of
"Document" such tangible item shall be produced.
6. "Employee" includes a past or present officer, director, agent or servant, including
any attorney (associate or partner) or paralegal.
7. "Including" means including without limitation.
8. "Jeffrey Epstein" includes Jeffrey Epstein and any entities owned or controlled by
Jeffrey Epstein, any employee, agent, attorney, consultant, or representative of Jeffrey Epstein.
3
A-182
Jeffrey Epstein
EXHIBIT A
9. "Ghislaine Maxwell" includes Ghislaine Maxwell and any entities owned or
controlled by Ghislaine Maxwell, any employee, agent, attorney, consultant, or representative of
Ghislaine Maxwell.
10. "Person(s)" includes natural persons, proprietorships, governmental agencies,
corporations, paitncrships, trusts, joint ventures, groups, associations, organizations or any other
legal or business entity.
11. "You" or "Your" hereinafter means Jeffrey Epstein and any employee, agent,
attorney, consultant, related entities or other representative of Jeffrey Epstein.
INSTRUCTIONS
Production of Documents and items requested herein shall be made at the of.fices of
Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1200, Fort Lauderdale,
Florida 33301, no later than five (5) days before the date noticed for Your deposition, or, if an
alternate date is agreed upon, no later than five (5) days before the agreed-upon date.
2. Unless indicated otherwise, the Relevant Period for this Request is from 1999 to the
present. A Document should be considered to be within the relevant time frame if it refers or
relates to communications, meetings or other events or Documents that occurred or were created
within that time frame, regardless of the date of creation of the responsive Document.
3. This Request calls for the production of all responsive Documents in Your
possession, custody or control without regard to the physical location of such Documents.
4. If any Document requested was :n Your possession or control, but is no longer in its
possession or control, state what disposition \Vas made of said Document, the reason for such
disposition, and the date of such disposition.
4
A-183
Jeffrey .Epstein
EXHIBIT A
5. For the purposes of reading, interpreting, or construing the scope of these requests,
the terms used shall be given their most expansive and inclusive interpretation. This includes,
without limitation the following:
a) Wherever appropriate herein, the singular form of a word shall be

interpreted as plural and vice versa.
b) "And" as well as "or" shall be construed either disjunctively or

conjunctively as necessary to bring within the scope hereof any
information (as defined herein) which might otherwise be construed to be
outside the scope of this discovery request.
c) "Any" shall be understood to include and encompass "all" and vice versa.
d) Wherever appropriate herein, the masculine form of a word shall be

interpreted as feminine and vice versa.
e) "Including" shall mean "including without limitation."
6. If You are unable to answer or respond fully to any Document request, answer or
respond to the extent possible and specify the reasons for Your inability to answer or respond in
full. If the recipient has no Documents responsive to a particular Request, the recipient shall so
state.
7. Unless instructed otherwise, each Request shall be construed independently and not
by reference to any other Request for the purpose of limitation.
8. The \\1ords "relate," "relating," "relates," or any other derivative thereof, as used
herein includes concerning, referring to, responding to, relating to, pertaining to, connected with,
comprising, memorializing, evidencing, commenting on, regarding, discussing, showing,
describing, reflecting, analyzing or constituting.
9. "Identify" means, with respect to any "person," or any reference to the "identity" of
any "person," to provide the name, home address, telephone number, business name, business
5
A-184
Jeffrey Epstein
EXHIBIT A
address, business telephone number, e-mail address, and a description of each such person's
connection with the events in question.
10. ·'Identify" means, with resp-:ct to any "Document," or any reference to stating the
"identification" of any "Document," provide the title and date of each such Document, the name
and address of the party or parties responsible for the preparation of each such Document, the
name and address of the party who requested or required the preparation and on whose behalf it
was prepared, the name and address of the recipient or recipients to each such Document and the
present location of any and all copies of each such Document, and the names and addresses of all
persons who have custody or control of each such Document or copies thereof.
11. In producing Documents, if the original of any Document cannot be located, a copy
shall be produced in lieu thereof: and shall be legible and bound or stapled in the same manner as
the original.
12. Any copy of a Document that is not identical shall be considered a separate
Document.
13. If any requested Document cannot be produced in full, produce the Document to the
extent possible, specifying each reason for Your inability to produce the remainder of the
Document stating whatever infonnation, knowledge or belief which You have concerning the
portion not produced.
14. If any Document requested was at any one time in existence but are no longer in
existence, then so state, specifying for each Document (a) the type of Document; (b) the types of
information contained thereon; (c) the date upon which it ceased to exist; (d) the circumstances
under which it ceased to exist; (e) the identity of all person having knowledge of the
6
A-185
Jeffrey Epstein
J(XHIBIT A
circumstances under which it ceased to exi.<,t; and (f) the identity of all persons having
knowledge or who had knowledge of the contents thereof and each individual's address.
15. All Documents shall be produced in the same order as they are kept or maintained by
You in the ordinary course of business.
16. You are requested to produce all drafts and notes, whether typed, handwritten or
otherwise, made or prepared in connection with the requested Documents, whether or not used.
17. Documents attached to each other shall not be separated.
18. Documents shall be produced in such fashion as to identify the department, branch or
office in whose possession they were located and, where applicable, the natural person in whose
possession they were found, and business address of each Document's custodian(s).
19. If any Document responsive to the request is withheld, in all or part, based upon any
claim of privilege or protection, whether based on statute or otherwise, state separately for each
Document, in addition to any other information requested: (a) the specific request which calls for
the production; (6) the nature of the privilege claimed; (c) its date; (d) the name and address of
each author; (e) the name and address of each ofthe addresses and/or individual to whom the
Document was distributed, if any; (f) the title (or position) of its author; (g) type of tangible
object, e.g., letter, memorandum, telegram, chart, report, recording, disk, etc.; (h) its title and
subject matter (without revealing the information as to which the privilege is claimed); (i) with
sufficient specificity to permit the Court to make full determination as to whether the claim of
privilege is valid, each and every fact or basis on which You claim such privilege; and G)
whether the Document contained an attachment and to the extent You are claiming a privilege as
to the attachment, a separate log entry addressing that privilege claim.
7
A-186
Jeffrey Epstein
EXHIBIT A
20. If any Document requested herein is withheld, in all or part, based on a claim that
such Document constitutes attorney work product, provide all of the information described in
Instruction No. 19 and also identify the litigation in connection with which the Document and the
information it contains was obtained and/or prepared.
21. Plaintiff does not seek and does not require the production of multiple copies of
identical Documents.
22. This Request is deemed to be continuing . If, after producing these Documents, You
obtain or become aware of any further information, Documents, things, or information
responsive to this Request, You are required to so state by supplementing Your responses and
producing such additional Documents to Plaintiff
8
A-187
Jeffrey Epstein
EXHIBIT A
DOCUMENTS 1'0 BE PRODUCED Pl'RSUANT TO THIS SUBPOENA
l. All video tapes, audio tapes, photographs, including film negatives or film slides,
CD's, or any other print or electronic media depicting You in the presence of Virginia Roberts
(a/k/a Virginia Giuffre) or Ghislaine Maxwell.
2. All video tapes, audio tapes, photographs, including film negatives or film slides,
CD's, or any other print or electronic media depicting Virginia Roberts.
CD's, or any other print or electronic media depicting Ghislaine Maxwell.
CD's, or any other print or electronic media depicting females under the age of 18 (or purporting
to be under the age of 18), including pornographic media, whether commercial or amateur.
5. All Documents or other media (including photographs) describing or depit:ting
nude, or partially nude, females in Your possession, including, but not limited to, all Documents
or other media describing or depicting how such photographs were displayed in Your various
residences.
6. All Documents relating to Virginia Roberts.
7. All Documents relating to Ghislaine Maxwell, including all Documents related to
communications with Ghislaine Maxwell from 1999 - present.
8. All Documents relating to any members of Ghislaine Maxwell's family, including
all Documents related to communications with any members of Ghislaine Maxwell's family
from 1970 -· present.
9. All Documents related to communications with A Jan Dershowitz from 1999 -
present.
9
A-188
Jeffrey Epstein
EXHIBIT A
10. All Documents relating to, and all media depicting, any of the following
individuals from 1999 - present: Emmy Taylor, Eva Dubin, Glen Dubin, Alan Dershowitz, Jean
Luc Brunel, Sarah Kellen (a/k/a Sara Kensington and Sarah Vickers), Nadia Marcinkova (a/k/a
Nadia Marcinko), Nadia Bjorlin, or any females under the age of 18.
11. All Docw11ents relating to any agreements (including by not limited to
confidentialit y agreements, indemnification agreements, employment agreements, or agreements
to pay legal fees) between You Ghislaine Maxwell, whether such agreements are written, verbal,
or merely understood among the parties and not otherwise expressed, whether or not such
agreements were ever executed or carried out.
12. All Documents relating to any creciit cards paid for by You that were used by
Ghislaine Maxwell (or any related entity) or Virginia Giuffre from 1999 present.
13. All telephone records associated with You, including cell phone records, from
1999 present, that show any communications with Ghislaine Maxwell.
14. All Documents relating to calendars, schedules or appointments for You from
I 999 - present that relate to visits with, or communicatio ns with, Ghislaine Maxwell and females
under the age of l 8.
15. All Documents identifying any individuals who provided You a massage.
16. All Documents identifying any individuals who You paid for sexual acts, either
with You or with other individuals.
17. All Documents identifying any females recruited by Ghislaine Maxwell for either
work, sexual acts, or companionship for You.
l 8. All Documents relating to any females Ghislaine Maxwell introduced to You.
l 9. All Documents relating to any females You paid to perform any kind of service,
10
A-189
Jeffrey Epstein
EXHIBIT A
including but not limited to, work as an assistant, a massage therapist, sex worker, or companion.
20. All Documents relating to Your travel from the period of 1999 - present, when
that travel was either with Ghislaine Maxwell or another female, or to meet Ghislaine Maxwell
or other females, including but not limited to commercial flights, helicopters, passport records,
records indicating passengers traveling with You, hotel records, and credit card receipts.
21. All Documents relating to payments You made, whether as cash, stock, real
estate, or in-kind, to Ghislaine Maxwell, or any related entity to Ghislaine Maxwell, including
the TerraMar Project.
22. All Documents identifying any individuals to whom Virginia Roberts provided a
massage.
1I
A-190
EXHIBIT 5
A-191
Sigrid Mccawley
From: Gregory Poe <gpoe@gpoelaw.com>

Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2016 1:53 PM
To: Brad Edwards
Cc: Laura Menninger; Sigrid Mccawley; Martin G. Weinberg; Jeff Pagliuca;
cassellp@law.utah.edu; Meredith Schultz
Subject: RE: SERVICE - Epstein Deposition
Brad -
This follows up on our conversation earlier this afternoon. As I mentioned when I called, we will be filing a motion
to quash on behalf of Mr. Epstein. If the Court denies the motion we will be filing and Mr. Epstein's deposition
ultimately is required to go forward, if the Court extends the discovery deadline that I understand is currently in
place, and if the Court permits plaintiff to take depositions in July, then Mr. Epstein and I would be available in the
USVI on July 26 or July 27.
Your June 15 email to me below contains various inaccuracies to which I will not respond at this point.
Regards,
Greg
Please note: As of June 1, 2016, my email address has changed to gpoe@gpoelaw.com. Please update your address
book accordingly.
Gregory L. Poe
Law Offices of Gregory L. Poe PLLC
The Executive Building
1030 15th Street, N.W.
Suite 580 West
Washington, D.C. 20005
Telephone: (202) 583-2500
Fax: (202) 583-0565
Mobile: (202) 595-4466
Web Site: w,vw.gpoelaw.com
This communication is intended solely for the use of the addressee. It may contain information that is privileged,
confidential, exempt from disclosure under applicable law, and/ or attorney work product. Any dissemination or
copying of this communication is prohibited except by the addressee and employees or agents responsible for
delivering it to the addressee. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by
reply e-mail and by telephone at (202) 583-2500.
From: Brad Edwards [mailto:brad@pathtojustice.com]

Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 12:40 PM
To: Gregory Poe <gpoe@gpoelaw.com>
Cc: Laura Menninger <lmenninger@hmflaw.com>; Sigrid Mccawley <Smccawley@BSFLLP.com>; Martin G. Weinberg
<owlmgw@att.net>; Jeff Pagliuca <jpagliuca@hmflaw.com>; cassellp@law.utah.edu; Meredith Schultz
A-192
<mschultz@BSFLLP.com>
Mr. Poe,
While you may not have personally been involved, we have been attempting to coordinate with Mr. Weinberg on setting
Mr. Epstein's deposition since March 7. Mr. Weinberg initially refused to accept service. Since that time we spent
thousands of dollars trying to serve Mr. Epstein and u:timately filed a Motion for Alternative service after which Mr.
Weinberg agreed to accept service of the deposition subpoena which indicated a deposition date of June 14.
We also agreed to accommodate Mr. Epstein's request that the deposition be taken in the Virgin Islands, despite his
pilot testifying that he continues to travel to New York. We have also been willing to agree to a mutually agreeable date
for this Virgin Islands deposition.
In my last email I asked, "Ok, can you please provide some available dates?" But your response does not provide
any dates.
I'm not here to debate the record although I think it is only fair if we work from an accurate record of relevant facts.
just simply want deposition dates, which is what I reasonably expected to get after you accepted service of a deposition
subpoena and we agreed to travel to the Virgin Islands. We understand that you disagree with our position that the
deposition testimony (including any 51h amendment invocation) will be admissible in this case. It has been clear that we
have agreed to disagree on that point since the topic arose in March of this year.
Can you please provide some acceptable dates when we can take Mr. Epstein's deposition? If the dates are outside the
current discovery period then we will ask permission to take the deposition in July. That is fine, but before we can get
there we need to know what dates will work. Please feel free to call me if you think that would help. I will be the point
person for setting a date for this deposition.
Sincerely,
ft Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing,

- Edwards, Fistos 8:: Lehrman, P.L.
Brad Edwards
Board Certified Trial Attorney
brad@pathtojustice.com www.pathtojustice.com
From: Gregory Poe [mailto:gpoe@gpoelaw.com]

Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 12:05 PM
To: Brad Edwards <brad@pathtojustice.com>
2
A-193
Mr. Edwards -
I am out of town this week but expect to be back in the office tomorrow or Friday at the latest. Should I consider
you or Sigrid McCawley as the point of contact in this case? I have not received any acknowledgment of receipt or
response from Ms. McCawley to my June 9 letter. Whether Mr. Epstein's deposition should occur at all, of course,
is a predicate question (at least from our perspective). I am assuming that you are taking the position, given your
request for dates, that the deposition should proceed despite the continuing position taken and reservations made in
my June 9 letter and previously by Mr. Weinberg in agreeing to accept service. Please let me know whether you
have received and have any response to my June 9 letter.
As you know, counsel for Mr. Epstein was first asked about deposition dates last Sunday Gune 12), when Ms.
McCawley inquired via email whether June 28 is available. Given the communications in the email chain below, and
the motions on the docket that I notice are pending (including plaintiffs motion for an extension of time), I don't
see how it is possible to set a date in June regardless of our availability (and putting to one side our position that a
deposition should not occur at all). In any event, however, please be aware that we are not available in June because
of travel and other commitments both for Mr. Epstein and his counsel that preexisted Ms. McCawley's initial
scheduling request on June 12.
Regards,
Greg
Please note: As of June 1, 2016, my email address has changed to g:poe@gpoelaw.com. Please update your address
book accordingly.
Gregory L. Poe
Suite 580 West
Washington, D .C. 20005
Telephone: (202) 583-2500
Fax: (202) 583-0565
Mobile: (202) 595-4466
Web Site: \Vww.g:poelaw.com
This communication is intended solely for the use of the addressee. It may contain information that is privileged,
confidential, exempt frotn disclosure under applicable law, and/ or attorney work product. Any dissemination or
copying of this communication is prohibited except by the addressee and employees or agents responsible for
delivering it to the addressee. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by
reply e-mail and by telephone at (202) 583-2500.
From: Brad Edwards [mailto:brad@pathtojustice.com1

Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 7:22 AM
To: Gregory Poe <gpoe@gpoelaw.com>
3
A-194
Subject: Re: SERVICE - Epstein Deposition
I'm sorry Greg. I misunderstood.
Ok, can you please provide some available dates?
Brad
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 14, 2016, at 7:03 AM, Gregory Poe <Q:poe(a)gpoelaw.com> wrote:
Mr. Edwards and Ms. McCawley -

As I informed Ms. McCawley in my June 9, 2016 letter, I represent Jeffrey Epstein with respect to
the Rule 45 subpoena. Marty Weinberg represents Mr. Epstein in Does.
Neither June 17 nor June 28 is an available date.
Regards,
Greg Poe
Please note: As of June 1, 2016, my email address has changed to g_poe@gpoelaw.com. Please
update your address book accordingly
Gregory L. Poe
Suite 580 West
Telephone: (202) 583-2500
Fax: (202) 583-0565
Mobile: (202) 595-4466
Web Site: www.gpoelaw.com
This communication is intended solely for the use of the addressee. It may contain information that
is privileged, confidential, exempt from disclosure under applicable law, and/ or attorney work
product. Any dissemination or copying of this communication is prohibited except by the addressee
and employees or agents responsible for delivering it to the addressee. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and by telephone at (202) 583-
2500.
From: Brad Edwards (mailto:brad@pathtojustice.com]

Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 7:42 PM
To: Laura Menninger <lmenninger@hmflaw.com>
Cc: Sigrid Mccawley <Smccawley@BSFLLP.com>; Martin G. Weinberg <owlmgw@att.net>; Gregory Poe
<gpoe@gpoelaw.com>; Jeff Pagliuca <jpagliuca@hmflaw.com>; cassellp@law.utah.edu; Meredith
Schultz <mschultz@BSFLLP.com>
4
A-195
Mr. Epstein's counsel is on this email chain so hopefully Mr. Weinberg will let us know which
date works.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 13, 2016, at 7:36 PM, Laura Menninger <lmenninger@hmflaw.com> wrote:
Brad-
I do not know, nor have I ever represented to you, what Mr. Epstein's availability is for
any deposition. He is not my client, and I do not have access to either his or his
attorneys' calendars. I am speaking purely from the perspective of my and Jeff
Pagliuca's availability to participate in any such deposition as counsel for Ms. Maxwell.
When I told you Ms. Maxwell's counsel's availability for depositions when we spoke on
Friday, I made a point that we are NOT available on the 28 th for an in person deposition
and that we would only be able to participate by telephone that date. We disagree with
being the only party to participate by telephone. I am now repeating to you what I said
then regarding our availability to participate in person as counsel for Ms. Maxwell.
-Laura
From: Brad Edwards [mailto:brad@pathtojustice.com]

To: Laura Menninger
Cc: Sigrid Mccawley; Martin G. Weinberg: qpoe@gpoelaw.com; Jeff Pagliuca;
cassellp@law.utah.edu; Meredith Schultz
Let me just jump in quickly. I can't tell by reading this email whether there is a
disagreement about Mr. Epstein's deposition or not. I do understand that you
don't think the adverse inference will be admitted in this case and we respectfully
disagree. But that is an issue for another day.
On Friday, as you say in the beginning of your email below, we worked through a
deposition schedule for the remainder of the month and agreed on Mr. Epstein for
the 28th - as the last available day on our tight schedule for his depo. I relayed the
schedule exactly as we had discussed. I also relayed that you said you would
probably attend by phone (because Mr. Epstein will likely take the 5th anyway).
Are you saying now that Mr. Epstein is available this Friday, the 17th? If so, I
will try to arrange my schedule to take it then. But to my knowledge we have not
received that information from Mr. Epstein's attorney. Ifwe can confirm that date
now, then I will try to make that happen. If not, then we will take it on the 28th.
Brad
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 13, 2016, at 6:21 PM, Laura Menninger <lmenninger@hmflaw.com>

wrote:
5
A-196
Sigrid -
I had a conversation with Brad last Friday afternoon regarding the

scheduling of depositions. During that conversation, I stated that the
only day remaining in June that we could even potentially participate in
a deposition of Mr. Epstein before the end of discovery cut-off would be
June 28 th , however, I informed him we could only participate by phone
on that date.
Just so you are clear, we object to the deposition being held at all, given
Mr. Epstein's stated intention to take the 5th Amendment as to all
questions, our strongly held and legally supported position that such a
non-party 5th Amendment does not have any admissibility in this case,
the cost and expense of such a deposition in the U.S. Virgin Islands and
your failure to pursue in good faith a deposition of Mr. Epstein during
the 5 ½ months of discovery available in this case. Furthermore,
including the number of depositions that you have scheduled and
cancelled at the last minute in this case, you have already reached the
allowable 10 depositions before Mr. Epstein's.
If any deposition of Mr. Epstein is to occur by telephone, we believe all

parties should participate by telephone. If it is to be in person, we are
available on June 17 and June 21.
-Laura
laura A. Menninger
<image002.jpg>
Main 303.831.7364 FX 303.832.2628
www.hmflaw.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any

documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it may
contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you
are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for
delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that you must not read this transmission and that any disclosure,
copying, printing, distribution or use of any of the information
contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY
PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error,
please notify the sender by telephone or return e-mail and delete
the original transmission and its attachments without reading or
saving it in any manner. Thank you.
6
A-197
From: Sigrid Mccawley [mailto:Smccawley@BSFLLP.com]

Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2016 9:57 AM
To: Martin G. Weinberg; Laura Menninger: gpoe@gpoelaw.com
Cc: Jeff Pagliuca; brad@pathtojustice.com; cassellp@law.utah.edu;
Meredith Schultz; Sigrid Mccawley
Hello Marty and Mr. Poe,
Per the below- It is my understanding that Maxwell's counsel has

confirmed with Mr. Edwards that they are available for the deposition
of Mr. Epstein on Tuesday, June 28, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. in the USVI (with
Maxwell's counsel participating by phone).
Per the below, we propose the island of St. Thomas as it is my

understanding that this island is the closest island with an airport to Mr.
Epstein's island. Kindly confirm the date and we will coordinate a
location for the deposition .
Thank you,
Sigrid
Sig1id S. Mccawley
Partner
aOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
Phone: 954-356-0011 ext. 4223
Fax: 954-356-0022
From: Martin G. Weinberg [mailto:owlmgw@att.net]

Sent: Friday, May 27, 2016 11:12 AM
To: Laura Menninger; Sigrid Mccawley
Cc: Jeff Pagliuca; brad@pathtojustice.com; cassellp@law.utah.edu;
Meredith Schultz; owlmgw@att.net
Sigrid, with everyone in agreement as to both the service and the

location issues, I would request that you notify Judge Sweet that the
portion of your motion addressing the deposition service issue as to Mr.
Epstein has been resolved . I will forward any proposals on dates to the
attorney or attorneys who will physically be present at the deposition so
that they, Laura, and you can work agree on a schedule and
location. Thanks, Marty
From: Laura Menninger

Sent: Friday, May 27, 2016 10:55 AM
To: Martin G. Weinberg : Sigrid Mccawley
Cc: Jeff Pagliuca ; brad@pathtojustice.com ; cassellp@law.utah.edu ;
Meredith Schultz
7
A-198
We do not oppose your agreement with respect to the location of

Mr. Epstein's deposition.
-Laura
Laura A. Menninger
<imageOOJ.png> Main 303.831.7364 FX 303.832.2628
Jm enninger@hmflaw.com
www.hmflaw.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any

documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it may
contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you
are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for
delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that
you must not read this transmission and that any disclosure,
copying, printing, distribution or use of any of the information
contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY
PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error,
please notify the sender by telephone or return e-mail and delete
the original transmission and its attachments without reading or
saving it in any manner. Thank you.
From: Martin Weinberg <owlmgw@att.net>

Date: Thursday, May 26, 2016 at 4:13 PM
To: Sigrid Mccawley <smccawley@bsfllp.com>
Cc: Laura Menninger <lmenninger@hmflaw.com>, Jeff Pagliuca
<jpagliuca@hmflaw.com>, Brad Edwards <brad@pathtojustice.com>,
Paul Cassell <cassellp@law.utah .edu>, Meredith Schultz
<mschultz@BSFLLP.com>, Martin Weinberg <owlmgw@att.net>
Hi Sigrid. Mr. Epstein is in agreement to proceed with a VI deposition and to

accept service for that deposition. I understand the issue expressed below and
will promptly communicate with Ms Maxwell's counsel in order to determine
her position.
Thanks, Marty
From: Sigrid McCawley

Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2016 5:45 PM
To: Martin Weinberg
Cc: lmenninger@hmflaw.com; mailto:jpagliuca@hmflaw.com;
brad@pathtojustice.com ; mailto:cassellp@law.utah.edu ; Meredith
Schultz
8
A-199
Hello Marty,
Thank you for your response regarding our subpoena to Jeffrey

Epstein. You have represented that Mr. Epstein will agree to accept
service of the subpoena, "reserving his rights to contest the breadth of
the subpoena and whether a deposition should be required at all given
his articulated and principled intention to assert the Fifth Amendment
in response to questions addressing the subject matter of the Giuffre v.
Maxwell lawsuit" if we can accommodate his request to have the
deposition take place near Mr. Epstein's Virgin Island residence.
We can agree on behalf of Ms. Guiffre to accommodate Mr. Epstein's

location request, however, in an abundance of caution so that there is
no misunderstanding, I have copied counsel for Ms. Maxwell for whom
Mr. Epstein is in a joint defense agreement with, to confirm their
agreement. If Ms. Maxwell's counsel does not agree to Mr. Epstein's
deposition location request, then I will have to proceed with the
Alternative Service Motion relating to Mr. Epstein that we have filed to
have the Court confirm alternative service of Mr. Epstein in NY and the
deposition in NY.
If you have not already done so, I ask that you please confer with your
joint defense counsel and confirm with us that both Ms. Maxwell and
Mr. Epstein are in agreement to proceed as you proposed with the
deposition location in the Virgin Islands.
Thank you,
Sigrid
Sigrid S. Mccawley
Partner
Phone: 954-356-0011 ext. 4223
Fax: 954-356-0022
From: Martin Weinberg [mailto:owlmgw@att.net]

Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2016 12:11 PM
To: Sigrid Mccawley; Martin Weinberg
Subject: SERVICE - Epstein Deposition
Sigrid, I am authorized to accept service conditioned on the

deposition being located near Mr. Epstein's Virgin Island
residence which you indicated in your email of May 25 was
acceptable to you, on a date and location (close to but not at
the residence) that would be agreeable to all parties, and on
Mr. Epstein's reservation of all rights to contest the breadth
of the subpoena and whether a deposition should be
required at all given his articulated and principled intention to
assert the Fifth Amendment in response to questions
9
A-200
addressing the subject matter of the Giuffre v Maxwell

lawsuit. Let me know if this resolves the service issue and if
so a good time to discuss or exchange emails on dates and
other specifics.
Marty
Martin G. Weinberg, Esq.
20 Park Plaza
Suite 1000
Boston, MA 02116
(617) 227-3700 - Office
(617) 901-3472 - Cell
----------------------------------This Electronic
Message contains information from the Law Office of Martin
G. Weinberg, P.C., and may be privileged. The information is
intended for the use of the addressee only. If you are not the
addressee, please note that any disclosure, copying,
distribution, or use of the contents of this message is
prohibited.
Th inf; en.• ;\ 1 •;ont.::.-::d in if,:; : :re ni: ,rk.}S8 11 J Is confidenti<,I inLnnation ir.tiindc:'.J or.:1 for
tt··i u~e ofttv· narrisd rr;,cin'• ·1' / .j t.rG rc,y c;nt2 1:1information that, 1,mong c'hJr ;irc,tect,011~, b
th s subj,:,ct o: aitorTY:>y-cli:.:.-.. pr:·,., ' ,Jc, c .torre·.y , ...,k prodt:·~t or cx•.·rnpl Lim i:kclc.~•m, ur;:~ -jr
:,o,;Jic "i L l~.'.J. :. ti'" re•der oi this elect ·onic mccsc:f?e i: not th~, 1Er,K J r-_cip,·, :1 i. 0r ti1":l
or &g:, 1t rr:-sr Jn:,;i rJ!::• t0 c.; ,'!'11,cr :t to th:· ,,amod rocipic·r,t, you .:ire h:,rc.by r,Jtifkd that
:my " ,r:1:1·,1 ,,,. d 1D1•ibu\i ·,n, c 1 p, irg or oth·x u,: ::i ::,f Uh sommunication i-: o:.trdly proilib 1'•,d
and no p •ivii, .·: i _ ·::,3,,,,> !. ,: yuu ;ve r ,ceic(;,, th :. c Jll'munication in :,rr0r, please imm•;GiaLly
nr,t 'y t ,.~, : en:., : r by r:,,,!ying to ti:- '. ,, ,•,.;; .ror .. c r,.. ,•,:c:1e ::,r;;i th011 d ·-1 -+ ng this <:k·ctror,:-; m,s 0,uy
from ye •.r· -;orr r'utt..r. [v:I]
The informal --:11c011ta:i .- J i.1 ;; ,:'.. ·,l:--.~'.rc:1 ,·~" "'" •

the LJ.C of u, ·_ :1w :. , ,; r•.·L _;·,,: i (: ) .-,, ,-J 111 yr' mt":11 ::1:iJrm:'ion that, ,cornmg other nrr-:·r ,-r .., n ..
0r ;.:,:'.lrff,y-cl'q:rr pr' .ri a. 'om,.- y ·· ·:ir!: ,.•or'uct '.lf' G',c , np' i,om
1.-.., 1. ' u·, ,a •.::c.:.c-r of 'h' , onic m1c,c.Jd6 a i·: 11,?t '., ,,. r,: ,r,1r J ,·:,c:,1·1,nt. or th':
I·; d,::.v,_ it to 11' ·" run,;lt, rer;i;' i'.,111, 'rO J Cc,;, ; 1:,• _!.lv r:o:':: ,d 'r:,'
.. ,.:· nniw ·1 er r:,:r i ,.'.r,(;,· t.:--:1 of thi s communication is str,.;tly prohibitsd
Ir you .,:::dt-r ,ce:;.:·J ,r:. con..: .: J:1ico:·c1 in ;;1Tcr, pl•~c•·. ,. i111rnc:iat.:ly
to fv.., ~ ron ..,:; rffi:.; ,:i ;,s.~ ~,Ld ;:iv;.;;-i :.i 1::l.:-:t\ ·.1 tj,i:J ,-. 1i-:· :ir~.:.:!~ rn-:--~- .~1:~!-::
10
A-201
EXHIBIT 6
A-202
Sigrid Mccawley

Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 12:02 PM
To: breinhart@mcdonaldhopkins.com
Cc: Sigrid Mccawley
Subject: Deposition
Attachments: 2016-03-18 [DE 62] Protective Order.pdf
Hello Bruce,
Per our conversation I am attaching the Protective Order that was entered in the Giuffre v. Maxwell matter. As we
discussed, we would like to subpoena your client Sarah Kellen (Vickers) for deposition in the matter. Please confirm that
you are able to accept service on her behalf.
Opposing counsel has some availability to be in Florida the week of May 16t h for other depositions we are scheduling in
Florida. We would like to try to schedule Sarah's deposition at my office in Fort Lauderdale, Florida on Wednesday May
th
18 • Kindly confirm her availability.
Thank you,
Sigrid
Sigrid S. Mccawley
Partner
Phone: 954-356-0011 ext. 4223
Fax: 954-356-0022
http://v.-ww.bsfllp.com
A-203
EXHIBIT 7
A-204

MAY, 24, 20 i 6 4: 50PM NO. 980 P. 1
UNITED STATES DISTRJCT COURT

for the
Virginia L. GiUffre, P laintfff
V. Civir Action No. 15-CV-07 433-RWS
Gnislafne Maxwell, Defendant AFFIDAV IT
Doug1as G. Mercer, being duly sworn deposes and states:
1. I am employed as the Chief Jnvestlgator by Alpha Group lnvestig-atlons,

an
investigative and securrty services company. I supervised the service of subpoenas
upon Jeffrey Epstein, Sarah Kellen-Vickers and Nadia Marcinkov a.
2. On Monday, April 25th , 2016 Alpha Group's Researth. Coordinator Enza Miller
conducted research to determine current reported addresses in New York for Jeffrey
Epstein, Sarah Kellen-Vickers and Nadia Marcinkova. Ms. Mlller determined the
following:
~effn.iy Epstelo1:
457 Madison Avenue, Apt 4, Nev.t York, New York 10022

9 E. 71 st Street, New York, New York 10021
301 E. 66 1h Street, Apt 1OF, New York, New York 10065
Sarah Kellen.VickP.rs:
92 Greene Street, Front 2, New York, New York 10012

9 E, 71 st Street, New York, New York, 10012
301 E. 66 th Street, Apt 14G, New York, New York 10065
Nadia MarQinkova:
301 E. 66t, Street, Apt 11 E/10N, New York, New York 10065
at
3. On Tuesday, April 261n, at12:21pm , Alpha Grovp Investigator Kevln Murphy arrived
92 Greene Street, New York, New York to attempt to se,ve a subpoena on Sarah
Ke/len-Vlckers. lnves:tlgator Murphy was advised by a doorman that Sarah Kellen--
Vickers resides at the l<:ication, in Penthouse 2, but had not been staying at the
location due fo constructio n.
at 457
4. On Tuesday, April 26lh, 2016 at 1:44 pm, Investigator Kevin Murphy arrived
Madison Avenue, New York, New York to attempt to serve a subpoena on Jeffrey
Club,
Epstein. Investigat or Mu,phy obseNed that me location was called the Trunk
which was a private clothing retailer, not a residence.
A-205
Case 1:15-cv-07433- RWS Document 161-4 Filed 05/25/16 Page 3 of 6

MAY, 24. 20 I 6 4: 50PM NO. 980 P 2
5. On Tuesday, April 261\ 2016, at 2:16 pm, Investigator Kevin Murphy arrived at 301 E
66m Street. New York, New York to attempt to serve subpoenas on Jeffrey Epstein,
Sarah Kellen-Vickers and Nadia Marcinkova. lnvestigator Murphy was informed by a
dooman that the doorman had obseNed Sarah Kellen-Vickers earlier in the day. The
doom1an called Sarah Kellen~VicKers apartment, but no one answered the phone.
The doorman did not recognize the names of Jeffrey Epstein, or Nadia Marcinkova.
6. On,Tuesday, April 26 th , 2016, ,:1t 2:34 pm, lnvestig~tor Kevin Murphy arrived at 9 E.
71'· Street, New York, New York to attempt to serve subpoenas on Jeffrey Epstein
and Sarah Kellen-Vickers. Investigator Murpt,y knocked on the door and rang the bell
and he finally spoke to an A!;>ian Male, 40-45 years of age, 5'5"-5'8" tall, 150 pounds,
who told the investig;;itor that nen:her Jeffrey Epstein, nor Sarah K~llen-Vickers were
at the residence,
7 On Thursday, April 281h, 2016, at 6:00 pm, lnvestigator Kevin Murphy arrived at 301 E.
th
66 Street. New York., New York to attemptto serve subpoenas on Jeffrey Epstein,
Sarah Kellen-Vickers and Nadia Marcinkova. A doorman at the lo~ion called
apartment 14G for Sarah Kellen-Vickers, but no one answered the phone. The
doorman would not supply Investigator Murphy with any .additional information.
8. On Thursday, April 2Bv\ .2016 at 6;17 pm, fnvestigator Kevin Murphy arrived at 9 E.
71at Street, New York, New York 1o attempt to serve subpoenas on Jeffrey Epstein
and Sarah Keflen-Vickers. hwestlgator Murphy was advised by an unknown female
on the intercom that Jeffrey Epstein was not home. but would return to the residence
sometime on Monday, May 2'.d, 2016.
9. On Thursday, April 28 1', 2016 at 6:5$ pm, Investigator Kevin Murphy arrived at 92
Greene Street, New York, New Yori< to attempt to seNe a subpoena on Sarah Kellen-
Vickers. A dccrman .:.,t trie building called several phone numbers to contact Sarah
Kellen-VicKers ~nd after apparently speaking to Sarah Kellen-Vickers, the doorman
advised Investigator Murphy that Sarah Kellen-Viel<ers was not home.
10. On Saturday, April 30111, 2016, at 2:11 pm, Investigator Kevin Murphy arrived at 301 E.
66 th Stree.t, New Yori<, New York to attempt to serve subpoenas on Jeffrey Epstein,
Sarah r<erren-Vickers and Nadia Marcinkova. Investigator Murphy was informed by a
doorman that the doorman had seen Sarah Keilen-Vickers earlier in the day at tl'le
building. The inves!igator·was informed by the doorman that the doorman believed
that Sarah Keilen-Vickers uses an office and an apartment at the building. The
investigator was informed by the doonnan that no one answered the phone In Sarah
Kellen-Vickers apartment. Tho doorman could not provide any further information
regarding Jeffrey Epstein, or Nadia MarclnKova.
11 On Saturday, April 30v,, 2016, at 2:20 pm lnYesfigator Kevin Murphy arrived at 9 E.

71 st Street, New York, New York to attempt to serve subpoenas on Jeffrey Epstein
and Sarah Kellen-Vicke~. Investigator Murphy rang the ctoorbcU and knocked on the
door. An unknown fema:e responded to Investigator Murphy on the intercom and the
female advised that Jeffrey Epstern was not home, but would retum to the location
sometime on Mond.iy, May 2 nd , 2016.
12. On Saturday, Apnl 30 1\ 2016 at 3: 17 pm, Investigator KeVin Murphy arrived at 92

Greene Straet, New York. New York to attempt to seNe a subpoena on Sarah Kellen-
A-206
case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 161-4 Filed 05/25/16 Page 4 of 6

MAY 24.2016 4:50PM IJ0.980 ?. 3
Vickers. The investigator was informed by a c:Joomian that no one v✓as staying in
PenthOuse 2 due to construetron. lnV!;.!Stigaior Murphy was advised that the doorman
f1ad not seen Sc1rah Kerien-Vicker.s for several weel<s.
13. On Tuesday, May 3'-e:, 2018, at 7:40 am, Investigator Joseph Dorilio arrived at 9 E.
st
71 Street, New York, New York to attempt to seNe subpoenas on Jeffrey Epstein
and Sa.rah Kellen-Vickers. lnvestigatot Dorilio knocked on the door and rang the
doorbell several times, but no one from within the residence responded. rnvestfgator
Dorifio served subpoenas for Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen-Vickers by taping the
subpoenas to the front door.
14. On Tuesday, May 3nJ, 2016, at 8:05 am, Investigator Joseph Dorilio arrived at 301 E.
66th Street, New York, New York to attempt to $$Ne subpoenas on Je=ffrey Epstein,
Sarah Kellen-Vickers end Nadia Marcinkova. hwestigator Dorilio was advfsed by a
supervisor named Andrew, to leave the subpoenas with the doorman, rather than
taping them to the front door. Investigator Dormo then seNed subpoenas for Jeffrey
Epstein, Sarah Kellen-Vicke rs and Nadia Marcinkova by leaving them with the
doorm~n at the !ocati!)n.
15 . On Tuesday, May 3rd , 201 B tit 8:45 am, lnvestigator Joseph Dorilio arrived at 92
Greene Street, New York, New York to attempt to serve a wbpoena on Sa.rah Kellen-
Vlckers, lnvestigator Dorilio was Informed by s dconnM that Sarah Kellen-Vicke rs
had not been at the location for several months due to construction. lnvestigertor
Dorilio then served a subpoena for Sarah Kellen-Vicke rs to the doorman, Mike, who
advised that he would contact Sarah Kellen-Vickers and give her the subpoena.
16. On Tuesday, May 3rd , 2016, the deponent mailed copies of subpoenas to the
following:
Jeffrey Epstein:
9 E. 11 st Street, New York, New Yori< 10021

301 E. 66~~ Street, Apt 10F, New York, New York 10065
Sarah Kellen-Vickers:
92 Greene Street, Front 2, New York, New York 10012

9 E. 71 st Street, N.ew York, New York, 10012
301 E. 66 th street, Apt 14G, New York, New York 10065
301 E. 66111 Street, Apt 11 E/1 ON, New York, New York 10085
A wltncss fee check i-n the amount of $$2.80 was att~ched to the subpoena for N.:idia
Marcinkova.
17 On Saturday, May 14~, 2016 at 6:45 am, Investigator Anna Intriago arrived at 301 E.
6'6ij' Street, New York, New York to attempt to serve subpoenas on Jeffrey Epstein,
Sarah Kellen-Vickers anc Nadia Marcinkova. rnvestigator Intriago set up a
surveillance position outside o'f the building, but did not observe Jeffrey Epstein,
Sarah Kellen Vickers, or Nadia Marcinkova . At 9:00 am lnvetitigator Intriago entered
A-207
Case 1:15-cv-07433~RWS Document 161-4 Filed 05/25/16 Page 5 of 6

MAY 24.2016 4: 50PM NO. 980 P. 4
the building at 301 E 66"' Street, New York, New York to attempt to serve the
subpoenas for Jeffrey Epstein, Sarah KellenNickers and Nadia Marcinkova. The
doorman would not provide any information about the three subjects.
18. On Saturday, May 141h, 2016 at 9:10 am, lrwestigator Anna lntriago -arrivei:i at 9 E.
st
71 Street, New York, New York to attempt to serve subpoenas on Jeffrey Epstein
and Sarah Kellen-Vickers. Investigator Intriago rang the bell and Knocked on the
door. but no one responded,
19 On Monday, May rnth , 2016 ~t 5:30 am Investigator Anna Intriago amved at 301 E.
66ll'I Street, New York, New York to attempt to seNe subpoenas on Jeffrey Epstein,
Sarah Kellen-Vickers a:id Nadia Marcinkova. Investigator lntrlago spoke to a dMrman
who advised that Nadia Marcinkova resided within the building, but travels a lot. The
doorman advised liwestiga.tor Intriago that Nadia Marclnkova was not in the building
at that time. The doorman advised Jnvestigator Intriago that Jeffrey Epstein does not
reside in the building, but ow:1s apartments. The doorman advised Investigator
Intriago that Sarah KeilfmNinkers no rongers resides within the bvifding; that Ssrah
Kellen-Vickers moved about two year.. ago.
20. On Monday, May 16111 , 2016 at 11 :25 ~m Investigator Anna Intriago arrived at 9 E. 71~1
Street, New York, New York to attempt t<i serve subpoenas on Jeffrey Epstein and
Sarah Kellen-Vickers. Investigator Intriago rqng the doorbell and knocked on the door.
An unknown ma!e responded on ihe intercom and advised that neither Jeffrey
Epstein, nor Sarah Kellen-Vickers were at the residence. The unknown male would
not tell Investigator IJ"ltriago when Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen-Vickers were
expected to return to the residence.
21 On Monday, May 161\ 2016 at 12:00 pm Jiwes!igator Anna Intriago returned to 3.01 E.
66u, Street, New York, New York to ascertain if Nadia Marciil'!kova had returned to the
residence. Investigator Intriago was advised by the doorman that Nadia Marcinkova
had not returned to the residMce. The doorman advrsed Investigator Intriago that no
one was pem1ltted to enter the building unless permission was given by a resident.
22. On Tuesday, May 17;i,, ?.016, at 4:06 pm Investigator Anna Intriago arrived at 301 E.
66 th Street, New York, New York to attempt to serve subpoenas on Jeffrey Epstein,
Sarah Kellen-Vickers and Nadia Marclnkova. At 5:00pm, after rnvestigator lntriagti did
not observe .Jeffrey Epstein, Sarah Kellen-Vickers, or N~dia Marcinkova enter or
leave the building, Investigator Intriago entered the building and spoke to a doorman.
The doonnan would not provide any information about any resident.
23. On Tuesday, May i71\ 2016, shortly after 5:00 pm Investigator Anna Intriago
responded to 9 E. 71 si street, New York, New· York to attempt to locate and serve
subpoenas on Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Keflen-Vickers. The investigator did not
observe Jeffrey Epstein, or Sarah Keflen Vickers enter or leave the resldence.
24. On Tuesday, May 17 111, 2016 ct 6:21 pm, at 301 E. 661t1 Street, New York, New York
Investigator Anna lntri.igo ser1ed subpoencs for Jeffrey Epstein, Sarah Kellen-Vickers
and Nadia M;;.rclr'lkova by delivs,ring the subpoenas to Jose Pepin, 'l doorman at the
301 E. 66i~ Street, New York, New YorK.
A-208
Case 1:15-cv-07433 -RWS Document 161-4 Filed 05/25/16 Page 6 of 6

MAY. 24. 20 !6 4:51PM NO. 980 P. 5
25. On Tuesday, May 171h, 2016 at 6:39 pm, at 9 E. 71 st Street, New York, New York
lnvestigator Anna Intriago had attempted to serve subpoenas for' Jeffrey Epstein and
Sarah Kellen-Vickers by ringing the doorbell and knocking on the door_ An unknown
female answered on the intercom and advised Investigator Intriago that neither Jeffrey
Epstein, nor Sarah Keilen-Vickers were at the residence. The unknown female
advised that she could not accept the subpoenas for Jeffrey Epstein, or Sarah Kellen-
Vickers. lnvestigator lntriago tt1en served the subpoenas for Jeffrey Epstein and
Sarah Kellen-Vickers by tap ,ng the subpoenas to the front door.
26. On Wednesday, May 18~, 2D16 the deponent mailed copies of subpoenas to the
foilo'A~ng :
Jeffrey Fpstein:
9 E. 71~1 Street, New York, New York 100:21

301 E 66 th Street, Apt 10F, New York, New York 10065
A witna"iS fee check in the amount of $41. 10 was attached to tt1e subpoena for Jeffrey
Epstein
Sarah Kellen-Vickers:
9 E. 71"1Street, New York, New York, 10012

301 E 661h Street, Apl: 14G, New York, New York 10065
A witness fee check In the amount of $41 .10 was att.iched to the subpoena for Sarah
Kellen-Vickers.
Nadia Marcinl<ova:
301 E. 66n' Street, Apt 11 E/1 ON, New York, New York 10065
A witness fee check in the amount of $4.1.10 was attached to the subpoena for Nadia
Marcinkova.
Sworn to before me this

d/9'9'-- Day of May, 2016.
d ' [R ~!inz,a Miller (:l..t',q ,(J r,;E' & / #~

Notary Public
A-209
EXHIBIT 8
A-210
Case 1:15-cv-07433 -RWS Document 161-6 Filed 05/25/16 Page 2 of 2
Sigrid Mccawley
From: Jack Goldberger <jgoldberger@agwpa.com >

Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 1:44 PM
To: Sigrid Mccawley
Subject: RE: Nadia Marcinkova
thank you for your email Sigrid,

I represented Nadia Marcinkova for a short period of time but do not currently represent her, nor do I know her
whereabouts. Accordingly, I cannot accept service on her behalf
Thank you
Jack goldberger

To: Jack Goldberger
Cc: Meredith Schurtz
Subject: Nadia Marcinkova
Hello Jack,
I represent Virginia Giuffre in the case of Giuffre v. Maxwell pending in the Southern District of New York Case No. 15 cv
07433. I understand that you previously represented Nadia Marcinkova, We have made a number of subpoena service
attempts on Ms. Marcinkova and are writing you to confirm whether you will accept service of our subpoena for Nadia
Marcinkova or if not, we will need to seek leave with the Court for alternative service. If you can accept service, we can
work with you to make the time/location convenient for your client.
Thank you,
Sigrid
Sigrid S. l\.kCawley
Partner
IIoms SCHILLER & FLEXNER LL
401 East Las OJas Blvd., Suite 1200
Phone: 954-356-0011 ext. 4223
Fax: 954-356-0022
http: //www. bsfllp.c om
I r I _! ,t .'l.l j. I ..~ ' b CH :•1
,.,· ,., , _ 1
Lr· 1 l1 • .Jr
r (,, ,. j; ., -'. . lj
-••·. :1 r; ,I : • ..1 tr:-, \ ,, ;JT r:1,,·:..:~· :!•): I 1
. ' •_i , . ,,, i.:m ' "

l"·IJ
A-211
EXHIBIT 9
A-212
EXHIBIT 9
A-213
Sigrid Mccawley

To: 'Reinhart, Bruce'
Subject: RE: Service on Sarah (Kellen) Vickers
Hello Bruce,
We received the Court's sealed Order yesterday and I informed you of it as soon as we received it. As you know, I
provided you with a copy of the subpoena we were attempting to serve on your client, Sarah Kellen on May 23, which
contained the requested deposition date of June 22, 2016. I was not trying to put you in a position where you would
have to file an emergency motion and I am happy to agree to move the date and provide you with time to respond,
however, I am presently still limited by the discovery deadline of July 1st unless the Court on Thursday provides for an
extension to that deadline. I can agree to wait until Thursday to let you know what the Court rules with respect to our
requested extension and I will inform the Court that you are on vacation from June 23 rd through July 4 th so Ms. Kellen
will not be available for deposition until thereafter. Defendant's counsel has opposed our requested extension of the
discovery deadline so I cannot tell you what position they will take, but your client has a relationship with the Defendant
so I assume she knows her position.
I would hope that given your conflict with the dates remaining in June, the Court will allow us more time in early July to
complete your client's deposition. I can agree not to proceed with the deposition tomorrow due to the time constraints,
without prejudice to noticing another date in June if the Court fails to grant our requested extension on Thursday. We
do not agree to proceed by written question .
I disagree with the remaining representations in your e-mail below regarding your client's residence and business
transactions in New York, that said, if the Court allows us additional time, we are happy to work with you on a
convenient time and location for your client's deposition subject to the fact that I cannot control any objections
Defendant may raise to a location other than New York.
Thank you,
Sigrid
Sigrid S. Mccawley
Partner
aOIES, SCI-IILL_EJ! & FLEXNER LLP
Phone: 954-356-0011 ext. 4223
Fax: 954-356-0022
http: //www.bsfllp.com
From: Reinhart, Bruce [mailto:breinhart@mcdonaldhopkins.com]

To: Sigrid Mccawley
Subject: RE: Service on Sarah (Kellen) Vickers
Sigrid ,
A-214
i received your email last evening at 5:30 pm attaching a subpoena for my client to appear for
deposition in Manhattan tomorrow morning at 9:00.
First, as my client does not reside within 100 miles of Manhattan, is not employed within 100 miles of
Manhattan, nor regularly transacts business within 100 miles of Manhattan, the deposition is not
properly venued there. As we previously discussed, the proper venue for any deposition of my client
is the Southern District of Florida. Second, putting the improper venue aside, 39.5 hours notice is not
"a reasonable time to comply" as required by Rule 45(d)(3)(A)(i).
I understand that you have a discovery cut-off date looming and that there is a motion pending to
extend that date. I also understand from the docket sheet that Mr. Epstein has raised certain legal
objections that might apply to my client and therefore could affect the timing and scope of my client's
deposition. I have a pre-planned , pre-paid family vacation in California from June 23 through July
4. Assuming that the Court's rulings allow my client's deposition to proceed, I am happy to work with
you to find a mutually convenient date shortly after I return from my vacation .
As I previously informed you, my client will invoke her 5th amendment privilege as to all substantive
questions, as she did in her prior deposition in the Florida litigation. To accommodate everyone's
interests, and to avoid the inconvenience and expense of having to retain local counsel in New York
and filing an emergency motion to quash today, I renew my proposal that you depose my client using
written questions. If you are not amenable to that proposal, please let me know if you and counsel for
Ms. Maxwell realistically intend to proceed with the deposition tomorrow. If it's not really happening,
I'd prefer to avoid a last-minute rush today.
Bruce E. Reinhart T: 561-472-2970

Member breinhart@mcdonaldhopkins.com
www.mcdonaldhopkins.com
,,AcDo.2_old
· ,- .. 1 ~
H' opKins McDonald Hopkins LLC
Flagler Center Tower
505 South Flagler Drive
/ •. ~ .• : . -:-1 :• . : \• ~ r 7 ~:• ;! ~~r. ~ -~ ,I' "lit .. H i Suite 300
8usine'5s Advocate
Chicago • Cleveland • Colun1bus • Dei:roit • lltiiami • West Palm Beach

To: Reinhart, Bruce
Subject: FW: Service on Sarah (Kellen) Vickers
Hello Bruce - we just received a sealed order from Judge Sweet today granting our motion for alternative service on Ms.
Kellen. The Court has labelled the Order confidential until the parties confer regarding which sections can be
unsealed . I will be conferring with Ms. Menninger, Maxwell's counsel to unseal the portion relating to the Court's ruling
as to Ms. Kellen and will get that paragraph of the order to you as soon as she agrees to release it.
In the interim, as Ms. Kellen's subpoena is now effective and her date for deposition per the subpoena is scheduled for
June 22 nd , I am writing to confer with you regarding whether you and Ms. Kellen are available on June 22 nd for a
deposition or whether you can provide me for alternative dates when you and your client are available so that I can
provide those alternate dates to opposing counsel and we can set a date that is agreeable. Presently the Court has set
the discovery close for July 1st so if June 22 nd does not work I would appreciate dates prior to July 1st • We have filed a
2
A-215
motion for additional time to complete discovery however, Maxwell's counsel has opposed that motion and the
issue
will be heard by the Court this Thursday. If the Court grants us additional time, I would appreciate you also providing
dates in early July when you and your client are available for a deposition.
Thank you,
Sigrid
Sigrid S. McCawley
Partner
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LL
40 l East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
Phone: 954-356-0011 ext. 4223
Fax : 954-356-0022
http://www. bsfllp.com

To: breinhart@mcdonaldhopkins.com
Subject: Service on Sarah (Kellen) Vickers
Dear Bruce,
As you are aware we initially reached out to you back on March 31, 2016 to inquire as to whether you would accept
service on your client, Sarah {Kellen) Vicker's behalf. You did not agree to accept service so we proceeded with
numerous service attempts on Sarah (Kellen) Vickers . I am attaching above the latest subpoena that we have been
attempting service of. Please confirm whether you will accept service of this subpoena on behalf of Sarah (Kellen)
Vickers or whether we will be required to seek court intervention for alternative service. As I mentioned previously,
if
you accept service, we can work with you and your client on a the date and location of the deposition to make it
convenient for the parties.
Thank you,
Sigrid
Sigrid S. McCawlcy
Partner
D, OIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
Phone: 954-356-0011 ext. 4223
Fax: 954-356-002 2
http ://www.bsfll p.com
rr(. i1•.fonr.::_,c:1 C>Jr . ~aj;,,-~d in lhi.., , 11 I>"..'.:'° .."';•... is ( i):_flrJ.-,r,ti.:{/ :1:urm ::tior l , ur•;y f1r t~~~ ·.A~ : 0{ the n"'.;n:7<.i rJ-clp;e, 1~~.::) : ·1d m3y r~·:;"' -.:n in.~or:r-/ic.1
:t·<, among 01 ,er,;,,:, ,c.,,-ns, iJ :i1e :,c1L' ·. c., c..f •-:'.t,~r,8,.-c'i,:•11t rrivil :· ,~:. _'torr._,, ·•. ·,·._ prr iJc' or f ·r_,ri,r,t frcr.i rJifci .•Ur• ur, :' ,: ·.ppli:;::'
Iv l:.,v. 1f t'1-:, rr·:ic .· , • ! this
c.lec•.. 011ic rn ,S...-:L, ·, nc.t th·. nc>md, :;;•~.· . 1.;. c:- t:1 . -~rnploy:·: or ·q ... nt res~,·,. 1rJ -•., o; ii, ;::· ,1io ,i: . .i~:r,;, j
,r·
r•c,:ir:en\ ;ou ·,,., ;- .:•.·b; 11'i!i'1 .·i ,! ,my
::· .:->en1in.-;tionl rJ -~'~ri'Jution, c(pyi11J c~:- o~'.1·:.r t ·-: 1~ cf u·il:-- {;C-:11mt nicati.)n :; r.tr;ctl~1 ;ro:·:;j1 .:d ~,-··j 110 ;,,.·;_,1~::t;c:, :::, ·•.f::
1 i\Jtd. ;ryou h·11.-·:'. ruc0l'.-uci ti::..; commur,-.::aii . ..-i ·ri
c rrc '. ,_;-3as0 ir:1111~·-i:·,te:J n~dy th··, : ..-..,d :~ by ·:ar !~·• ,'J to lhi-. -:::Jc,rcr:c rnes. ,;·:- .·.r .i th::.r, :i ,' ,Lr; J t' ·., eLc'.rc.nic
!n'·' .,:.. 7e L 01.-1 y(...if cu ,,ut·. ;-. [".. i)
3
18-2868
d
IN THE

Plaintiff-Appellee,
—against—
GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
Defendant-Appellee,

JOINT APPENDIX
VOLUME II OF II
(Pages A-216 to A-432)
SIGRID S. MCCAWLEY SANFORD L. BOHRER

BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
401 East Las Olas Boulevard, 701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3300
Suite 1200 Miami, Florida 33131
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 (305) 374-8500
(954) 356-0011 MADELAINE J. HARRINGTON
PAUL CASSELL, PROFESSOR CHRISTINE N. WALZ
UNIVERSITY OF UTAH, HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
S.J. QUINNEY COLLEGE OF LAW 31 West 52nd Street
332 South 1400 East, Room 101 New York, New York 10019
Salt Lake City, Utah 84124 (212) 513-3200
(801) 585-5202 Attorneys for Intervenors-Appellants
(Counsel continued on inside cover)
—against—

Respondents,
TY GEE
(303) 831-7364
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Docket Entries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1
Complaint, dated September 21, 2015 (Dkt. 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-116
Defendant’s Motion for a Protective Order, dated March 2, 2016

(Dkt. 38) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-128
Protective Order, dated March 18, 2016 (Dkt. 62) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-131
So-Ordered Letter from Laura A. Menninger to the Honorable

Robert W. Sweet, dated April 15, 2016 (Dkt. 100) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-137
Letter Motion to File Plaintiff’s Non-Redacted Reply in Support of

Motion for Forensic Examination and Certain Exhibits Under
Seal, dated April 25, 2016 (Dkt. 120) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-139
Letter Motion to File Plaintiff’s Brief in Support of the Privilege

Claimed for her In Camera Submission and Certain Exhibits
Under Seal, dated May 4, 2016 (Dkt. 138) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-140

Answer Deposition Questions Under Seal, dated May 5, 2016
(Dkt. 142) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-141
So-Ordered Letter Motion to File Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel

Defendant to Answer Deposition Questions Under Seal,
entered May 6, 2016 (Dkt. 145) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-142
So-Ordered Letter Motion to File Plaintiff’s Brief in Support of the

Privilege Claimed for her In Camera Submission and Certain
Exhibits Under Seal, dated May 4, 2016 (entered May 6, 2016)
(Dkt. 146) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-143
ii
PAGE
Compel Defendant to Answer Deposition Questions and Certain
Exhibits Under Seal, dated May 11, 2016 (Dkt. 151) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-144
So-Ordered Letter Motion to File Defendant’s Exhibits E and J to the

Declaration in Support of Motion to Compel Non-Privileged
Documents Under Seal, dated May 20, 2016 (Dkt. 158) . . . . . . . . . . . A-145
Letter Motion to File Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Serve Three

Deposition Subpoenas by Means Other Than Personal Service
So-Ordered Letter Motion to File Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of

Motion to Compel Defendant to Answer Deposition Questions
and Certain Exhibits Under Seal, entered May 26, 2016
(Dkt. 163) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-148
So-Ordered Letter Motion to File Defendant’s Exhibits C, H, J and K

to the Declaration in Support of Motion to Compel All Attorney-
Client Communications and Attorney Work Product Placed At
Issue by Plaintiff and her Attorneys and Certain Exhibits Under
Seal, entered May 27, 2016 (Dkt. 167) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-149
So-Ordered Letter Motion to File Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to

Serve Three Deposition Subpoenas by Means Other than Personal
Service and Certain Exhibits Under Seal, entered May 27, 2016
(Dkt. 168) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-151
Letter Motion to File Plaintiff’s Motion to Exceed Presumptive Ten

Deposition Limit in Federal Rule Civil Procedure 30(A)(2)(a)(ii)
So-Ordered Letter Motion to File Plaintiff’s Motion to Exceed

Presumptive Ten Deposition Limit in Federal Rule Civil
Procedure 30(A)(2)(a)(iii) and Certain Exhibits,
entered March 31, 2016 (Dkt. 178) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-153
iii
PAGE
Defendant’s Motion to Compel Attorney-Client Communications
and Attorney Work Product Materials and Certain Exhibits Under
Seal, dated June 1, 2016 (Dkt. 181) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-154


Certain Exhibits Under Seal, entered May 31, 2016 (Dkt. 183) . . . . A-155

to Defendant’s Motion to Compel Attorney-Client
Communications and Attorney Work Product Materials and
So-Ordered Letter Motion to File Defendant’s Exhibit S to the

Declaration in Support of Defendant’s Reply in Support of
Motion to Compel All Attorney-Client Communications and
Attorney Work Product Placed At Issue by Plaintiff and her
Attorneys Under Seal, entered June 7, 2016 (Dkt. 196) . . . . . . . . . . . A-157
So-Ordered Letter Motion to File Defendant’s Exhibit A to the

Declaration in Support of Defendant’s Response in Opposition to
Motion to Exceed Presumptive Ten Deposition Limit Under Seal,
entered June 7, 2016 (Dkt. 197) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-159

Exceed Presumptive Ten Deposition Limit in Federal Rule Civil
Procedure 30(A)(2)(a)(ii) and Certain Exhibits Under Seal, dated
June 13, 2016 (Dkt. 202) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-161
iv
PAGE
So-Ordered Letter Motion to File Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of her
Motion to Exceed Presumptive Ten Deposition Limit in Federal
Rule Civil Procedure 30(A)(2)(a)(iii), entered May 27, 2016
(Dkt. 209) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-162
So-Ordered Letter Motion to File Under Seal (1) Defendant’s

Combined Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Extending
Deadline to Complete Depositions and Motion for Sanctions for
Violations of Rule 45; (2) Motion to Reopen Deposition of
Plaintiff; and (3) Motion for Rule 37(b) & (c) Sanctions for
Failure to Comply with Court Order and Failure to Comply with
Rule 26(a), entered June 21, 2016 (Dkt. 236) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-163
Letter Motion to File Plaintiff’s Reply in Opposition to Defendant’s

Motion to Extend the Deadline to Complete Depositions and
Opposition to Motion for Sanctions for Violation of Rule 45 and
Certain Exhibits Under Seal, dated June 22, 2016 (Dkt. 245) . . . . . . A-165
Reply Declaration of Sigrid S. McCawley in Support of Motion to

Extend the Deadline to Complete Depositions and Opposition to
Motion for Sanctions for Violation of Rule 45,
dated June 22, 2016 (Dkt. 249) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-166
Gregory Poe’s June 16, 2016 Correspondence
to Bradley Edwards (Dkt. 249-5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-190
v
PAGE
Douglas G. Mercer’s Affidavit of Service, dated May 24, 2016
(Dkt. 249-7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-203
Jack Goldberg’s May 23, 2016 Correspondence
to Sigrid MacCawley (Dkt. 249-8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-209
Sigrid MacCawley’s June 21, 2016 Correspondence
Plaintiff’s Notice of Taking Videotaped Deposition
of Jane Luc Brunel (Dkt. 249-10) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-216
Brad Edwards’ June 14, 2016 Correspondence to Ross Gow
(Dkt. 249-11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-221
Transcript of May 24, 2016 Phone Conference with Plaintiff’s
Attorney, Defendant’s Attorney and Judge Robert Sweet
(Dkt. 249-12) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-224

Defendant’s Motion for Defendant’s Rule 37(b) & (c) Sanctions
for Failure to Comply with Court Order and Failure to Comply to
Rule 26(a) and Certain Exhibits Under Seal, dated June 28, 2016
(Dkt. 255) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-236

Defendant’s Motion to Reopen Plaintiff’s Deposition and Certain
Exhibits Under Seal, dated June 28, 2016 (Dkt. 256) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-237
vi
PAGE
to Defendant’s Motion for Defendant’s Rule 37(b) & (c)
Sanctions for Failure to Comply with Court Order and Failure to
Comply to Rule 26(a) and Certain Exhibits Under Seal,
entered May 27, 2016 (Dkt. 266) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-238
Letter Motion to File Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Sur-Reply

with Exhibits Under Seal, dated July 12, 2016 (Dkt. 271) . . . . . . . . . A-239

to Defendant’s Motion to Reopen Plaintiff’s Deposition and
Certain Exhibits Under Seal, entered July 13, 2016 (Dkt. 273) . . . . A-240
Order Granting Letter Motion for Leave to File Reply Brief in Further
Support of Motion to Quash, entered July 13, 2016 (Dkt. 275) . . . . A-241
Letter Motion to File Plaintiff’s Motion for an Adverse Inference

and Certain Exhibits Under Seal, dated July 13, 2016 (Dkt. 278) . . A-243
Order Granting Motion to Seal Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a

Sur-Reply with Exhibit, entered July 15, 2016 (Dkt. 281) . . . . . . . . . A-244
Order Granting Motion to Seal Motion for an Adverse Inference

and Certain Exhibits, entered July 15, 2016 (Dkt. 282) . . . . . . . . . . . . A-245
So-Ordered Letter Motion to File Defendant’s Exhibits to the

Declaration of Laura A. Menninger in Support of Reply to
Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Reopen
Plaintiff’s Deposition and the Declaration of Laura A. Menninger
in Support of Defendant’s Reply in Support of Motion for Rule
37(b) & (c) Sanctions for Failure to Comply with Court Order
and Failure to Comply with Rule 26(a) Under Seal,
entered July 15, 2016 (Dkt. 285) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-246
vii
PAGE
So-Ordered Letter Motion to File Defendant’s Letter Motion
Requesting the Court to Strike and Disregard Plaintiff’s Sur-
Reply in Response to Defendant’s Reply in Support of Motion
for Sanctions, or in the Alternative, Permit Defendant to File a
Sur Sur-Reply Under Seal, entered July 15, 2016 (Dkt. 286) . . . . . . A-248

Defendant’s Improper Letter Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Motion
for an Adverse Inference Instruction Pursuant to Rule 37(b),
(e) and (f), Fed. R. Civ. P. and Certain Exhibits Under Seal,
dated July 18, 2016 (Dkt. 289) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-250

to Defendant’s Improper Letter Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s
Motion for an Adverse Inference Instruction Pursuant to Rule
37(B), (E) and (F), Fed. R. Civ. P. and Certain Exhibits Under
Seal, entered July 19, 2016 (Dkt. 297) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-251
Letter Motion to File Plaintiff’s Motion for an Extension of Time to

Serve Process Upon and Depose Ross Gow and Certain Exhibits
Under Seal, dated July 25, 2016 (Dkt. 305) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-252
Letter Motion to File the Exhibit to Plaintiff’s Notice of

Supplemental Authority Under Seal, dated July 29, 2016
(Dkt. 312) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-253

Answer Deposition Questions Filed Under Seal and Certain
Exhibits Under Seal, dated July 29, 2016 (Dkt. 314) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-254
So-Ordered Letter Motion to File Plaintiff’s Motion for an Extension

of Time to Serve Process Upon and Depose Ross Gow and
Letter Motion to File Plaintiff’s Proposed Search Terms Under Seal,

viii
PAGE
So-Ordered Letter Motion to File Defendant’s Sur Sur-Reply in
Support of Motion for Rule 37(b) & (c) Sanctions Exhibits Under
Seal, entered August 2, 2016 (Dkt. 328) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-257
Letter Motion to File Defendant’s Submission Regarding “Search

Terms” and Notice of Compliance with Court Order Concerning
Forensic Examination of Computer Device and Supporting
So-Ordered Letter Motion to File the Exhibit to Plaintiff’s Notice of

Supplemental Authority Under Seal, entered August 4, 2016
(Dkt. 332) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-261
Letter Motion to File Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order and

Motion for the Court to Direct Defendant to Disclose All
Individuals to Whom Defendant Has Disseminated Confidential
Information and Certain Exhibits Under Seal,
Letter Motion to File Plaintiff’s Supplement to Motion for Adverse

Inference Instruction Based on New Information and Certain
Letter Motion to File Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel the Production of

Documents Subject to Improper Objection and Improper claim of
Privilege and Certain Exhibits Under Seal, dated August 9, 2016
(Dkt. 344) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-264
Standing Order of the Honorable Robert W. Sweet,

So-Ordered Letter Motion to File Plaintiff’s Supplement to Motion

for Adverse Inference Instruction Based on New Information and
ix
PAGE
So-Ordered Letter Motion to File Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective
Order and Motion for the Court to Direct Defendant to Disclose
All Individual to Whom Defendant Has Disseminated
Confidential Information and Certain Exhibits Under Seal,
entered August 9, 2016 (Dkt. 351) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-267
Defendant’s Motion to Compel Responses to Defendant’s Second Set

of Discovery Request to Plaintiff and for Sanctions,
dated August 10, 2016 (Dkt. 354) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-268
Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant’s Motion for Summary

Judgment, dated January 6, 2017 (Dkt. 538) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-308
Opinion of the Honorable Robert W. Sweet, dated April 27, 2017

(Dkt. 872) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-318
Opinion of the Honorable Robert W. Sweet, dated May 3, 2017

(Dkt. 892) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-394
Intervenors’ Notice of Motion to Intervene and Unseal,

dated April 6, 2018 (Dkt. 935) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-405
Memorandum of Law in Support of Proposed Intervenors Julie Brown

and Miami Herald Media Company’s Motion to Intervene and
Unseal, dated April 6, 2018 (Dkt. 936) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-406
Plaintiff’s Response to Proposed Intervenors Julie Brown and

Miami Herald Media Company’s Motion to Intervene and
Unseal, dated April 27, 2018 (Dkt. 945) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-427
Intervenors’ Notice of Appeal, dated September 26, 2018 (Dkt. 945) . . . A-432
A-216
EXHIBIT 10
A-217
Sigrid Mccawley
From: Meredith Schultz

Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 4:18 PM
To: rhantman@hantmanlaw.com; Laura Menninger (lmenninger@hmflaw.com);
jpagliuca@hmflaw.com
Cc: Sigrid Mccawley; 'brad@pathtojustice.com' (brad@pathtojustice.com); Paul Cassell
(cassellp@law.utah.edu)
Subject: Notice of Taking Deposition
Attachments: 2016-05-23 Notice of Taking Deposition of Jean Luc Brunel- (June 7 2016).pdf
Dear Counsel,
Please see the attached.
Thanks,
Meredith
Meredith L. Schultz
40 I East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
Phone: 954-356-001 1 ext. 4204
Fax: 954-356-002 2
http://W\vw. bsfllp.com
A-218

Plaintiff, Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RW S
V.
Ghislaine Maxwell,
Defendant.
PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF TAKING VIDEOTAPED

DEPOSITION OF JEAN LUC BRUNEL
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT, pursuant to the subpoena we served counsel, the
undersigned counsel provides this Notice of Taking the Videotaped Deposition of the below-
named individual on the date and hour indicated.
NAME: Jean Luc Brunel
DATE AND TIM E: June 7, 2016 at 9:00 a.m.
LOCATION : Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP

575 Lexington A venue
New York, NY I 0022
The videotaped deposition will be taken upon oral examination before Magna Legal
Services, or any other notary public authorized by law to take depositions. The oral examination
will continue from day to day until completed.
The video operator shall be provided by Magna Legal Services. This deposition is being
taken for the purpose of discovery, for use at trial, or for such other purposes as are permitted
under the rules of this Court.

A-219
Dated: May 23, 2016.

BOIES, SCHI LLER & FLEX NER LLP
By: Isl Sigrid Mcca wley

Sigrid McCa wley (Pro Hae Vice)
Meredith Schul tz (Pro Hae Vice)
Boies Schiller & Flexn er LLP
(954) 356-0011
David Boies
Boies Schiller & Flexn er LLP
333 Main Street
Armonk, NY 10504
Bradl ey J. Edwa rds (Pro Hae Vice)

FARM ER, JAFFE, WEIS SING,
EDW ARDS , FISTOS & LEHR MAN , P.L.
425 North Andre ws Aven ue, Suite 2
Fort Lauderdale, Florid a 33301
(954) 524-2 820
Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hae Vice)

S.J. Quinn ey Colle ge of Law
University of Utah
383 University St.
(801) 585-520l1
1
This daytime business addre ss is provi ded for identi
fication and corres ponde nce purpo ses only
and is not intended to imply institu tional endor semen
t by the Unive rsity of Utah for this private
repres entati on.
A-220
CER TIFI CAT E OF SER VIC E
I HER EBY CERTIFY that on the 23rd day

of May, 2016, I served the attached docu ment
PLAIN TIFF' S NOTI CE OF TAKING VIDE
OTAP ED DEPO SITIO N OF JEAN Luc BRUN
EL via Emai l to the
follo wing coun sel ofrec ord.
Robe rt Hant man, Esq.

Hant man & Asso ciate s
1120 Aven ue of the Ame ricas , 4 th Floo r
New York , NY 1003 6
Tel: (212) 684-3 933
Email : rhantm an@ hantm anlaw .co m
Laur a A. Menn inger, Esq.

Jeffr ey Pagli uca, Esq.
HAD DON , MOR GAN & FOR EMA N, P
.C.
150 East 10 th A venu e
Denv er, Colo rado 8020 3
Tel: (303 ) 831- 7364
Fax: (303 ) 832-2 628
Emai l: lmen ninge r@hm tlaw. com
Email: ipa2liuca1cv,hmflav, .com
/s/ Sigri d S. Mcc awle y

Sigri d S. McC awle y
A-221
COMPOSITE
EXHIBIT 11
A-222
-
From: Brad Edwards
-
Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2016 11:41 AM
To: ross@acuityreputation.com
Hi Mr. Gow,
Ms. Maxwell has listed you as a witness in this case. Consequently, we would like to set up a convenient time
and place to take your deposition. We understand you are in London. We will take it there for your
convenience. \
Currently the Judge in our case has given the parties until the end of June to complete depositions. The last two
days of this month - the 29th and 30th - appear to be the only remaining available days for both parties. If you
can confirm that one of those days works for you then we will make arrangements for a precise location and
schedule the deposition with a local court reporting agency as well as coordinate with Ms. Maxwell's counsel.
Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Please confirm a date as soon as possible so that we can
make arrangements.
Sincerely,
Brad Edwards
(counsel for Virginia Giuffre)
Sent from my iPhone

A-223
From: Brad Edwards

To: 'ross@acuityreputation.com ' <ross@acuityreputation.com>
Hello Mr. Gow,
I sent an email last week asking for a convenient date for us to take your deposition in this matter. I did not hear
back. If you have legal counsel with whom I could speak and possibly coordinate then please have that person call
me. If you can provide your counsel's phone number I would be more than happy to reach out. As I believe I mentioned
last time, we are under a tight t ime schedule so I' d like to set this up as soon as possible. Thank you.
Sincerely,
ft Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing,

II Edwards, Fistos a Lehrman, P.L.
Brad Edwards
Board Certified Trial Attorney
425 North And1ews Avenue, Suite 2
Toll Free: 300-400 1098 I Local: 954-524-2820
Cell: %4-:.-94-9544 ! Facsimile: 954-524-2822
brad@pathtojustic e.com ! www.pathtojustice .com
A-224
EXHIBIT 12
A-225
1
G3o5giuc phone conference
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 ---- -------------------- ----- -x
3 VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE,
4 Plaintiff ,
5 V . 15 Civ . 7433 (RWS)
6 GHISLAINE MAXWELL ,
7 Defendant .
8 ---------------- --------------x
9 March 24 , 2016
4:00 p.m .
10 Before:
11 HON . ROBERT W. SWEET ,
12 District Judge
13 APPEARANCES
14 BOIES , SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP

Attorneys for Plaintiff S
15 BY: SIGRID S. McCAWLEY
16 HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN

Attorneys for Defendant
17 BY: JEFFREYS. PAGLIUCA
LAURA A. MENNINGER
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS , P . C .

A-226
2
G3o5giuA phone conference
1 (Case called}
2 THE DEPUTY CLERK: Counsel, can you please state your
3 name for the record for the court reporter? Thank you.
4 MS. McCAWLEY: Sigrid Mccawley, counsel for the
5 plaintiff, Ms. Giuffre , from Boies, Schiller & Flexner.
6 MR. PAGLIUCA: Good afternoon, your Honor. Jeffrey
7 Pagliuca for the reporter, Ms. Maxwell , and we are present with
8 Laura Menninger. We are with the law firm of Haddon, Moore &
9 Foreman .
10 THE COURT: This is Judge Sweet. Let me just go
11 through a few preliminaries with y ou all .
12 First of all , this is being treated as it was
13 scheduled, that is as a motion with respect to discovery and
14 also the timing of the deposition and maybe there are some
15 other matters.
16 Because it was a motion it was , of course , set down
17 for noon today and in open court and so that prevails -- that
18 situation exists now. It is another way of saying we are in
19 the courtroom and there are members of the public and , for all
20 I know, members of the press present so that you all understand
21 that.
22 The reason we are on the phone is because defense
23 counsel had the good judgment to live in Colorado and because
24 Colorado has been blessed with frequent snow this season and
25 there was , when we last spoke , about the problem of defense
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS , P.C .

A-227
3
1 counsel actually getting here. Now, our research indicates
2 that the Denver Airport is now open but obviously there were
3 some problems and in an excess of caution and at defense
4 counsel ' s request , I decided that it made more sense to try to
5 do this telephonically.
6 Let me just say about telephone motions and
7 conferences, they're terrible because I can't -- you cannot see
8 me frown and it is very hard for me to control counsel by
9 telephone. However, we will try to do that if it is necessary .
10 What I would ask -- fortunately because we have a
11 sexual differentiation between counsel it won't be necessary
12 for you to identify yourself as we speak and talk.
13 I take it that is sort of the preliminaries and I take
14 it that that raises no problems for anybody, correct ?
15 MR. PAGLIUCA: Correct , your Honor. Not on behalf of
16 the defendant Ms. Maxwell.
17 THE COURT: Okay. That's fine.
18 Now, I have read your papers and I think I understand
19 the issues. Let me tell you what I think. I think that I am
20 going to deny the motion to compel answers to the plaintiff's
21 interrogatories except insofar as the plaintiff has indicated
22 that she is compliant or is going to comply. However, I
23 recognize that this method of making decisions is not quite as
24 desirable as it is if we had you physically present here. So ,
25 I will grant leave to the defense , if there are particular
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS , P . C.

A-228
4
G3oSgiuA phone conference
1 interrogatories that you feel are critical to you within the
2 time frame which we will discuss in a few moments , I grant
3 leave for you to submit any additional materials and I think
4 that submission should be on the schedule that we have already
5 determined with respect to the privilege issues , that is , by
6 March 31st.
7 Now, as far as the schedule itself is concerned and
8 the deposition, you know , this Colorado gambit is not going to
9 work again because it is going to stop snowing sooner or later ,
10 even in Colorado. So , hopefully we won ' t have this problem
11 again but, obviously, you can ' t be here tomorrow -- well, I
12 suppose you could, there is a red eye , but tomorrow is Good
13 Friday and one thing and another .
14 So, I am going to grant the request to adjourn the
15 deposition and part of the reason for that is it occurs to
16 me -- I don't know how the privilege rulings are going to work
17 out. Obviously, as you know, that submission will be in camera
18 and I don't know how they're going to work out, but it occurs
19 to me that it's possible that if some of the privilege rulings
20 go against the defense, then there might be additional
21 questions at deposition. So, it seems to me it is sensible to
22 put that over.
23 So, assuming that we can resolve the privilege matters
24 and anything else you want to bring up reasonably promptly, I
25 was thinking that we would set the deposition at a date that is

A-229
5
1 agreeable to the parties sometime in the week of April 18th.
2 Now, having said all of that, I would be pleased to
3 hear any protests, suggestions, amendments , questions , whatever
4 strikes you as a result of my conclusions.
5 MR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor , this is Jeff Pagliuca on
6 behalf of Ms. Maxwell.
7 I think preliminarily the Court should be aware that
8 yesterday counsel discussed, by e-mail, the protective order
9 issue relating to Ms. Maxwell's deposition and trying to find a
10 convenient date that would work for the parties and
11 Ms. Maxwell. We settled in on April 12th which is about six
12 days before your Honor's proposed date. We, the defendants ,
13 are happy to consider a different date but I thought, in
14 fairness to plaintiff ' s counsel, I should alert the Court to
15 that series of events and I am not sure how that changes the
16 Court's analysis. I do agree and it was part of our papers
17 that we wanted to get the privilege issues resolved so that we
18 would not be subjecting ourselves, potentially , to a second
19 deposition.
20 So, I think your Honor ' s suggestion makes some sense
21 but we did agree to the 12th and I am not backing out of that
22 agreement, certainly subject to comments by plaintiff ' s counsel
23 and the Court.
24 THE COURT: I am getting to the age where somehow
25 sometimes I don't trust my memory but I thought at our last

A-230
6
1 session the plaintiff agreed to your proposed protective order .
2 Am I wrong about that?
3 MR . PAGLIUCA: No, you are correct , your Honor. And I
4 am sorry because I am referring to the motion that was filed
5 captioned Request for Protective Order regarding Ms. Maxwell ' s
6 deposition going forward in which we asked for an adjournment.
7 So, I may be confusing your Honor with my use of the word
8 "protective order" which is from the rule.
9 THE COURT: Oh .
10 MR. PAGLIUCA: That ' s that it was of a request for
11 adjournment of that deposition .
12 THE COURT: So, what are you all going to confer about
13 on the 12th? You mean on the date of the deposition?
14 MR. PAGLIUCA: No , your Honor. We agreed to that as
15 the date so let me back up .
16 I think everyone recognized that we would not be able
17 to be there today given the airport situation here and the
18 backlog of flights and so the parties, by e-mail, agreed to
19 reschedule Ms. Maxwell ' s deposition for April 12th.
20 THE COURT: Oh, I see. Okay. All right. I
21 understand.
22 Well , look . If it is all right with you all I would
23 prefer the week of the 18th simply because that gives me a
24 little bit more see room on the privilege decision .
25 Is that possible?

A-231
7
1 MR. PAGLIUCA : It is possible , your Honor , and that ' s
2 fine with counsel for Ms. Maxwell.
3 THE COURT: Well how about the plaintiff?
4 MS. MCCAWLEY: Yes , your Honor . This is Sigrid
5 Mccawley .
6 We are comfortable pushing it another week if that ' s
7 the Court's desire. The only caveat to that that I have is
8 that Ms. Menninger wanted to take my client's deposition that
9 week and I would ask the Court that of course since we were the
10 first to notice and we noticed back in February , that we be
11 able to have Ms. Maxwell's deposition that week and then choose
12 another week for my client ' s deposition .
13 THE COURT: I think that makes sense. I don ' t see any
14 problem with that. Do you all?
15 MR . PAGLIUCA: We agree with that , your Honor. That ' s
16 no t a problem.
17 THE COURT: Okay. Anything else we should cover this
18 afternoon?
19 MR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor , just in terms of
20 clarification in terms of what is before the Court today and
21 potentially before the Court in the next , I would say, two
22 weeks or so , the other motion that was filed was the motion to
23 compel responses pursuant to Rule 26A. We have not cued up yet
24 any issue related to the interrogatories or the requests for
25 production of documents because counsel conferred about that

A-232
8
1 earlier this week on Monday. There was a supplemental
2 production on, I believe, Tuesday, and so we are in the process
3 of reviewing the supplemental response and the production and
4 so I think any issues related to interrogatories or requests
5 for production of documents pursuant to Rules 33 and Rule 34
6 are not before the Court at this time.
7 THE COURT: Well , that's fine. I think it is great if
8 you all can resolve those without confusing me. So , I think
9 that's fine. And we will just consider that those motions are
10 withdrawn at this point and then, if necessary, they can be
11 renewed at a later time. Hopefully it won ' t be necessary.
12 Anything else?
13 MR. PAGLIUCA: No. That ' s fine with counsel for the
14 defendant, your Honor .
15 THE COURT: Okay
16 One other thought that has occurred to me . These are
17 two excellent and prominent law firms and history teaches that
18 good lawyers , like the ones in this case, tend to get
19 committed -- I mean to trials, not to institutions.
20 MR. PAGLIUCA: I am looking at a couple of
21 institutions right now, your Honor.
22 THE COURT: Okay, but it occurs to me we have our
23 schedule which I think is , as far as I know, still makes sense
24 and is the one that we entered back in October and I think that
25 still makes sense , but it does seem to me that it would also

A-233
9
1 make sense perhaps to book a time when counsel would be
2 committed so that we don't have the problem of somebody popping
3 up and saying, well , I have got another case with Judge
4 so-and-so.
5 I was thinking late September early October, how does
6 that sound to you all?
7 MR . PAGLIUCA: Your Honor , this is Ms. Maxwell ' s
8 counsel .
9 I think this may be a premature discussion, your
10 Honor , for two reasons. The first is we have not yet gone
11 through the disclosures that we just received with the detail
12 that we would like to. I believe, though, having done a fairly
13 quick review of the documents produced that it is unlikely, in
14 my opinion, that fact discovery will be completed by July 1 .
15 And I say that, your Honor, because at sort of the tip of the
16 iceberg here is that there are a number of witnesses that
17 appear to be living in other countries and we are going to need
18 to discuss how we are going to be able to conduct discovery
19 related to those witnesses.
20 There are a lot of witnesses in this case and given
21 the recent document production, I think it is going to take
22 some time to complete first the fact discovery and then have
23 expert discovery completed. So , my guess, your Honor, is that
24 we are probably looking at realistically pushing discovery in
25 this case until October, I would say, and then setting a trial

A-234
10
1 date after that. That's my best guess at this point.
2 THE COURT: What's the plaintiff ' s view of that?
3 MS. McCAWLEY: Your Honor, this is Sigrid Mccawley for
4 the plaintiff.
5 We have been obviously trying to push discovery
6 forward. We have served our initial requests for production
7 back in October of this year and, again, while the Court
8 granted our motion to compel in part last week , we haven ' t
9 received any more documents. We are trying to move discovery
10 forward, as you know, as quickly as we can. We hoped to be
11 done by July, that is our goal. We would like to go to trial
12 in late September or early October.
13 THE COURT: Well, let ' s do this. Let ' s set a trial
14 date recognizing that it's not in stone and it certainly can
15 be -- can be and may well be pushed back. But , let ' s keep the
16 present schedule . It may be purely hopeful.
17 By the way, if we change it and you all do not agree
18 as to the change, just let me say if somebody comes forward and
19 presumably it would be the defense but I don ' t know, it could
20 also be the plaintiff , but if somebody comes forward with a
21 good faith showing as to an effort to comply with the schedule
22 and an inability because of Hague Convention problems or other
23 problems or whatever, we can change it but just so that nobody
24 gets ahead of us in terms of your commitments, how about a
25 tentative trial date of October 17th and hold that time? Of

A-235
11
1 course we don ' t know at this juncture how long the trial is but
2 I am guessing a week, somewhere in the area of a week. And if
3 counsel would just hold that time until it's changed, if it is
4 changed, I would be grateful. And then I won ' t be faced with
5 the problem of your commitment somewhere else .
6 How does that sound?
7 MS. MCCAWLEY: This is Sigrid Mccawley for the
8 plaintiff, your Honor .
9 That sounds great. Thank you .
10 THE COURT: Okay. All right. Anything else we should
11 try to deal with this afternoon?
12 MR. PAGLIUCA: No. I think we are fine , your Honor .
13 THE COURT: Okay, we are all set?
14 MS. MCCAWLEY: Thank you, your Honor .
15 THE COURT: Well, you have the court reporter, it is
16 Pamela Utter , and I am sure you will want to get her
17 contribution to all of this.
18 Okay. Thanks a lot. I appreciate your courtesy and
19 cooperation and I look forward to getting whatever you want to
20 give me .
21 Thank you.
22 MS. MCCAWLEY: Thank you .
23 MR. PAGLIUCA: Have a good afternoon , your Honor ,
24 THE COURT: Okay. Bye-bye .
25 o0o

A-236
401 EAST LAS OLAS BOULEVARD SUITE 1200• FORT LAUDERDALE. FL 33301-2211 • PH. 954.356.001 • FAX 954.356.0022

June 28, 2016
ViaCM/ECF

500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10007

Dear Judge Sweet:

Motion for Defendant's Rule 37(b) &(c) Sanctions for Failure to Comply with Court Order and
Failure to Comply to Rule 26(a) and certain accompanying exhibits under seal pursuant to this

A/4--.l.k J?L@z_

WWW.BSFLLP.COM
A-237
BOIES . SCHILLER & F L E X NE R LL P

401 EAST LAS OLAS BOULEVARD• SUITE 1200 • FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301- 2 211 • PH. 954.356.0011 • FAX 954.356.0022

June 28, 2016
Via CM/ECF

500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10007

Case no. 15-cv-07433-RWS- Regarding Protective Order
Dear Judge Sweet:

Motion to Reopen Plaintiffs Deposition and certain accompanying exhibits under seal pursuant
to this Court's Protective Order (DE 62).

~J:u/.,_

WWW.BSFLLP.COM
A-238
B O I E S , SCH I L L E R &. F' L EX N E R LL P
l • H - : ... • •
l ; •
June 28, 2016
ViaCM/ECF
Honorable Judge Robert W . Sweet

500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10007
Re: Giuffre v. Maxweil,

Dear Judge Sweet:
This is a letter motion to file Ms. Giuffre' s Response in Opposition to Defendant's

Motion for Defendant's Rule 37(b) &(c) Sanctions for Failure to Comply with Court Order and
Failure to Comply to Rule 26(a) and certain accompanying exhibits under seal pursuant to this

~.1.k J?Lf2J~
Meredith Schultz, Esq. 5 ~ c9t_ t Ccz_-\_[) {(

_/)ttt~-·v (JS DJ
' 7-.5-/5)
WWW .BSFLLP .COM

A-239
B O I E S . S C H I L L E R & F L E X N E R L L P
401 EAST LAS OLAS BOULEVARD • SUITE 1200• FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301-2211 • PH. 954.356.001 • FA X 954.356.0022

July 12, 2016
Via CM/ECF

500 Pearl Street
New York, NY I 0007

Dear Judge Sweet,
This is a letter motion to file Ms. Giuffre's Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File a Sur-
Reply and accompanying exhibit under seal pursuant to this Court's Protective Order (DE 62).

Numerous materials have been marked as confidential in this case. As Ms. Giuffre's
Motion for Leave to File a Sur-Reply and accompanying exhibit contain material that the parties
have designated as confidential, she seeks leave to file it under seal.
~ / (Jc__ cf?L-f'/2.
cc: Laura Menninger and Jeffrey Pagliuca via CM/ECF
WWW .BSFLLP .COM

A-240
June 28, 2016
Via CM/ECF USDCSDNY

DOCUMENT
ELECTRONJCALLY FILED
DOC#: f
500 Pearl Street DATE FILED: ·7 ( -~ I lr~
New York, NY 10007

Dear Judge Sweet:

Motion to Reopen Plaintiff's Deposition and certain accompanying exhibits under seal pursuant
to this Court's Protective Order (DE 62).

See Protective Order (DE 62) signed on March 17, 2016, at p . 4. The parties have designated
~J:L£/~

WWW .8 SFL L P.C O M

A-241
•i'I Davis '(vright

L.. Tremaine
- ~·
LLP
~!!!,i:i,m
2J~6tlt~
2 .s 016 I
USDCSDNY . - . _J
DOCUMENT JUDGE SWEET CH4MBERS
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
July 5, 2016 DOC#: \
DATE FILED: I \ ~\ l \.a
U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York
500 Pearl Street
New York, New York
Re: Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 15-cv-7433- Subpoena to Sharon Churcher
Dear Judge Sweet:
This finn represents non-party Sharon Churcher, who has been subpoenaed in the above-
referenced case. As Your Honor is aware, Ms. Churcher has filed a motion to quash the
subpoena (Dkt. Nos. 215-18 (the "Motion")), for which argument was heard on June 23, 2016.
We make this letter motion to request leave of the Court to:
1) File a post-hearing Reply brief in further support of the motion (the "Reply"). We
have consulted with counsel for the parties in the case, and all consent to this filing.
2) File portions of the Reply under seal pursuant to the Protective Order entered in this
case. (Dkt. No. 62 (the "Protective Order").)
Leave to File Reply Brief
As I stated at the argument on the Motion on June 23, at that point, counsel for Churcher
had access only to the publicly-filed redacted version of Defendant's Response to the Motion,
which was filed the evening of June 22, 2016. (Dkt. No. 246 (the "Response")). Accordingly,
we were not able to respond to the substance of the Defendant's arguments at the hearing or in a
brief. Although we had previously offered (via email to Defendants's counsel) to sign an
acknowledgment of the Protective Order entered in this case, and thereby gain access to
confidential documents as counsel to a potential witness in the case (see Protective Order ,i,i 5.a.
& 5.g.), Defendant's counsel did not respond to our offer. Subsequent to the argument, we
provided the parties with a signed acknowledgment of the Protective Order, and on the evening
of June 24, 2016, Defendant's counsel provided us with Defendant' s full, unredacted response to
the motion to quash.
Because the Court has already held a hearing on the motion, but Churcher did not have
access to the full Response at that time, it is not clear when a further reply brief (if any) would be
technically due. We therefore request leave of the Court to file today a post-hearing Reply in
~e 07__J_,~lt
I
N !;o.VY01k
Portlan<J
Sa.n Franc,sco
Shanghai
Y✓ashington, 0 .C /Z rvJ<z E~:/itco~J
7- t I- f £
A-242
July 5, 2016
Page 2
further support of the Motion (and in response to the arguments raised in Defendant's unredacted
Response). We are filing a redacted version of the Reply on ECF simultaneously with this Letter
Motion.
Leave to File Reply Brief Under Seal
Churcher also moves to file portions of the Reply under seal pursuant to the Protective
Order.
Whenever a party seeks to tile any document or material

containing CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION with the Court in
this matter, it shall be accompanied by a Motion to Seal pursuant
to Section 6.2 of the Electronic Case Filing Rules & Instructions
for the Southern District of New York.
See Protective Order at p. 4. The parties have designated certain information confidential
pursuant to the Protective Order, including portions of Defendant's Response to the Motion and
certain exhibits to the accompanying declaration of Laura A. Menninger (Dkt. Nos. 246,247),
which were filed under seal. The Reply incorporates some of this Confidential Information.
Accordingly, Ms. Churcher seeks leave to file the Confidential Information under seal.
We thank Your Honor for your time and attention to these requests, and are prepared to
submit or discuss anything further if it would be helpful to the Court.
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
/s/ Eric J. Feder
cc: Parties' counsel (via CM/ECF)

A-243

July 13, 2016
Via CM/ECF

500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10007

Case no. 15-cv-07433-RWS – Regarding Protective Order
Dear Judge Sweet,
This is a letter motion to file Ms. Giuffre’s Motion for an Adverse Inference Instruction
Pursuant to Rule 37(b), (e), and (f), Fed. R. Civ. P., and certain accompanying exhibits under
seal pursuant to this Court's Protective Order (DE 62).

Motion for an Adverse Inference Instruction Pursuant to Rule 37(b), (e), and (f), Fed. R. Civ. P.,
and certain accompanying exhibits contain material that the parties have designated as
confidential, she seeks leave to file it under seal.
/s/ Meredith Schultz____

\
A-244
- - -
BOJES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
July 12, 2016
Via CM/ECF
USDCSDNY EET CHAMBERS
Honorable Judge Robert W. Sweet DOCUMENT
District Court Judge ELECTRONICALLY FILED
United States District Court DOC#: ---==ri---:,e:-+-r--,,,~
500 Pearl Street ·
New York, NY 10007
DATE FILED:

Case no. 15-cv-07433-RWS-Regarding Protective Order
Dear Judge Sweet,
This is a letter motion to file Ms. Giuffre's Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Sur-
Reply and accompanying exhibit under seal pursuant to this Court's Protective Order (DE 62).

Numerous materials have been marked as confidential in this case. As Ms. Giu:ffi'e1s
Motion for Leave to File a Sur-Reply and accompanying exhibit contain material that the parties
have designated as confidential, she seeks leave to file it under seal.
~.,:'4-
WWW .SSFLLP .COM

A-245

July 13, 2016
Via CM/ECF USDCSDNY

Honorable Judge Robert W. Sweet DOCUMENT
District Court Judge ELECTRONTf'/d I Y FILED
United States District Court DOC#: r
500 Pearl Street
DATE FILED:7 1-r1-1 j / ( /)
New York, NY 10007

Dear Judge Sweet,
This is a letter motion to file Ms. Giuffre's Motion for an Adverse Inference Instruction
Pursuant to Rule 37(b), (e), and (f), Fed. R. Civ. P., and certain accompanying exhibits under
seal pursuant to this Court's Protective Order (DE 62).

Motion for an Adverse Inference Instruction Pursuant to Rule 37(b), (e), and (f), Fed. R. Civ. P.,
and certain accompanying exhibits contain material that the parties have designated as
Isl Meredith Schultz
cc: Laura Menninger and Jeffrey Pagliuca via CMIECF

\
A-246
JUL-08-2016 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS
FRI 05:34 PM HADDON FOREMANDocument 285 FAX
Filed
NO.07/15/16 Page 1 of 2
3038321015 P. 02
•
.
ffi1 ~J
!a~!~fu~ [ill, =n Le ura A. enninger
,.c
HADDON JUDGE SWEET CHAMBERS Avenue

M08.GAN ' 0 80203
Ptl 303.831,7364 FX 303,832.2628
FOltEM.\..N .
www.nmflaw.com
lmenninger@nmnaw.com
---------·---
July 8, 2016
r USDC SDNY -- -7
Via Fncsimile (212) 805-7925 I
1
DOCUME1'f'f
ELECTRONICA.T..! Y FILED
DOC#;
United States District Court i DATE FILED;
Ne_w York, New York 10007-1312
Dear Judge Sweet:
This is a letter motion to file Ms. Maxwell's exhibits to the Declaration of Laura A.
Menninger In Support Of Reply lo Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion to
Reopen Plaintiffs Deposition and the Declaration of Laura A. Menninger In Support
Of Defendant's Reply In Support Of Motion for Rule 37(b) &(c) Sanctions For
Failure To Comply With Court Order And Failure To Comp]y With Rule 26(a) under
seal pursuant to this Court's Protectjve Order (Doc.# 62).

CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION with the Court jn this matter, it shall be
See Protective Order (DE 62) signed on March 17, 2016, at p. 4. Exhibits contain
content designated ;,is confidential by the parties pursuant to the Protective Order.
Ms. MaxweJI therefore requests permission to file the Confidential information under
seal.
A-247
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS
PM HADDON FOREMANDocument 285 FAX
Filed
NO. 07/15/16
3038321015Page 2 of 2
.
JUL-08-2016 FRI 05:35 P. 03

July8,2016
Page 2
Sincerely,
Isl Laura A. Menninger

Laura A. Menninger
I certify that on July 8, 2016, I electronically served this LETTER MOTION

Sigrid S. Mccawley Paul G. Cassell

Meredith Schultz 383 S. University Street
BOIES, SCHll...L.t:•:R & FLEXNER, LLP Salt Lake City, UT 84112
40 l East Las Olas Boulev,trd, Ste. 1200 cassellp@law.utah.edu
mschultz@bsfllp.com
Bradley J_ Edwards 49 Twin Lakes Rd.
FARMER, JAFFE, WEJSSTNG, EDWARDS, South Salem, NY 10590
FTSTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. StanPottinger@aol.com
Isl Nicole Simmons
Nicole Simmons
A-248
~Ut-13;2018
CaseWED 03:35 PM HADDON FOREMAN
1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 286 Filed 07/15/16 Page 1 of 2
FAX NO. 3038321015
P. 02
I{ A D P O N
M: 0.1. GAN
FOREMAN
July 13, 2016

USDCSDNY
Via Facsimile (212) 805•792S
DOCUMENT
Hon. Robert W. Sweet ELECTRONIC "-I.I Y FILED
United States District Judge DOC#:
United States District Court DATE FILE-•'D~ --rt--r--r--t-T--r---
Dear Judge Sweet:
This is a letter motion to file Ms. MaxwelJ's Letter Motion requesting the Court to
strike and disregard Plaintiff's Sur-Reply in Response to Defendant's Reply in
Support of Motion for Sanctions, or in the alternative, permit Ms. Maxwell to file a
Sur Sur•Rep)y under seal pursuant to this Court's Protective Order (Doc. # 62).

CONFIDENTIAL JNFORMA TION with the Court in this matter, it shall be
See Protective Order (Doc. # 62) signed on March 17, 2016, at p. 4. The Letter
Motion contains content designated as confidential by the parties pursuant to the
Protective Order.
Ms. Maxwell therefore requests permission tu file the I ,ctter Motion under seal.
A-249
A~UL-13~2016 WED1:15-cv-07433-RWS
Case 03:35 PM HADDON FOREMAN
Document 286 Filed 07/15/16 Page 2 of 2
FAX NO. 3038321015
P. 03

July 13,2016
Page 2
Sincerely,
Isl laura A. Menninger

Laura A. Menninger
I certify that on July 13, 2016, 1 electronically served this LEITER MOTION
Sigrid S. Mccawley Paul G. Cassell

BOIES, SCHILLER & FLr:XNER, LLP Salt Lake City, OT 84112
40 l East Las Olas Boulevard, Ste. 1200 cassellp@la.w.utah.edu
smccawley@bstllp.com
mschultz@bsfllp.co1n
Bradley .l. Edwards 49 Twin Lakes Rd.
FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, South Salem, NY 10590
FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. StanPottinger@aol.com
ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Isl Nicole Simmons
Nicole Simmons
A-250
B O I E S . S CH I L L E R & F L E X N E R L L P
401 EAST LAS OLAS BOULE V ARD• SUITE 1200• FORT LAUDERDALE FL 33301-22 I • PH 954356.00 • FAX 954.3560022
Meredith Sch ultz, Esq.

Email: mschultz@.bstllp.com
July 18, 2016
Via CM/ECF

Di strict Court Judge
500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10007

Dear Judge Sweet,
This is a letter motion to file Ms. Giuffre's Response in Opposition to Defendant's improper
letter motion to strike Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Motion for an Adverse Inference Instruction Pursuant
to Rule 37(B), (E), and (F), Fed. R. Civ. P., and certain accompanying exhibits under seal pursuant to
this Court's Protective Order (DE 62).

INFORMATION with the Court in this matter, it shall be accompanie3d by a Motion to
Numerous materials have been marked as confidential in this case. As Ms. Giuffre's Motion for
an Adverse Inference Instruction Pursuant to Rule 37(b), (e), and (f), Fed. R. Civ. P., and certain
accompanying exhibits contain material that the parties have designated as confidential, she seeks leave
to file it under seal.
Meredith Schultz, Esq .
WWW.BSFLLP .COM
A-251
B O J E S, S C H I L L E R & F L E X N E R L L P
40\ FA ST LA.~, OL.A.S BDULEV.:•,RC• SJ i TE l2()Dt F OFtT L. ,:...UJEF~ D/:,L._[ F L :3.33 0 2 :'.!. • F;H 9\~4-.356 .00 • F/-_X 9::;L.:_3550,:,,;22
.com
July 18, 2016 ID)~@~ ~ WJ

Via Cl\:1/ECF w JUL 182016
District Court Judge JUDGE SWf:El' CH/.t ~N3ERS
500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10007

Dear Judge Sweet,
This is a letter motion to file Ms. Giuffre's Response in Opposition to Defendant's improper
letter motion to strike Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre' s Motion for an Adverse Inference Instruction Pursuant
to Rule 37(B), (E), and (F), Fed. R. Civ. P., and certain accompanying exhibits under seal pursuant to
this Court's Protective Order (DE 62).

INFORMATION with the Court in this matter, it shall be accompanie3d by a Motion to
an Adverse Inference Instruction Pursuant to Rule 37(b), (e), and (f), Fed. R. Civ. P., and certain
accompanying exhibits contain material that the parties have designated as confidential, she seeks leave
to file it under seal.
WWW .BS FLLP. COM

A-252
B O I E S . S C H t L L E R & F L E X N E R L L P
401 EAST LAS OLAS BOULEVARD• SUITE 1200 • FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301- 2211 • PH. 954.356.001 I • FAX 954.356.002 2

July 25, 2016
ViaCM/ECF

500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10007

Dear Judge Sweet,
This is a letter motion to file Ms. Giuffre's Motion for an Extension of Time to Serve Process
Upon and Depose Ross Gow and certain accompanying exhibits under seal pursuant to this Court's

an Extension of Time to Serve Process Upon and Depose Ross Gow and certain accompanying exhibits
contain material that the parties have designated as confidential, she seeks leave to file it under seal.
~/?-~
WWW.BSFLlP.COM
A-253
B O I E S , S C H I L L E R & F L E X N E R L L p
401 EAST L AS OLAS BOULEVARD• SUITE 1200• FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301 - 221 • PH. 954.356.00 I• FAX 954.356.0022

Email : mschultz@bsfllp.com
July 29, 2016
ViaCM/ECF

500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10007

Dear Judge Sweet,
This is a letter motion to file the exhibit accompanying Ms. Giuffre's Notice of
Supplemental Authority under seal pursuant to this Court's Protective Order (DE 62).

accompanied by a Motion to Seal pursuant to Section 6.2 of the Electronic Case
Numerous materials have been marked as confidential in this case. As the exhibit
accompanying Ms. Giuffre's Notice of Supplemental Authority contains material designated as
WWW.BSFLLP.COM
A-254
B O I E S . S C H I L L E R & F L E X N E R L L P
401 EAST LAS OLAS BOULEVARD• SUITE 1200 • FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301 22 1 • PH . 954.356.00 1 • FAX 954 .356.0022

July 29, 2016
Via CM/ECF

500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10007

Dear Judge Sweet,
This is a letter motion to file Ms. Giuffre's Motion to Compel Defendant to Answer Deposition
Questions Filed Under Seal and certain accompanying exhibits under seal pursuant to this Court's

Numerous materials have been marked as confidential in this case. As Ms. Giuffre's Motion to
Compel Defendant to Answer Deposition questions Filed Under Seal and certain accompanying exhibits
. /'
/~//4_ .
WWW .BSFLLP .COM

A-255
-
B O J E s .. S C I-I I L 1..: E R & F L E X N E R L L P
-
,
.
- -
401 EAST LAS OLAS BOULEVARD• SUITE 1200• FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301-2211• PH . 954.356.001 1 • FAX 954.356 .0022
Meredith Schultz, &q.

July 25, 2016
ViaCM/ECF Courtesy Copy

Honorable Judge Robert W. S
iDJ~©~IlW~I])
500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10007
I~ JUL 2720167 ill)
L - -- - - - _ J
Re: Giuffre v. Maxw

JUDGE SWEE-, CHAMBERS
Case no.15-cv-07433-RWS- Regarding Protective Orde
Dear Judge Sweet,
This is a letter motion to file Ms. Giuffre's Motion for an Extension of Time to Serve Process
Upon and Depose Ross Gow and certain accompanying exhibits under seal pursuant to this Court's

INFORMATION with the Court in this matter, it shall be accompanied by a Motion to ·
an Extension of Time to Serve Process Upon and Depose Ross Gow and certain accompanying exhibits
//4--/4- JiL,{
WWW .BS FL LP .CO M

A-256
B4 0 1OE A SI T E S ,
LAS OLAS
S C H I L L E R & F L E X N E R L L P
BLVD.* SUITE 1200* FT. LAUDERDALE, FL 33301* 954-356-0011* FAX 954-356-0022
401 EAST LAS OLAS BLVD.* SUITE 1200* FT. LAUDERDALE, FL 33301* PH. 954-356-0011* FAX 954-356-0022

August 1, 2016
Via CM/ECF

500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10007

Case No. 15-cv-07433-RWS – Regarding Protective Order
Dear Judge Sweet,
This is a letter motion to file Plaintiff’s Proposed Search Terms under seal pursuant to this

Numerous materials have been marked as confidential in this case. As Plaintiff’s Proposed
Search Terms and certain accompanying exhibits contain material that the parties have designated as
/s/ Meredith Schultz___


A-257
JUL-25-2016 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS
Filed
NO, 08/02/16 Page 1 of 2
3038321015 P. 02
r...-::::.:.-::::::::-..:.......-...- - - - ·--
USDCSDNY
-,lJMENT
I...)oc
Haddon. M on and Foreman. P.c
Laura A. Menninger
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
If A D I'> 0 N
MO ll GAN
· · · #: .-------;:;;r
\ DOC --r--r-
-,;:--;:-D 1.SO East 10th Avenue
ver, Colorado 80203
D/(fE l<'lLED: --E+f2..?.::~ -. 364www.hrnflaw.com
FX 303.832.2628
\ ___..--...:::::::=:.:::::·-
FOREMAN
lmenninger@hmflow.com
July 25, 2016

ID) ~ ©~ nw~ fjy
~ JUL 25 2U16 lliJ
Via Facsimile (212} 805-7925

United States District Court JUDGE SWEET CHAMBERS
Daniel Patrick Moynihan CourthOLJse
500 Pearl Street., Ruum 1940
Dear Judge Sweet:
This is a letter motion to tile Ms. Maxwell's Sur Sur-Reply In Supporl of Motion for
Rule 37(b) & (c) Sanclions exhibits under seal pursuant to this Court's Protective
Order (Doc. # 62).
Whenever a paity seeks to file any document or material containing

CONFIDENTIAL TNFORMATION with the Court in this matter, it shall be
accompanied by u Motion to Seal pursuant to Section 6.2 of the Electronic
Case Filing Rules & Instructions for the Southern District ofNew York.
See Protective Order (Doc. # 62) signed on March 17, 2016, at p. 4. The Letter
Motion contains content designated as confidential by the parties pursuant to the
Protective Order. ·
Ms. Maxwell therefore requests permission to file the Letter Motion under seal.
A-258
JUL-25-2016 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS
Filed
NO.08/02/16
3038321 01Page
5 2 of 2 P. 03

July 25, 2016
Page 2
Sincerdy,
Isl Laura A. Mennin[?er

Laura A. Menninger
1 certify that on July 25, 2016, I clectronicully served this LETTER MOTION
via ELECTRONIC MATL on the following:

BOlES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP Salt Lake City, UT 84112
401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Ste. 1200 cassellp@Iaw.utah.edu
mschultz@bsfllp.com
FARMER, JAFFE, WElSSING, EDWARDS, South Salem, NY 10590
FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. StanPottinger@aoJ.com
Isl Nicole Simmons
Nicole Simmons
A-259
AUG-01-2016 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS
MON 04:IJ PM HADDON FOREMANDocument 329 FAX
Filed
NO. 08/02/16 Page 1 of 2
3038321015 P. 02
Hoddon , Morgan and Foreman, t.c

laura A. Mennin ger
150 Easl i0lh Avenue

H/i.D OON Denver, Colorad o 80203
MOR GAN CH 303.83 J.7~64 fx 303.832.2628
FOREM AN" www.hm flaw.co m
lmenninger@hrnHaw.com
Augt1st 1, 20 I 6
m?rA: ~l~~~[ID
Via Facsimile (212) 805-7 925

United States District Court --- -l
Daniel Patrick Moyn ihan Courthouse
Southern District of New York JUDGE SWEET CHAMBERS
New York, New York )0007 -1312
Re: Giuffr e v. Maxwell, 15-cv-07433-RWS
Dear Judge Sweet:

ding "Search Terms"
This is a letter motio n to file Ms. Maxwell's Submission Regar
sic Examination of
and Notice of Comp liance with Court Order Concerning Foren
to this Court 's
Computer Device and supporting exhibits under seal pursua nt
Protective Order (Doc. # 62),

ning
Whenever a party seeks to file any document or material contai
with the Court in thi~ matter , it shall be
CONF IDEN TIAL INFORMATION
pursua nt to Sectio n 6.2 of the Electr onic
accompanied by a Motion to Seal
the South ern Distric t of New York.
Case Filing Rules & Instructions for
4. The Submission
See Protective Order (Doc. # 62) signed on March 17, 2016, at p. nt to the
parties pnrsua
and exhibits contain content designated as Confidential by the
Protective Order.
and exhibits under
Ms. Maxwell therd' ore requests permission to file the Submission
seal. ,S/ 0 ~-/:~
'C~
c'
;J' '1,..,
f e ( .s,_
A-260
AUG-01-2016 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS
MON 04:lJ PM HADDON FOREMANDocument 329 FAX
Filed
NO,08/02/16 Page 2 of 2
3038321015 P. 03
Hon. Rober t W. Sweet

Augu st 1, 2016
Page 2
Sincerely,
HADD ON, MORG AN ANP FOREMAN, P.C.
Isl Laura A. Menninxer

Laura A. Menn inger
this LETTER MOT ION
I certif y that on August 1, 2016, I electr onica lly serve d
via ELEC TRON IC MAIL on the following:
Sigrid S. Mcca wley Paul G. Cassell

Mere dith Schul tz 383 S. University Street
Bo11,s, SCHILLER & FLEXN 8R, LLP Salt Lake City, UT 84112
401 East Las O!as Boule vard, Ste. 1200 cassellp@Jaw.i1tah.edu
Ft. Laude rdale, FL 33301
smcca wley@ bsfllp .com
mschu ltz@b sfllp.c om
.T. Stanley Pottin ger
Bradl ey J. Edwa rds 49 Twin Lakes Rd.
FARM ER, JAFFE, WEJSS!NG, EDW ARD S, South Salem , NY 10590
FIST OS & LEHR MAN , P.l,. StanPottinger@aol.com
Ft. Laude rdale, FL 3330 l
brad@ pathto justic e.com
Isl Nicole Simmons
Nicole Simm ons
A-261
July 29, 2016
ViaCM/ECF

United States District Comt
500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10007
Re: Giuffre ,,. Maxwell

Dear Judge Sweet,
This is a letter motion to file the exhibit accompanying Ms. Giuffre's Notice of
Supplemental Authority under seal pursuant to this Court's Protective Order (DE 62).

Numerous materials have been marked as confidential in this case. As the exhibit
accompanying Ms. Giuffre's Notice of Supplemental Authority contains material designated as
~ ~ 4 - ~S?d4
W WW.BSFL LP.C O M
A-262
B O I E S , S C H I L L E R & F L E X N E R L L p
40 1 EAST LAS OLAS BOULEVARD• SUITE 1200 • FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301- 2211 • PH.954.356.001 1 , FAX 954.356.0022

August 8, 2016
Via CM/ECF

500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10007

Case No. 15-cv-07433-RWS-Regarding Protective Order
Dear Judge Sweet,
This is a letter motion to file Ms. Giuffre's Motion for Protective Order And Motion For the
Court To Direct Defendant To Disclose All Individuals To Whom Defendant Has Disseminated
Confidential Information and certain accompanying exhibits under seal pursuant to this Court's

Numerous materials have been marked as confidential in this case. As Ms. Giuffre's Giuffre's
Motion for Protective Order And Motion For the Court To Direct Defendant To Disclose All Individuals
To Whom Defendant Has Disseminated Confidential Infom1ation and certain accompanying exhibits
WWW.BSFLLP.COM
A-263
B O I E S , S C H I L L E R & F L E X N E R L L P
401 EAST LAS OLAS BOULEVARD• SUITE 1200 • FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301 2 2 1I • PH. 954.356.00 I • FA X 954.356.002 2

August 8, 2016
Via CM/ECF

500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10007

Case No. 15-cv-07433-RWS - Regarding Protective Order
Dear Judge Sweet,
This is a letter motion to file Plaintiffs Supplement to Motion For Adverse Inference Instruction
Based on New Information and certain accompanying exhibits under seal pursuant to this Court's

Numerous materials have been marked as confidential in this case. As Plaintiff's Supplement to
Motion For Adverse Inference Instruction Based On New Information and certain accompanying
exhibits contain material that the parties have designated as confidential, she seeks leave to file it under
seal.
~k cf:1~
WWW.BSFLLP.COM
A-264
B O I E S , S C H I LL E R & F L E X N E R L L P
401 EAST I AS OLAS BOULEVARD• SUITE 1200• FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301 - 221 1• PH, 954.356.0011 • FA X 954.356.0022

August 9, 2016
ViaCM/ECF

500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10007

Case No. 15-cv-07433-RWS- Regarding Protective Order
Dear Judge Sweet,
This is a letter motion to file Ms. Giuffre's Motion to Compel the Production of Documents
Subject to Improper Objection and Improper Claim of Privilege and certain accompanying exhibits
under seal pursuant to this Court's Protective Order (DE 62).

Numerous materials have been marked as confidential in this case. As Ms. Giuffre's Motion to
Compel the Production of Documents Subject to Improper Objection and Improper Claim of Privilege
and certain accompanying exhibits contain material that the parties have designated as confidential, she
seeks leave to file it under seal.
WWW .BSFLLP .COM

A-265

----------------------------------------x
Plaintiff,
15 Civ. 7433 (RWS)
- against -
STANDING ORDER
GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
Defendant.
----------------------------------------x
Sweet, D.J.
ordered that letter motions to file submissions under seal
pursuant to the Court's Protective Order, ECF No. 62, are
grante d. Th e Protective Orde r is amende d a ccordingly such that
fili ng a l ette r motion seeki ng sealing for e ach submiss i on is no
longer necessary. A party wishing to challenge the sealing of
any particular submission may do so by motion.
It i s so ordered.
August r,
New York, NY
2016
U.S.D.J.
A-266
BO I E S. SCHILLER & FL E X N ER LL P
401 EAST LAS OLAS BOULEVARD• SUITE 1200 • FORT LAUDERDALE. FL 3330 1- 22 1I • PH . 954 .356.00 ' I• FAX 954.356.0022
chultz, Esq.
bsfll .com
August 8, 2016
Via CM/ECF

500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10007
Re:
Dear Judge Sweet,
This is a letter motion to file Plaintiff's Supplement to Motion For Adverse Inference Instruction
Based on New Information and certain accompanying exhibits under seal pursuant to this Court's

Southern District ofNew York.
Numerous materials have been marked as confidential in this case. As Plaintiff's Supplement to
Motion For Adverse Inference Instruction Based On New Information and certain accompanying
exhibits contain material that the parties have designated as confidential, she seeks leave to file it under
seal.
WWW.BSFLLP.COM
A-267
B O I E S, S C H I L L E R & F L E X N E R L L p
401 EAS T LAS OLAS BOULEVARD• SUITE 1200 • FORT L AUD ERDA L E. F L 33301-2 211 • PH. 954.356.001 1 . FAX 954 .356.0022
August 8, 2016
Via CM/ECF JUDGE SWEET

;
CHAMBERS
.. .. ,

D istrict Court Judge
500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10007
Re:
Dear Judge Sweet,
This is a letter motion to file Ms. Giuffre's Motion for Protective Order And Motion For the
Court To Direct Defendant To Disclose All Individuals To Whom Defendant Ilas Disseminated
Confidential Information and certain accompanying exhibits under seal pursuant to this Court's

Numerous materials have been marked as confidential in this case. As Ms. Giuffre's Giuffre's
Motion for Protective Order And Motion For the Court To Direct Defendant To Disclose All Individuals
To Whom Defendant Has Disseminated Confidential Information and certain accompanying exhibits
contain material that the parties h ave designated as confidential, she seeks leave to file it under seal.
WWW.BSFLLP,COM
A-268

--------------------------------------------------X
.............................................
Plaintiff,
v.
15-cv-07433-RWS
GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
Defendant.
--------------------------------------------------X
Defendant’s Motion to Compel Responses to

Defendant’s Second Set of Discovery Requests to Plaintiff, and for Sanctions
Laura A. Menninger
Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
HADDON, MORGAN, AND FOREMAN, P.C.
East 10th Avenue
Denver, CO 80203
303.831.7364
A-269
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .................................................................................................... 1
ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 2
I. PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORY RESPONSES ARE DEFICIENT. .............................. 2
II. PLAINTIFF’S ANSWERS TO THE REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ARE DEFICIENT.

............................................................................................................................................. 21
III. PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION ARE DEFICIENT. 25
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 35
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ..................................................................................................... 37
i
A-270
Cases
Bauman v. 2810026 Canada Ltd., No. 15-CV-374A(F), 2016 WL 402645, at *1 (W.D.N.Y. Feb.
3, 2016) ..................................................................................................................................... 14
Bruno v. CSX Transp., Inc., 262 F.R.D. 131, 133-34 (W.D.N.Y. 2009) ...................................... 15
Pokigo v. Target Corporation, 2014 WL 6885905, at **2-3 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 8, 2014) .............. 15
Walls v. Paulson, 250 F.R.D. 48 (D.D.C. 2008) ........................................................................... 33
Rules
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(1)................................................................................................................. 34
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(3)................................................................................................................. 34
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5) ................................................................................................................. 34
ii
A-271
Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell moves under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(3)(B)
to compel Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre to provide responsive answers to Ms. Maxwell’s Second Set
of Discovery Requests, attached as Exhibit A to Declaration of Laura A. Menninger
(“Menninger Decl.”).
Certificate of conferral. Undersigned counsel certifies counsel for Ms. Maxwell has
conferred with Plaintiff’s counsel regarding the subject matter of this Motion. Based on the
conferral, Plaintiff’s counsel wrote a letter declining to supplement any of the responses to the
Second Set of Discovery Requests.
Plaintiff has brought a lawsuit alleging Ms. Maxwell defamed her. The defamation
consisted of Ms. Maxwell’s defensive statements denying Plaintiff’s repeated, false allegations
that Ms. Maxwell had subjected plaintiff to “sex trafficking” while Plaintiff was 15 years old.
Plaintiff alleged in her Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iii) disclosures that she has suffered noneconomic injury
of “not less than” $30 million, medical expenses of “not less than” $100,000, and lost earnings of
“not less than” $5 million.1 She also has requested punitive damages of $50 million.
Despite claiming defamation damages exceeding $80 million, Plaintiff routinely has
stonewalled our efforts to obtain basic information about the nature of the alleged defamation
and the scope of her alleged damages. Plaintiff’s frustration of our discovery efforts has impeded
our ability to prepare a defense.
Illustrative is Interrogatory No. 6, propounded on Plaintiff in Ms. Maxwell’s Second Set
of Discovery Requests, which are at issue in this Motion. We are entitled to know each allegedly
defamatory statement that is the subject of this lawsuit. Plaintiff and her counsel have alleged
1
Seven months after claiming she had suffered $5 million in “past and future lost wages” and “past and
future los[t] … earning capacity and actual earnings,” Plaintiff on June 24, 2016, abruptly withdrew all claims for
alleged lost wages, earning capacity and “actual earnings.”
1
A-272
that Ms. Maxwell has published “numerous” false statements, yet Plaintiff stubbornly refuses to
identify each of these allegedly false statements. Interrogatory No. 6 asked simply that for each
allegedly false statement, Plaintiff “identify … the exact false statement.” True to form, Plaintiff
identified only statements referenced in her Complaint and refused to provide any other “exact
false statement[s]” allegedly published by Ms. Maxwell.
ARGUMENT
This Motion concerns improper objections and evasive and other improper responses to
six interrogatories, eleven requests for admissions, and six requests for production of documents.
See Menninger Decl., Ex. B (Plaintiff’s Responses and Objections to Ms. Maxwell’s Second Set
of Discovery Requests). The Court should compel Plaintiff to:
x submit responsive answers to the interrogatories, and identify what information, if

any is being withheld on the basis of which objection;
x answer the requests for admissions in compliance with Rule 36(a)(4);
x for each objection to a request to produce, identify what documents are being
withheld on the basis of which objection; and
x produce all documents that are the subject of requests for production at issue in this
Motion.
We respectfully submit that Plaintiff’s responses were not made in good faith and the
objections were not interposed in good faith and, accordingly, the Court should award
Ms. Maxwell reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in bringing this Motion.
I. Plaintiff’s interrogatory responses are deficient.
Interrogatory No. 5. Identify each Communication that You or Your Attorneys

have had with any author, reporter, correspondent, columnist, writer,
commentator, investigative journalist, photojournalist, newspaper person,
freelance reporter, stringer, or any other employee of any media organization or
independent consultant to the same, including:
a. the date of any such Communication;
b. the form of any such Communication, whether oral or written and if
written, the format of any such Communication;
2
A-273
c. the identities of all persons involved in such Communication, including the

identity of the media organization with whom the agent is or was affiliated;
d. the article title, date of publication, and means of publication of any article,
report, or re-printing of any such Communication made by You or Your
Attorneys;
e. the amount of Income that You and/or Your Attorneys received in
exchange for any such Communication;
f. the dates on which You and/or Your Attorneys received any such Income
for any such Communication.
Response:
3
A-274
Objection 1.2
The interrogatory does not exceed the limit. Plaintiff alleged Interrogatory No. 5 exceeds
the 25-interrogatory limit. Plaintiff is wrong. She failed to take into account that the Second Set
of Discovery Requests merely repeated five (5) interrogatories that were propounded in the First
Set of Discovery Requests. Defendant objected in her Responses to the First Set on the ground
the interrogatories were propounded prematurely. Plaintiff double-counted those interrogatories.
Second, Plaintiff’s argument is wrong because she counted every subpart as a separate
interrogatory, regardless of whether all the subparts are related by subject matter. That is an
improper way to count interrogatories. Rule 33(a)(1) itself provides that for a subpart to count as
a separate interrogatory, it must be “discrete.” Among the courts that have dealt with this issue,
“there has developed a common denominator on how to weigh an interrogatory’s subparts as
independent and discrete.” Bartnick v. CSX Transp., No. 1:11-CV-1120 GLS/TRF, 2012 WL
1565057, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 27, 2012). An interrogatory’s subparts are to be counted as
separate and discrete subparts only “if they are not logically or factually subsumed within and
necessarily related to the primary question,” id. (citing cases).
Further, Local Rule 26.3(c) provides a uniform meaning of “identify” with respect to
persons and documents and requiring the “type,” date, addressee and recipient of documents or,
alternatively, production of same and as to persons, the name, addresses and last known place of
2
Many of Plaintiff’s objections were repeated for numerous interrogatory responses. To avoid repetition in
this Motion, we number each discrete objection serially.
4
A-275
employment. Here, each of the interrogatories—even those like No. 5 with subparts—
propounded by Ms. Maxwell constitute a single interrogatory under Rule 33(a)(1).
Objection 2.
Plaintiff’s unreasonable reading of the interrogatory. Plaintiff objected that the
interrogatory is not limited in “time, manner or subject matter.” The objection is not well taken.
Local Rule 26.4(b) provides in part that “[d]iscovery requests shall be read reasonably”
(emphasis supplied). So read, this interrogatory is limited to communications Plaintiff and her
attorneys have had with media representatives concerning the subject matter of this lawsuit.
Notably, setting aside Plaintiff’s unreasonable interpretation of the interrogatory, Plaintiff
provided no responsive answer whatsoever.
Plaintiff also argued that with respect to her attorneys the interrogatory required the
attorneys to disclose their communications with media representatives “for every year of their
practice, regardless of what case was involved, and regardless of what year the communication
was made.” That is an unreasonable—absurd—interpretation of the interrogatory.
Objection 3.
There is no undue burden. Plaintiff objected that the interrogatory imposes upon her an
“undue burden” because she would have to “catalogue literally hundreds of communications that
she has already produced in this case.” So long as Plaintiff admitted—as she does—that her and
her attorneys’ communications with media representatives regarding the subject matter of this
lawsuit are relevant, she cannot complain of an “undue burden” because she and her attorneys
have communicated “hundreds” of times with media representatives. Such an unreasonable view
of the law would permit a party to resist providing relevant information by claiming she has too
much relevant information.
5
A-276
Objection 4.
The requested information is relevant. Piggybacking on Objection 2, Plaintiff objected
that “Communications with the media regarding cases that bear no relation to the subject matter
of this case, from decades in the past, are … not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence” (emphasis supplied). As already discussed, the interrogatory requested information
about Plaintiff’s and her attorneys’ communications with media representatives concerning the
subject matter of this action. Plaintiff and her attorney’s communications with the media are
directly relevant to numerous defenses available to Ms. Maxwell, including without limitation,
her self-defense privilege, whether Plaintiff is a limited public figure, Ms. Maxwell’s right to fair
comment, that Ms. Maxwell’s comments did not affect Plaintiff’s reputation, Plaintiff’s
contributory negligence, Plaintiff’s failure to mitigate, and Plaintiff’s damages are the proximate
result of her own conduct or the conduct of others.
Objection 5.
No privilege applies. Plaintiff has interposed the attorney-client privilege and the work
product doctrine.3 It is inconceivable that Plaintiff or her attorneys have a good faith basis to
interpose the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine over their communications with
media representatives. In any event, they have failed to explain any factual basis for interposing
the privilege or doctrine.
3
Plaintiff also attempted to interpose “any” objection listed in her “general objections.” In her “general
objections” Plaintiff asserted—generally and redundantly—“any applicable privilege, including but not limited to,
attorney client privilege, work product privilege, joint defense privilege, public interest privilege, and any other
applicable privilege [sic].” Such a broad, general and generic assertion of privilege is ineffective to preserve any
privilege, even if one existed. P. & B. Marina, Ltd. P’ship v. Logrande, 136 F.R.D. 50, 54 (E.D.N.Y. 1991) (“A
general allegation or blanket assertion that the privilege should apply is insufficient to warrant protection.”), aff’d
sub nom. P&B Marina Ltd. v. LoGrande, 983 F.2d 1047 (2d Cir. 1992).
6
A-277
Plaintiff’s deficient answer. “Notwithstanding” her objections, Plaintiff “answered” by
. The vast majority of these documents do not contain any communications
between Plaintiff and her lawyers, on the one hand, and media representatives, on the other. The
answer is improper. See, e.g., In re Ethicon, Inc., Pelvic Repair Sys. Prod. Liab. Litig., No. MDL
2327, 2013 WL 8744561, at *3 (S.D.W. Va. July 26, 2013) (finding interrogatory responses
insufficient where they instructed plaintiffs to search mass of documents for requested
information); Nickerman v. Remco Hydraulics, Inc., No. C 06-2555SI, 2007 WL 3407437, at *3
(N.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2007) (“Despite repeated admonitions against doing so, plaintiffs continue to
provide general and vague responses and to direct defendants to masses of documents…. Neither
defendants nor the Court should be expected to comb through literally thousands of pages of
documents searching for documents that might support plaintiffs’ IIED claims.”).
Interrogatory No. 6. Identify any “false statements” attributed to Ghislaine

Maxwell which were “published globally, including within the Southern District
of New York” as You contend in paragraph 9 of Count 1 of Your Complaint,
including:
a. the exact false statement;
b. the date of its publication;
c. the publishing entity and title of any publication containing the purportedly
false statement;
d. the URL or internet address for any internet version of such publication;
and
e. the nature of the publication, whether in print, internet, broadcast or some
other form of media.
Response:
7
A-278
-
Objection 6.
Plaintiff cannot answer by stating that Ms. Maxwell already has the information.
Plaintiff “object[ed]” to the interrogatory because the answer to the interrogatory, she alleged, “is
in the possession of [Ms. Maxwell]” and her agent, or “is in the public domain.” Such an
objection is improper:
[T]o the extent defendant objects that certain requests … seek information equally
available to plaintiff, “courts have unambiguously stated that this exact objection
is insufficient to resist a discovery request.” St. Paul Reinsurance Co., Ltd., CNA
v. Commercial Fin. Corp., 198 F.R.D. 508, 514 (N.D. Iowa 2000); see also City
Consumer Servs., Inc. v. Horne, 100 F.R.D. 740, 747 (D. Utah 1983) (“It is ‘not
usually a ground for objection that the information is equally available to the
interrogator or is a matter of public record.’” (citation omitted)); United States v.
58.16 Acres of Land, 66 F.R.D. 570, 573 (E.D. Ill.1975) (“Generally, an
interrogatory is proper although the information sought is equally available to
both parties.”). Thus, plaintiff’s motion to compel a response to Interrogatory no.
13 should be granted.
8
A-279
National Acad. of Recording Arts & Scis., Inc. v. On Point Events, LP, 256 F.R.D. 678, 682
(C.D. Cal. 2009).
Subpart objection. Plaintiff argued Ms. Maxwell’s interrogatories exceed the limit. This
already is addressed above in the discussion of Objection 1.
Objection 7.
No privilege applies. Plaintiff objected that the information requested in the interrogatory
is “protected by the attorney-client/work product privilege, and any other applicable privilege.”
The assertion of privilege is frivolous. The interrogatory requested the false statements that
Plaintiff attributes to Ms. Maxwell and that were published anywhere in the world. These
statements are the very subject of this lawsuit. No such statement is subject to a privilege
belonging to Plaintiff.
Plaintiff’s deficient answer. “Notwithstanding” her objections, Plaintiff answered

■
As discussed above, it is improper to answer an
interrogatory by referring to an undifferentiated mass of documents.
Plaintiff also “ .” This answer is
non-responsive. The interrogatory required Plaintiff, among other things, to provide each “exact
false statement” that she attributes to Ms. Maxwell and that was published anywhere in the
world. This entire case centers on Plaintiff’s claim that Ms. Maxwell published false statements
about Plaintiff and now Plaintiff refuses to identify those statements. The question is not
whether Ms. Maxwell knows what statements have been made in the press; the question is which
statements does Plaintiff contend are false.
9
A-280
Interrogatory No. 7. State whether You believe that You have ever been
defamed by anyone other than Ghislaine Maxwell. If so, as to each alleged act of
Defamation, state
a. the exact false statement;
b. the date of its publication;
c. the publishing entity and title of any publication containing the purportedly
false statement;
d. the URL or internet address for any internet version of such publication;
and
e. the nature of the publication, whether in print, internet, broadcast or some
other form of media.
Response:
Subpart objection. This is addressed above in the discussion of Objection 1.
Privilege assertion. This is addressed above in the discussion of Objection 7. For the
same reasons discussed there, this interrogatory does not request any privileged information. It is
inconceivable that a statement about Plaintiff that allegedly is false and published would be
protected from discovery by a privilege held by Plaintiff.
Plaintiff’s deficient answer. “Notwithstanding” her objections, Plaintiff purported to
answer the interrogatory. The answer is woefully deficient. She answered that
10
A-281
, the date of the publication, the publishing entity,
and the other information required in the interrogatory.
As justification for her failure to answer the interrogatory fully, Plaintiff argued
” That
argument is meritless. This interrogatory required Plaintiff to disclose her knowledge as to each
of the interrogatory’s subparts. She improperly failed to disclose this information.
Plaintiff argued that “identification of the numerous publically [sic] made statements
would be unduly burdensome.” She also argued
” Neither was a responsive answer. To the extent they
were offered as objections, they are meritless. See National Acad. of Recording Arts & Scis., 256
F.R.D. at 682 (cited in discussion of Objection 5).
Interrogatory No. 8. Identify the individuals referenced in Your pleadings filed

in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Jane Doe 1 and
Jane Doe 2 v. United States of America, 08-cv-80736-KAM, as the “high-profile
non-party individuals” to whom Mr. Jeffrey Epstein sexually trafficked You,
“including numerous prominent American politicians, powerful business
executives, foreign presidents, a well-known Prime Minister, and other world
leaders,” including as to each episode of alleged sexual trafficking:
a. the date of any such sexual trafficking;
b. the location of any such sexual trafficking;
c. any witnesses to any such sexual trafficking;
d. any Income You received in exchange for such sexual trafficking; and
e. any Documents You have to support or corroborate Your claim of such
sexual trafficking.
Response:
11
A-282
Privilege assertion. This is addressed above in the discussion of Objection 6. It is
inconceivable that any privilege applies to the identities of individuals to whom Plaintiff alleges
she was sexually trafficked. This is a frivolous assertion of privilege.
Plaintiff’s deficient answer. Instead of identifying individuals as required by the
interrogatory, Plaintiff instead “refer[red]”
. This is non-responsive and evasive, in violation
of Rule 37(a)(3). See, e.g., Public Storage v. Sprint Corp., No. CV 14-2594-GW PLAX, 2015
WL 1057923, at *17 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2015) (“Plaintiffs may not answer the interrogatory by
generally referring Defendant to the pleadings filed in this case, documents produced, opt-in
questionnaires, depositions, or declarations…. [A] responding party may not answer an
interrogatory by directing the party propounding the interrogatory to find answers from
12
A-283
previously produced documents or identified witness lists.”), appeal dismissed (Mar. 30, 2016);
Smith v. Trawler Capt. Alfred, Inc., No. 2:12-CV-2866-DCN, 2014 WL 1912067, at *3 (D.S.C.
May 13, 2014) (“Smith’s cursory references to the pleadings, his deposition, and his medical
records are not responsive answers to defendants’ interrogatories.”); DirectTV, Inc. v. Puccinelli,
224 F.R.D. 677, 680 (D. Kan. 2004) (“defendant may not direct plaintiffs to find answers from
previously produced documents or identified witness lists”) (internal quotations omitted).
Interrogatory No. 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;
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;
f. 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:
13
A-284
….[5]
Objection 8.
Pre-1999 medical records are discoverable. Plaintiff had requested damages allegedly
suffered from being the “victim of sex trafficking” dating back to 1999. On April 21, 2016, the
Court ruled that Plaintiff’s damages are limited to harm from the alleged defamation. Regarding
Ms. Maxwell’s request for records pre-dating 1999, the Court said: “As for the pre-’99 medical
records, based on where we are at the moment, I do not believe that those are relevant …
[b]ecause the damage issue relates … solely to the defamation.” Tr. 20:21-24 (Apr. 21, 2016).
Plaintiff objected to this interrogatory on the ground it requested pre-1999 medical
information in “violat[ion]” of the Court’s ruling. The objection should be overruled. The issue
4
Plaintiff’s voluminous arguments and argumentative citations to case law—inserted into her multi-page
“objections”—are omitted in this Motion.
-
5
Immediately following this paragraph was a tabular chart listing
. On July 29, 2016, Plaintiff supplemented the chart. The supplementation did not cure the deficiencies.
14
A-285
before the court in April concerned discovery of Plaintiff’s medical records because those
records bore on her claim she had suffered “sex trafficking” damages. Interrogatory No. 13 does
not seek medical information for that purpose.
Plaintiff has alleged she has suffered more than $30 million in noneconomic damages
from the allege defamation; she intends to request an additional $50 million in punitive damages
related at least in part on the alleged conduct that caused the noneconomic damages. The defense
intends to show that Plaintiff for financial and other improper reasons manufactured her
allegations of “sex trafficking” and created from whole cloth her alleged $30 million in
noneconomic damages from “defamation.” Some of the most relevant and material evidence
concerns pre-1999 medical records and information, which contradict some of Plaintiff’s sworn
testimony about the alleged “sex trafficking.” For example, Plaintiff has testified Mr. Epstein and
Ms. Maxwell subjected her to sex trafficking in 1998. Yet, in 1998 Plaintiff was an inpatient
resident at a drug rehabilitation facility. As another example, Plaintiff has alleged that
Ms. Maxwell’s denial in 2015 of Plaintiff’s allegations of sex trafficking caused her
, for which Plaintiff is
seeking noneconomic damages. Yet, Plaintiff’s pre-1999 medical records will establish that
Plaintiff was a longtime drug addict—addicted to prescription and other drugs.
Additionally, based on Plaintiff’s claims of having suffered $30 million in mental pain
and anguish, among other noneconomic damages, Ms. Maxwell is entitled to pre-1999 medical
records to establish the mental and emotional baseline for Plaintiff and to determine her
preexisting mental and emotional condition, since under no circumstances is Ms. Maxwell liable
for Plaintiff’s preexisting mental and emotional condition. See, e.g., Bauman v. 2810026 Canada
Ltd., No. 15-CV-374A(F), 2016 WL 402645, at *1 (W.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2016); Pokigo v. Target
15
A-286
Corp., 2014 WL 6885905, at **2-3 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 8, 2014) (plaintiff’s preexisting mental and
physical conditions relevant to plaintiff’s damage claim); Bruno v. CSX Transp., Inc., 262 F.R.D.
131, 133-34 (W.D.N.Y. 2009) (granting discovery of plaintiff’s medical records relating to
plaintiff’s substance abuse and mental health treatment where disclosure was likely to reveal
evidence of alternative or intervening causes for the damages claimed by plaintiff).
Objection 9.
The interrogatory is not overbroad. The interrogatory required Plaintiff to identify
healthcare providers who treated her for specified conditions, e.g., mental conditions and
addiction, “prior to” any alleged defamation of her by Ms. Maxwell. Plaintiff’s “overbreadth”
objection argued that the interrogatory was not “limited in scope to the medical information
relating to the abuse she suffered from Defendant and Jeffrey Epstein.” The premise is wrong.
Plaintiff, who is suing for more than $80 million in damages and who claims to have suffered
more than $30 million in noneconomic damages, including “pain and suffering,” cannot be heard
to complain about an interrogatory requesting the identities of healthcare providers who treated
her before the alleged defamation-related injuries. Plaintiff’s pre-defamation physical and mental
condition is the baseline for her claim for damages and is therefore highly relevant. See, e.g.,
This Mot., at 15-16 (citing cases).
The interrogatory is not unduly burdensome. We incorporate here the discussion
above on Objection 3, and supplement as follows. Plaintiff implicitly concedes that her physical
and mental condition before the alleged defamation is relevant to this lawsuit. Her complaint
about burdensomeness suggests only that her “pre-defamation” physical and mental condition
was so complex or required so much medical attention that it would be unduly burdensome for
her to “track down” all her medical providers. The simple answer is twofold. One, relevant and
16
A-287
discoverable information does not become immune from discovery or “unduly burdensome”
because there is a lot of it. Two, when a plaintiff alleges, as here, that she has suffered more than
$30 million in physical and mental injury from an allegedly defamatory denial of her claim of
sex trafficking, the defense is entitled to know her physical and mental condition before and after
the alleged defamation.
Relatedly, Plaintiff argued that if she has made a “reasonable inquiry,” she cannot be
required to “expend all of her time and resources on a quest to gather medical files.” To begin
with, the interrogatory does not require Plaintiff to “gather medical files.” Additionally, the
interrogatory does not require Plaintiff to expend “all of her time and resources” to gather
documents, and Plaintiff has not done so. Finally, although Plaintiff has provided the identity of
some healthcare providers, it is far from clear she has made a “reasonable inquiry” required by
the interrogatory.
No privilege applies. The assertion of the doctor-patient privilege is frivolous. The
identities of Plaintiff’s healthcare providers are not subject to privilege. Regardless, Plaintiff has
placed her physical and mental condition and the identities of those who treated her condition in
issue by alleging $50 million worth of physical and mental injuries.
Plaintiff’s deficient answer. “Without waiving [her] objections,” Plaintiff answered

•
. The answer is non-responsive. Interrogatory 13 is not a request for
production of documents. Additionally, as discussed above at page 7 of this Motion, it is
improper for a party to answer an interrogatory by reference to
17
A-288
By way of example only, Plaintiff’s mother, father, boyfriend, and ex-fiance all have
testified that in 1998 and 1999,
Further, Plaintiff has claimed as losses “medical expenses of ‘not less than’ $100,000,”
yet her interrogatory response states
This is non-responsive. It is insufficient to claim
when she is seeking ‘not less than’ $100,000 in damages from
that category.
Interrogatory No. 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:
18
A-289
….
Objection 10.
19
A-290
Plaintiff has no valid “privacy” objection. This interrogatory requested the identity of
individuals who Plaintiff believes “subjected [her] to, or with whom [she] engaged in, any illegal
or inappropriate sexual contact, conduct or assault prior to June 1999,” and basic information
relating to such improper actions, e.g., date, whether a police report was filed. None of this
illegal or inappropriate sexual contact, conduct or assault is within the right to privacy. To the
extent any right of privacy is applicable, the Court’s Protective Order affords Plaintiff all the
privacy to which she is entited.
Objection 11.
There is no “harassment.” Federal Rule of Evidence 412, commonly referred to as the
rape-shield law, does not apply in a defamation action such as this where the evidence would be
offered to show that the alleged defamatory statements are true or did not damage plaintiff’s
reputation. See Advisory Committee Notes, 1994 Amendments, Federal Rule of Evidence 412
(“in a defamation action involving statements concerning sexual misconduct in which the
evidence is offered to show that the alleged defamatory statements were true or did not damage
the plaintiff’s reputation, neither Rule 404 nor this rule will operate to bar the evidence”).
Certainly, if evidence of prior alleged sexual assaults (whether unfounded or not) are admissible
in this action, ipso facto they are discoverable under the standards of Rule 26 previously
articulated.
Plaintiff has alleged Ms. Maxwell’s denial of Plaintiff’s allegations of sex trafficking
caused her to suffer in excess of $30 million in compensatory damages. There is an abundance of
evidence suggesting that well before she met Ms. Maxwell, Plaintiff had engaged in illegal sex
activities or falsely claimed she was the victim of illegal sex activities. Information relating to
20
A-291
this subject is hardly harassing. To the contrary, it constitutes evidence relevant to the defense of
this action.
Objection 12.
No law bars a responsive answer to this interrogatory. Plaintiff argued that Florida laws
bar the interrogatory and relieve her of the obligation to provide a responsive answer. This is a
frivolous argument. The Florida laws prohibit Florida agencies from disclosing certain
information about sexual assault victims. Plaintiff is not a state agency. None of the laws is
relevant to this action, where a defamation plaintiff claiming to be the victim of sexual
trafficking sues a defendant for reputational injury and is required in discovery to provide
information about illegal sex activities.
No privilege applies. The discussion above relating to Objection 6 applies here. None of
Plaintiff’s illegal sex activities, whether she was a willing participant or a victim, is cloaked with
any privilege.
Plaintiff’s deficient answer. Plaintiff suggested
II. Plaintiff’s answers to the requests for admission are deficient.
Plaintiff’s responses to the following requests for admissions are deficient:
RFA No. 1. Admit that you were not 15 years old when you first met Ghislaine
Maxwell.
Response:
21
A-292
.
RFA No. 2. Admit that you were not 15 years old when you first met Jeffrey
Epstein.
Response:
RFA No. 3. Admit that you were not 15 years old at the time you claim you were
sexually trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein.
Response:
RFA No. 4. Admit that Ghislaine Maxwell did not celebrate your 16th birthday
with You.
Response:
22
A-293
RFA No. 5. Admit that Ghislaine Maxwell did not make a joke on your 16th
birthday after You blew out an array of candles and said You “would be soon
getting too old for Jeffrey’s taste, and soon they’d have to trade me in.”
Response:
RFA No. 6. Admit that you did not work at Mar-a-Lago when you were 15 years
old
Response:
23
A-294
RFA No. 7. Admit that you did not work for Jeffrey Epstein for four years.
Response:
RFA No. 8. Admit that You did not spend four years as an underage sex slave for
Jeffrey Epstein.
Response:
RFA No. 13. Admit that You never observed Al Gore on the island of Little St.
James.
Response:
In Request for Admissions Nos. 1-8 and 13, Plaintiff answered
. None of these responses is proper. Rule 36(a)(4)
provides in relevant part:
If a matter is not admitted, the answer must specifically deny it or state in detail
why the answering party cannot truthfully admit or deny it. A denial must fairly
respond to the substance of the matter; and when good faith requires that a party
qualify an answer or deny only a part of a matter, the answer must specify the
part admitted and qualify or deny the rest.
24
A-295
(emphasis supplied). Plaintiff denied only “a part of a matter” and therefore was required to
“specify the part admitted.” In Request for Admissions Nos. 1-8 and 13, Plaintiff failed to
specify any part that was admitted. Her answers violate Rule 36.
Request for Admission No. 12. Admit that You never had a conversation with
Bill Clinton regarding him flying with Ghislaine Maxwell in a helicopter.
Response:
Plaintiff objected to this request for admission and provided no answer. That is improper.
The request required Plaintiff to admit whether she had a conversation with President Clinton
regarding him flying in a helicopter with Ms. Maxwell. Either she is able to admit this request in
full or in part, or she is able to deny the request in full or in part, as Rule 36 requires. She may
not object and refuse to admit or deny.
III. Plaintiff’s responses to requests for production are deficient.
RFP No. 1. All Communications and Documents identified in Interrogatories 5-

14, above.
Response:
25
A-296
No privilege applies. As discussed above in connection with Plaintiff’s assertion of
privilege in her interrogatory responses, see, e.g., This Motion, at 9, no privilege applies to the
information requested in Interrogatory Nos. 5-14. Nor does any privilege apply to the
communications and documents identified in those interrogatories.
The RFP is not overbroad. Plaintiff’s overbreadth objection appears to be the same as
its overbreadth objection interposed in response to the interrogatories. For the reasons discussed
in response to Plaintiff’s Objection 9, see This Motion, at 16, the objection is meritless.
The RFP is not unduly burdensome. Plaintiff’s burdensomeness objection is premised
on an unreasonable reading of the interrogatories. That objection is meritless. See This Motion,
at 5.
The RFP does not implicate Plaintiff’s right to privacy. As discussed above, see This
Motion, at 20, Plaintiff has no right to privacy to the information requested in the interrogatories
or to the related communications and documents.
RFP No. 4. All Documents relating to any Communications between or among

You or Your attorneys or any agent for You or Your attorneys, and any of the
following individuals or with their attorneys, agents or representatives:
a. Any witness disclosed in Plaintiff’s Rule 26(a) disclosures;
b. Any witness disclosed in Defendant’s Rule 26(a) disclosures;
c. Any witness identified by You in response to Interrogatory No. 8 and No.
14.
26
A-297
Response:
The objections are meritless. As to burdensomeness, the relevance of the requested
communications is obvious, as the witnesses all have information relevant to the factual issues in
27
A-298
this case. Plaintiff argued that the request encompasses “over 100” witnesses; notably, however,
Plaintiff did not claim she and her attorneys have communicated with even 20, let alone 100,
witnesses, nor has she disclosed the volume of documents actually implicated by this request; so
Plaintiff has failed even to make a prima facie case of burdensomeness. As to “privacy,” no such
right to privacy is implicated in this request; even if it were, the Court’s Protective Order more
than adequately protects that right. As to assertions of privilege or immunity over any responsive
document, to the extent any privilege or immunity applies, Plaintiff must comply with her duties
under Local Rule 26.2 and Federal Rule 26(b)(5).
The “objection” that Plaintiff has no duty to produce because the defense “already has”
the requested documents is meritless. See This Motion, at 8 (citing cases).
That Plaintiff’s attorneys represent or have represented other clients and have had non-
privileged, non-immunized communications with the witnesses described in the request is not a
relevant fact for purposes of discovery in this case. So long as the Plaintiff and her attorneys
have responsive documents, those documents must be produced.
Plaintiff’s deficient response. Notwithstanding her objections, Plaintiff responded that
. That is a deficient response. In violation of Rule 34(b)(2)C), Plaintiff has failed to
state whether she is withholding documents. Additionally, Plaintiff may not answer a Rule 34
request by . DirecTV, 224 F.R.D. at
682 (holding that Rule 34 response referring opponent to previous production was “improper”:
“Plaintiff was required to identify the particular documents or to organize and label them to
correspond to these specific requests. There is nothing in the record indicating that Plaintiff did
so. Thus, Plaintiff’s partial responses to these requests did not comply with Rule 34(b).”).
28
A-299
RFP No. 9. All Documents concerning any Communications between You or

Your attorneys and any witness in the case captioned Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe
#2 v. United States, Case No. 08-ev-80736-KAM, in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida (“CVRA” case).
Response:
29
A-300
RFP No. 10. All Documents concerning any Communications between you or
your attorneys and any witness or potential witness in Edwards and Cassell v
Dershowitz (“Dershowitz” case).
Response:
30
A-301
RFP Nos. 9 and 10 request documents concerning communications between Plaintiff or
her attorneys and various witnesses. Because the responses are substantially identical, we
combine here the discussion of both RFPs and Plaintiff’s respective responses.
As to alleged burdensomeness and overbreadth, we refer the Court to the discussion
above of the same objections interposed in response to RFP No. 4. As to relevance, such
communications with witnesses certainly bear on Plaintiff’s claim and Ms. Maxwell’s defense,
see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). As to assertions of privilege or immunity over any responsive
document, to the extent any privilege or immunity applies, Plaintiff must comply with her duties
under Local Rule 26.2 and Federal Rule 26(b)(5).
RFP No. 11. Any statement obtained by You or Your attorneys from any witness
or potential witness in the CVRA case.
Response:
31
A-302
RFP No. 12. Any statement obtained by You or Your attorneys from any witness
or potential witness in the Dershowitz case.
Response:
32
A-303
33
A-304
RFP Nos. 11 and 12 request statements Plaintiff has obtained from witnesses in related
cases. Because the responses are substantially identical, we combine here the discussion of both
RFPs and Plaintiff’s respective responses.
As to alleged burdensomeness and overbreadth, we refer the Court to the discussion
above of the same objections interposed in response to RFP No. 4. As to relevance, the written
statements of the witnesses certainly bear on Plaintiff’s claim and Ms. Maxwell’s defense, see
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). As to Plaintiff’s blanket assertions of privilege or immunity over
witness statements, to the extent any privilege or immunity applies, Plaintiff must comply with
her duties under Local Rule 26.2 and Federal Rule 26(b)(5). While some witness statement might
qualify for work product protection, it is clear that some do not, e.g., witness statements that do
not reveal an attorney’s mental impressions. See, e.g., Tuttle v. Tyco Elecs. Installation Servs.,
Inc., No. 2:06-CV-581, 2007 WL 4561530, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 21, 2007) (“Affidavits are
normally not protected by the work product doctrine for the very reason that an affidavit purports
to be a statement of facts within the personal knowledge of the witness, and not an expression of
the opinion of counsel. Further, Defendants should not be frustrated in their ability to test the
perception and credibility of these affiants.”) (internal quotations omitted).
Plaintiff has failed to sign her interrogatory responses.
Rule 33(b)(5) requires that a party answering interrogatories sign her answers. Plaintiff
has failed to do so, despite a request from defense counsel. This violation of Rule 33(b)(5)
subjects Plaintiff to sanctions. See, e.g., Walls v. Paulson, 250 F.R.D. 48 (D.D.C. 2008)
Ms. Maxwell is entitled to attorney fees incurred in making this Motion.
34
A-305
Under Rule 37(a)(5), if a party is required to file a motion to compel discovery responses
and the motion is granted or disclosure or discovery is provided after filing, “the court must, after
giving an opportunity to be heard, require the party or deponent whose conduct necessitated the
motion, the party or attorney advising that conduct, or both to pay the movant’s reasonable
expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorney’s fees.” By signing the objections,
Plaintiff’s counsel certified the responses and objections were: (i) consistent with these rules and
warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing
existing law, or for establishing new law; (ii) not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to
harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(g)(1). The sanction for improper certifications of objections requires “the court, on motion or
on its own, must impose an appropriate sanction on the signer, the party on whose behalf the
signer was acting, or both. The sanction may include an order to pay the reasonable expenses,
including attorney’s fees, caused by the violation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(3).
Sanctions are appropriate here. Plaintiff’s counsel have interposed improper, sometimes
frivolous, objections, and Plaintiff without any substantial justification has simply refused to
answer discovery requests.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court should compel Plaintiff to:
1. Overrule Plaintiff’s objections to discovery requests;
2. Provide complete responses Interrogatories 5-8, 13-14, and state what information, if any,
information is being withheld on the basis of objection;
3. Provide answers to requests for admissions that comply with Rule 36;
4. Specifically state for each objection made to the requests for production what, if any,
documents are being withheld and the specific objection under which it is being withheld;
35
A-306
5. Undertake a reasonable and diligent inquiry for all documents requested in RFP Nos. 1,
4, 9-12 that are in her possession, custody or control, and produce them.
Ms. Maxwell further requests under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g) and 37(a)(5) that the Court enter an
Order for attorney costs and fees incurred in preparing and prosecuting this Motion.
Dated: August 10, 2016
/s/ Laura A. Menninger

Jeffrey S. Pagliuca (pro hac vice)
Denver, CO 80203
Phone: 303.831.7364
Fax: 303.832.2628
Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell
36
A-307
I certify that on August 10, 2016, I electronically served this Defendant’s Motion to
Compel Responses to Defendant’s Second Set of Discovery Requests to Plaintiff, and for
Sanctions via ECF on the following:

mschultz@bsfllp.com
Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & South Salem, NY 10590
Lehrman, P.L. StanPottinger@aol.com
/s/ Nicole Simmons
Nicole Simmons
37
A-308

--------------------------------------------------X
.............................................
Plaintiff,
v.
15-cv-07433-RWS
GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
Defendant.
--------------------------------------------------X
Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant’s

Motion for Summary Judgment
Laura A. Menninger
Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
HADDON, MORGAN, AND FOREMAN, P.C.
Denver, CO 80203
303.831.7364
A-309
TABLE OF CONENTS
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .................................................................................................... 1
FACTS ............................................................................................................................................ 1
SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD .................................................................................... 10
ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................ 12
I. Ms. Maxwell is not liable for republications of her January 2015 statement that she did not
authorize or request and by entities she did not control. ....................................................... 12
A. Summary judgment is warranted to the extent plaintiff seeks to impose liability on

any media’s republication of all or a portion of the January 2015 statement. ........ 12
B. Because plaintiff is a limited public figure, imposing liability upon Ms. Maxwell
for republication of the January 2015 statement would violate the First
Amendment. ............................................................................................................ 16
C. Plaintiff should be barred from introducing into evidence any republication of an

excerpt from the January 2015 statement. ............................................................... 17
II. Summary judgment is warranted under the New York Constitution. ................................... 18
A. The January 2015 statement constitutes nonactionable opinion. ............................ 18
B. In this Rule 56 proceeding, this Court’s Rule 12(b)(6) opinion does not control the
question of law whether the January 2015 statement constitutes nonactionable
opinion. .................................................................................................................... 31
III. The pre-litigation privilege bars this action. .......................................................................... 33
IV. Ms. Maxwell’s January 4, 2015, statement is nonactionable. ............................................... 38
V. The defamation claim should be dismissed because the publication is substantially true. ... 39
VI. Plaintiff cannot establish actual malice by clear and convincing evidence. .......................... 40
A. Facts. ....................................................................................................................... 40
B. Plaintiff carries the burden of proving actual malice by clear and convincing
evidence. .................................................................................................................. 48
C. Plaintiff is a public figure who must prove actual malice. ...................................... 49
1. Plaintiff successfully invited public attention to influence others. ........... 51
i
A-310
2. Plaintiff voluntarily injected herself into public controversies related to the

subject of this litigation. ............................................................................ 53
3. Plaintiff assumed a position of prominence in the public controversies. . 53
4. Plaintiff has maintained regular and continuing access to the media. ...... 54
D. Plaintiff must also prove actual malice to overcome the defenses of reply and pre-
litigation privilege. .................................................................................................. 54
E. The January 2015 statement was substantially true, and plaintiff cannot produce
clear and convincing evidence of its falsity. ........................................................... 56
1. The January 2015 statement accurately denied that Ms. Maxwell met
Plaintiff when Plaintiff was 15 years old in 1999. .................................... 56
2. The January 2015 statement accurately denied that Ms. Maxwell

“regularly participate[d] in Epstein’s sexual exploitation of minors” and
that “the Government knows” such fact. .................................................. 58
3. The January 2015 statement accurately denied that “with [Ms. Maxwell’s]
assistance, [Epstein] converted [Plaintiff] into what is commonly referred
to as a ‘sex slave.’” ................................................................................... 59
4. The January 2015 statement accurately reported that Plaintiff alleged

“sexual relations” with Professor Dershowitz which he denied. .............. 60
5. The January 2015 statement accurately denied that Ms. Maxwell created
and distributed child pornography and that the Government knows of and
possesses such child pornography. ........................................................... 62
6. January 2015 statement accurately denied Maxwell acted as “madame” for

Epstein to traffic Plaintiff to the rich and famous. .................................... 63
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 68
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ..................................................................................................... 70
ii
A-311
Cases
Adelson v. Harris, 973 F. Supp. 2d 467, 490 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) ......................................... 29
Air Wisconsin Airlines Corp. v. Hoeper, 134 S. Ct. 852, 861 (2014) ............................... 48
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251-52 (1986). ....................................... 11
Aronson v. Wiersma, 483 N.E.2d 1138, 1139 (1985) .................................................. 22,24
Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514, 535 (2001) ................................................................. 48
Biro v. Condé Nast, 883 F. Supp. 2d 441, 458 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) ...................................... 39
Biro v. Condé Naste, 963 F. Supp. 2d 255, 269 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)..................................... 49
Black v. Green Harbour Homeowners’ Ass’n, 798 N.Y.S.2d 753 (App. Div. 2005), ...... 34
Celle v. Filipino Reporter Enters. Inc., 209 F.3d 163, 176-77 (2d Cir. 2000) .................. 51
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986) .......................................................... 12
Chambers v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 2016 WL 3533998, at *8 (D.N.J. June 28,
2016) .............................................................................................................................. 33
Chau v. Lewis, 935 F. Supp. 2d 644, 665 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) .............................................. 23
Collier v. Postum Cereal Co., 134 N.Y.S. 847, 853 (App. Div. 1st Dep't 1912) .............. 55
Contemporary Mission, Inc. v. N.Y. Times Co., 842 F.2d 612, 617 (2d Cir. 1988) .......... 50
Curtis Publ'g Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130 (1967) ............................................................... 49
Davis v. Boeheim, 22 N.E.3d 999, 1006 (N.Y. 2014) .................................................. 22,31
Davis v. Costa-Gavras, 580 F. Supp. 1082, 1096 (S.D.N.Y. 1984) ................................. 12
Dibella v. Hopkins, No. 01 CIV. 11779 (DC), 2002 WL 31427362, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct.
30, 2002) ........................................................................................................................ 23
Don King Prods., Inc. v. Douglas, 742 F. Supp. 778, 780 (S.D.N.Y. 1990), and Meiri v.
Dacon, 759 F.2d 989, 998 (2d Cir. 1985)) .................................................................... 11
iii
A-312
Elias v. Rolling Stone LLC, No. 15-CV-5953 (PKC), 2016 WL 3583080, at *6 (S.D.N.Y.
June 28, 2016)................................................................................................................ 22
Enigma Software Grp. USA, LLC v. Bleeping Computer LLC, No. 16 CIV. 57 (PAE),
2016 WL 3773394, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. July 8, 2016) ...................................................... 19
Faigin v. Kelly, 978 F. Supp. 420, 426 (D. N.H. 1997 ...................................................... 50
Firestone v. Time, Inc., 271 So. 2d 745, 752 (Fla. 1972) .................................................. 13
Fleckenstein v. Friedman, 193 N.E. 537, 538 (N.Y. 1934) .............................................. 40
Flomenhaft v. Finkelstein, 8 N.Y.S.3d 161, 164 n.2 (1st Dep't 2015) ............................... 33
Folwell v. Miller, 145 F. 495, 497 (2d Cir. 1906) ............................................................. 13
Franklin v. Daily Holdings, Inc., 21 N.Y.S.3d 6, 12 (App. Div. 2015) ............................ 39
Frechtman v. Gutterrnan, 979 N.Y.S. 2d 58 (App. Div. 2014) ........................................ 34
Front, Inc. v. Khalil, 28 N.E.3d 15, 16 (N.Y. 2015) ......................................................... 33
Geraci v. Probst, 938 N.E.2d 917, 921 (N.Y. 2010) .................................................... 13,18
Germain v. M & T Bank Corp., 111 F. Supp. 3d 506, 534 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) .................... 19
Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974 .................................................. 16, 48, 49
Goforth v. Avemco Life Ins. Co., 368 F.2d 25, 28 n.7 (4th Cir.1966). .............................. 39
Goldstein v. Cogswell, No. 85 CIV. 9256 (KMW), 1992 WL 131723, at *27 n.32
(S.D.N.Y. June 1, 1992) ................................................................................................ 33
Gross v. New York Times, 623 N.E.2d 1163, 1169 (N.Y. 1993) ....................................... 28
Harte-Hanks Communic’ns, Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657, 666 n.7 (1989) ........... 48
Hawkins v. Harris, 661 A.2d 284, 289-91 (N.J. 1995) ..................................................... 33
Horne v. Matthews, No. 97 Civ. 3605(JSM), 1997 WL 598452 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 1997)
....................................................................................................................................... 23
Huggins v. Moore, 726 N.E.2d 456, 460 (N.Y. 1999) ...................................................... 48
iv
A-313
Immuno AG v. Moor-Jankowski, 567 N.E.2d 1270, 1282 (N.Y. 1991) ...................... 11, 19
Indep. Living Aids, Inc. v. Maxi-Aids, Inc., 981 F. Supp. 124, 128 (E.D.N.Y. 1997)....... 28
International Publishing Concepts, LLC v. Locatelli ........................................................ 37
James v. Gannett Co., 353 N.E.2d 834, 838 (N.Y. 1976) ..................................... 14, 23, 49
Jewell v. NYP Holdings, Inc., 23 F. Supp. 2d 348, 366 (S.D.N.Y.1998) .......................... 40
Kane v. Orange Cnty. Publ’ns, 649 N.Y.S.2d 23, 26 (App. Div. 1996) ........................... 56
Karaduman v. Newsday, Inc., 416 N.E.2d 557, 560 (1980).............................................. 18
Kirk v. Heppt, 532 F. Supp. 2d 586, 593 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). .............................................. 33
Klein v. McGauley, 29. A.D.2d 418, 420 (2nd Dep't 1968) ............................................... 34
Lehman Bros. Commercial Corp. v. Minmetals Int’l Non-Ferrous Metals Trading Co.,
No. 94 CIV. 8301(JFK), 1995 WL 380119, at *6 n.2 (S.D.N.Y. June 26, 1995) ......... 21
Lerman v. Flynt Dist. Co., Inc., 745 F.3d 123, 136 (2d Cir. 1984) ................................... 49
Mann v. Abel, 885 N.E.2d 884, 885-86 (N.Y. 2008) ........................................................ 29
Martin v. City of Oceanside, 205 F. Supp. 2d 1142, 1147 (S.D. Cal. 2002), aff’d, 360
F.3d 1078 (9th Cir. 2004). .............................................................................................. 22
Martirano v. Frost, 255 N.E.2d 693 (1969) ...................................................................... 34
Mashburn v. Collin, 355 So. 2d 879, 885 (La. 1977) ........................................................ 30
Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 501 U.S. 496, 510 (1991) ................................... 54
Maule v. Philadelphia Media Holdings, LLC, No. CIV.A. 08-3357, 2010 WL 914926, at
*10 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 15, 2010) ........................................................................................ 22
McGill v. Parker, 582 N.Y.S.2d 91, 97 (App. Div. 1992) ................................................ 48
Meiri v. Dacon, 759 F.2d 989, 998 (2d Cir. 1985)………………………………………………11
Mencher v. Chesley, 75 N.E.2d 257, 259 (N.Y. 1947) ...................................................... 14
Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990) ........................................................ 19
v
A-314
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) ........................................... 16,48,49
People v. Kocsis, 28 N.Y.S.3d 466, 471 (App. Div. 2016) ............................................... 21
Petrus v. Smith, 91 A.D.2d 1190, 1191 (N.Y. App. App. Div. 1983) ............................... 34
Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps, 475 U.S. 767, 776-77 (1986)........................... 48
In Re Philadelphia Newspapers, LLC, 690 F.3d 161, 175 (3d Cir. 2012), as corrected
(Oct. 25, 2012) ............................................................................................................... 39
Rand v. New York Times Co., 430 N.Y.S.2d 271, 275 (App. Div. 1980). ........................ 14
Ratajack v. Brewster Fire Dep’t, Inc. of the Brewster-SE Joint Fire Dist., 178 F. Supp. 3d
118, 158 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) .............................................................................................. 29
Rinaldi v. Viking Penguin, Inc., 420 N.E.2d 377, 382 (N.Y. 1981) .................................. 13
Salyer v. S. Poverty Law Ctr., Inc., 701 F. Supp. 2d 912, 916 (W.D. Ky. 2009) ............. 39
Sexter v. Warmflash, P.C. v. Margrabe, 828 N.Y.S. 2d 315 (App. Div. 2007)). .............. 34
Shenkman v. O’Malley, 157 N.Y.S.2d 290, 294, 297 (App. Div. 1956) ........................... 54
Soley v. Wasserman, No. 8 CIV. 9262 KMW FM, 2013 WL 3185555, at *8 (S.D.N.Y.
June 21, 2013)................................................................................................................ 18
Steinhilber v. Alphonse, 501 N.E.2d 550, 550 (N.Y. 1986) .............................................. 19
Time, Inc. v. Firestone, 424 U.S. 448, 488 n.1 (1976) ...................................................... 13
Waldbaum v. Fairchild Publ'ns, Inc., 626 F.2d 1287, 1298 (D.C. Cir. 1980 ................... 51
Rules
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56......................................................................................................... 11, 12
vi
A-315
PAGES 1-68 REDACTED

A-316
January 6, 2017.
/s/ Laura A. Menninger

Jeffrey S. Pagliuca (pro hac vice)
Denver, CO 80203
Phone: 303.831.7364
Fax: 303.832.2628
69
A-317
I certify that on January 6, 2017, I electronically served this Memorandum in Support of

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment via ECF on the following:

mschultz@bsfllp.com
Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & South Salem, NY 10590
Lehrman, P.L. StanPottinger@aol.com
/s/ Nicole Simmons
Nicole Simmons
70
A-318
'! usnc~~NY--=-
1, DOC{ •MENT
]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 J:'LEr-r~# ,~,r-Ar 1 y FILED
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ...... ..'- "' ' , ,,,._, __,
________________________________________ J· ~~,LEO- +1.....1.-lj

1 ~.tdJ4J1
- :P - J
VIRGINIA GIUFFRE,
Giuffre, 15 Civ. 7433
-against-
OPINION
GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
Maxwell.
----------------------------------------x
APPEARANCES:
Counsel for Giuffre

Counsel for Maxwell

Denver, CO 80203
A-319
/
•
Sweet, D.J.
The defendant Ghislaine Maxwell ("Maxwell" or the
"Maxwell") has moved pursuant to Rule 56, Fed. R. Civ. P., for
summary judgment dismissing the complaint of plaintiff
Virginia L. Giuffre ("Giuffre" or the "Giuffre") alleging
defamation. Upon the facts and conclusions set forth below, the
motion is denied.
The contested facts derived from discovery subject to
the Protective Order of March 17, 2016 have been redacted.
Since the filing of the complaint on September 21,
2015, setting forth Giuffre's claim of defamation by Maxwell,
this action has been vigorously litigated, as demonstrated by
the 704 docket entries as of March 8, 2017. At issue is the
truth or falsity of a January 2015 statement issued by Maxwell.
Discovery has proceeded, a joint pretrial order has been filed,
and the action is set for trial on May 15, 2017. The instant
motion was heard and marked fully submitted on February 16,
2017.
2
A-320
II. The Facts
The facts have been set forth in Maxwell's Memorandum
of Law in Support of Maxwell's Motion for Summary Judgment,
Southern District of New York, Local Rule 56.1; Giuffre's
Statement of Contested Facts and Giuffre's Undisputed Facts; and
Maxwell's Reply to Giuffre's Statement of Contested Facts and
Giuffre's Undisputed Facts pursuant to Local Civil Rule 56.1.
They are not in dispute except as noted below.
I
A-321
.,, ... .
- ■
- 4
A-322
ll
i
''
I
l
l
i
·l
1
I
!I
I
,I
i
l
1
i
j
1
i
i
5
'·;
'
l
A-323
6
A-324
7
A-325
■ -- - -
-- -----
8
A-326
_-
·-
9
A-327
10
A-328
11
A-329
-
-
12
A-330
•
I
I
I
13
A-331
- - - -
-
•
I -
14
A-332
15
A-333
16
A-334
17
A-335
,_ ■
18
A-336
19
A-337
~ - - -
- --- - - - - - - -
- - - - -
20
A-338
21
A-339
...,.
--
-
-··
--
- 22
A-340
--------------- -
-- - - - - - - - - - --
23
A-341
..
24
A-342
25
A-343
..
26
A-344
27
A-345
28
A-346
29
A-347
30
A-348
-
-
31
A-349
32
A-350
33
A-351
34
A-352
35
A-353
36
A-354
37
A-355
•
38
A-356
39
A-357
40
A-358
41
A-359
42
A-360
43
A-361
44
A-362
45
A-363
46
A-364
-
47
A-365
-
48
A-366
49
A-367
50
A-368
51
A-369
••
III. The Applicable Standard
Summary judgment is appropriate only where "there is
no genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . the moving
party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.ll Fed. R.
Civ. P. 56(c). "[T]he substantive law will identify which facts
are material.ll Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242,
248 (1986).
A dispute is "genuinell if "the evidence is such that a
reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party."
52
A-370
Id. The relevant inquiry on application for summary judgment is
"whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to
require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that
one party must prevail as a matter of law." Id. at 251-52. A
court is not charged with weighing the evidence and determining
its truth, but with determining whether there is a genuine issue
for trial. Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. N.Y. City Transit Auth.,
735 F. Supp. 1205, 1212 (S.D.N.Y. 1990) (quoting Anderson, 477
U.S. at 249). "[T]he mere existence of some alleged factual
dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise
properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement
is that there be no genuine issue of material fact." Anderson,
477 U.S. at 247-48 (emphasis in original).
While the moving party bears the initial burden of
showing that no genuine issue of material fact exists, Atl. Mut.
Ins. Co. v. CSX Lines, L.L.C., 432 F.3d 428, 433 (2d Cir. 2005),
in cases where the non-moving party bears the burden of
persuasion at trial, "the burden on the moving party may be
discharged by 'showing'-that is, pointing out to the district
court-that there is an absence of evidence to support the
nonmoving party's case." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317,
325 (1986). "It is ordinarily sufficient for the movant to point
53
A-371
to a lack of evidence . . . on an essential element of the non-
movant's claim. [T]he nonmoving party must [then] come
forward with admissible evidence sufficient to raise a genuine
issue of fact for trial " Jaramillo v. Weyerhaeuser Co.,
536 F. 3d 140, 145 (2d Cir. 2008) (internal citations omitted);
see also Goenaga v. March of Dimes Birth Defects Found., 51 F. 3d
14, 18 (2d Cir. 1995) ("Once the moving party has made a
properly supported showing sufficient to suggest the absence of
any genuine issue as to a material fact, the nonmoving party
must come forward with evidence that would be sufficient to
support a jury verdict in his favor").
IV. The Motion for Summary Judgment on Republication Grounds is
Denied
Maxwell has moved for summary judgment dismissing
Giuffre's complaint on the grounds that Maxwell is not liable
for the republication of her Press Release by the media. Because
as a matter of law the issuer of a press release is responsible
for its publication, the motion is denied.
In New York, liability for a republication "must be
based on real authority to influence the final product." Davis
54
A-372
v. Costa-Gavras, 580 F. Supp. 1082, 1096 (S.D.N.Y. 1984); see
also Hoffman v. Landers, 146 A.D.2d 744, 747 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d
Dep't 1989) ("One who makes a defamatory statement is not
responsible for its recommunication without his authority or
request by another over whom he has no control."). Where a
defendant "had no actual part in composing or publishing," he
cannot be held liable "without disregarding the settled rule of
law that no man is bound for the tortious act of another over
whom he has not a master's power of control." Davis, 580 F.
Supp. at 1096 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
The New York Court of Appeals summarized New York's
republication liability standard in Geraci v. Probst, 938 N.E.2d
917 (N.Y. 2010), stating that
one who . . . prints and publishes a libel[] is

not responsible for its voluntary and
unjustifiable repetition, without his authority
or request, by others over whom he has no control
and who thereby make themselves liable to the
person injured, and that such repetition cannot
be considered in law a necessary, natural and
probable consequence of the original slander or
libel.
938 N.E.2d at 921 (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). Thus, "conclusive evidence of lack of actual authority
[is] sufficiently dispositive that the [court] 'ha(s] no option
but to dismiss the case . . . '" Davis, 580 F. Supp. at 1096
55
A-373
(quoting Rinaldi v. Viking Penguin, Inc., 420 N.E.2d 377, 382
(N. Y. 1981)).
However, New York law assigns liability to individuals
for the media's publication of press releases. New York
appellate courts have held that an individual is liable for the
media publishing that individual's defamatory press release. See
Levy v. Smith, 132 A.D.3d 961, 962-63 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't
2015) ("Generally, [o]ne who makes a defamatory statement is not
responsible for its recommunication without his authority or
request by another over whom he has no control . . Here,
however, . . the appellant intended and authorized the
republication of the allegedly defamatory content of the press
releases in the news articles.") ; see also RESTATEMENT ( SECOND) OF
TORTS § 576 (1977) ("The publication of a libel or slander is a
legal cause of any special harm resulting from its repetition by
a third person if . . . the repetition was authorized or
intended by the original defamer, or. the repetition was
reasonably to be expected.")
The facts as set forth above establish that Maxwell
approved the Press Release. The Press Release was sent to
between six and 30 media representatives by Gow as an employee
56
A-374
of Acuity Reputation, the public relations firm hired by
Maxwell. The initial sentence of the Press Release - "Please
find attached a quotable statement on behalf of Maxwell" -
communicates Maxwell's authorization for the media recipients of
the Press Release to publish it. See Nat'l Puerto Rican Day
Parade, Inc. v. Casa Pubs., Inc. , 79 A.D.3d 592, 595 (N . Y. App.
Div. 1st Dep't 2010) (affirming the refusal to dismiss
defamation counts against a defendant who "submitted an open
letter that was published in [a] newspaper, and that [the
defendant] paid to have the open letter published," finding that
the defendant "authorized [the newspaper] to recommunicate his
statements.").
Maxwell has cited Geraci v. Probst in support of her
position, but Geraci is distinguishable from the instant action.
In Geraci, the defendant sent a letter to the Board of Fire
Commissioners, and, more than three years later, a newspaper
published the letter. The court held that the defendant was not
liable for that belated publication, "made years later without
his knowledge or participation." 938 N.E.2d at 919. Here, unlike
in Geraci, the Press Release was not published "without [her]
authority or request," but rather with Maxwell's authority and
57 ·
A-375
by her express request. Gow's testimony establishes Maxwell's
authority and control over the Press Release:
Q. When you sent that email were you acting pursuant to

Ms. Maxwell's retention of your services?
A. Yes, I was
***
Q. The subject line does have "FW" which to me indicates
it's a forward. Do you know where the rest of this
email chain is?
A. My understanding of this is: It was a holiday in the

UK, but Mr. Barden was not necessarily accessible at
some point in time, so this had been sent to him
originally by Ms. Maxwell, and because he was
unavailable, she forwarded it to me for immediate
action. I therefore respond, "Okay, Ghislaine, I'll go
with this."
It is my understanding that this is the agreed

statement because the subject of the second one is
"Urgent, this is the statement" so I take that as an
instruction to send it out, as a positive command:
"This is the statement."
Maxwell also cites Davis v. Costa-Gavras, involving a
libel claim against an author who wrote a book about a military
coup in Chile. 580 F. Supp. at 1085. Years after the author
published the book, a third-party publishing house republished
the book in paperback form and a third-party filmmaker released
a movie based on the book. The book author did not actually
participate in the republications, though he was aware of the
58
A-376
projects. The court held that the author of the book could not
be held liable for the republications, explaining that a "party
who is 'innocent of all complicity' in the publication of a
libel cannot be held accountable." 580 F. Supp. at 1094
(internal citations omitted). The court further noted that
"active participation in implementing the republication
resurrects the liability." Id. Likewise, in Karaduman v.
Newsday, Inc., 416 N.E.2d 557 (1980), also cited by Maxwell, the
court held that reporters of a series of articles on narcotics
trade "cannot be held personally liable for injuries arising
from [the] subsequent republication in book form absent a
showing that they approved or participated in some other manner
in the activities of the third-party republisher." Id. at 559-
560. However, the court explicitly noted that this result was
required because "the record [wa]s barren of any concrete
evidence of the reporters' involvement in the republication of
the newspaper series." Id. at 540.
Here, there is evidence in the record that Maxwell
"actively participated" in influencing the media to publish the
Press Release, Davis, 580 F. Supp. at 1094, and "approved" of
and sought the publication of the press release, Karaduman, 416
N.E.2d at 560. Maxwell retained a public relations media
59
A-377
specialist. The Press Release was sent by Maxwell's express
request. Gow's testimony about the process leading up to the
dissemination of the Press Release indicates that Maxwell did,
indeed, "authorize or intend" for the media recipients to
publish the statement. Because there are sufficient facts to
demonstrate Maxwell's authority and control over the publication
of the Press Release, Maxwell's liability for the Press
Release's publication survives the motion for summary judgment.
Maxwell has additionally asserted that subjecting her
to liability for republication is "particularly unfair" because
excerpts of the Press Release, rather than the whole statement,
were published. Def.'s Reply at 9. Maxwell cites to Rand v. New
York Times Co., 75 A.D.2d 417 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 1980),
in which a newspaper paraphrased the defendant's opinion,
essentially "excis[ingJ the opinion from the context in which it
was given." Id. at 424. No similar alteration, sanitization,
hyperbolizing, or paraphrasing of Maxwell's statements has been
established here. Nor does the record establish that any
statements of Maxwell's were taken out of context; rather, they
were directly quoted, accurately and unchanged. The publication
of Maxwell's statement that Giuffre's claims are "obvious lies"
60
A-378
does not distort or misrepresent the message Maxwell intended to
convey to the public with the Press Release.
Because the purpose of the issuance of the Press
Release was publication, Maxwell is liable for its content and
the motion for summary judgment on the grounds of non-liability
for republication is denied.
V. The Motion for Summary Judgment to Dismiss the Defamation

Claim on the Ground of Substantial Truth is Denied
Maxwell has asserted that the Press Release is
substantially true and that the defamation claim should
therefore be dismissed. See Def.'s Br. at 39. Whether or not
Giuffre lied about Maxwell's involvement in the events that
Giuffre has alleged took place is the intensely contested
factual issue that is the foundation of this action.
Accordingly, summary judgment is not appropriate. See Mitre
Sports Intern. Ltd. v. Home Box Office, Inc., 22 F. Supp. 3d
240, 255 (S.O.N.Y. 2014) (denying summary judgment because it
would require the Court to decide disputed facts to determine
whether the statement at issue was substantially true); Da Silva
v. Time Inc., 908 F. Supp. 184, 187 (S.O.N.Y. 1995) (denying
motion for summary judgment because there was a genuine issue of
61
A-379
material fact as to whether defamatory photo and caption were
true) .
Under New York law, "truth is an absolute, unqualified
defense to a civil defamation action" and "'substantial truth'
suffices to defeat a charge of libel." Jewell v. NYP Holdings,
Inc., 23 F. Supp. 2d 348, 366 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (internal
quotation marks and citations omitted). A statement is
substantially true if the statement would not "have a different
effect on the mind of the reader from that which the pleaded
truth would have produced." Id. (quoting Fleckenstein v.
Friedman, 193 N.E. 537, 538 (N.Y. 1934)) . Thus, "it is not
necessary to demonstrate complete accuracy to defeat a charge of
libel. It is only necessary that the gist or substance of the
challenged statements be true . " Printers II, Inc. v.
Professionals Publishing, Inc., 784 F.2d 141, 146 (2d Cir.
1986); see also Korkala v. W.W. Norton & Co., 618 F.Supp. 152,
155 (S.D.N . Y. 1985) ("Slight inaccuracies of expression are
immaterial provided that the defamatory charge is true in
substance.") (internal quotation marks and citation omitted);
Sharon v. Time, Inc., 609 F.Supp. 1291, 1294 (S.D.N.Y. 1984)
("Defendant is permitted to prove the substantial truth of this
statement by establishing any other proposition that has the
62
A-380
- - - - -- - -- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -
same 'gist' or 'sting' as the original libel, that is, the same
effect on the mind of the reader.ll).
The Honorable Loretta A. Preska has noted that cases
addressing whether a statement is substantially true "fall along
a broad spectrum.ll Jewell, 23 F. Supp. at 367. There are cases
in which a statement is non-actionable because it is completely
true. See, e.g., Carter, 233 A.D.2d 473, 474 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d
Dep' t 1996) (claim that defendant committed libel by informing
the authorities that plaintiff was endorsing checks made payable
to the defendant and depositing them in plaintiff's account held
non-actionable where plaintiff had in fact endorsed checks made
payable to the defendant). There are cases where "one struggles
to identify any area of ambiguity as to truth.n Jewell, 23 F.
Supp. at 368; see, e.g., Miller v. Journal-News, 211 A.D.2d 626,
627 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 1995) (statement that plaintiff was
"suspendedll substantially true where plaintiff was placed on
"administrative leavell). There are cases where the line between
the statement and the admitted truth is more tenuous, but the
overall "gi stll cannot be said to be substantially different.
See, e.g., Guccione v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 800 F.2d 298,
302-03 (2d Cir. 1986) (holding that statement which implied that.
plaintiff .was then currently an adulterer was substantially true
63
A-381
where plaintiff had ceased being an adulterer but had
"unabashedly committed adultery" for thirteen of seventeen
years). Finally, there are "those cases in which a defendant
simply asks too much in asserting that a statement is
substantially true because the difference between the two is
plainly substantial." Jewell, 23 F. Supp. at 368. For example,
the court in Da Silva, 908 F. Supp. at 186-87, held that a
photograph of plaintiff which identified her as a prostitute was
not substantially true where the plaintiff had been a prostitute
for some six years but was not at the time of publication.
After reviewing this spectrum of cases, the facts upon
which Maxwell bases her argument are insufficient to allow this
Court to find substantial truth as a matter of law. A material
dispute of fact exists as to the "admitted truth" or the
"reality" in this case.
The details and
significance of the facts offered are highly contested, and
therefore cannot establish the "substantial truth" of the Press
Release. "[R]easonable jurors could conclude that the statements
64
A-382
are not substantially true." Boehner v. Heise, 734 F.
Supp. 2d 389, 399 {S.D.N.Y . 2010).
The motion for summary judgment to dismiss the
defamation on the ground of substantial truth is denied as not
having been established by undisputed material facts.
VI . The Defamation Claim is Not Barred by New York Law
Maxwell has moved to dismiss the complaint on the
ground that the Press Release is opinion and protected by the
pre-litigation privilege under New York law. Because New York
law does not support Maxwell's position, the motion for summary
judgment based on the characterization of the Press Release as
opinion and as protected by a pre-litigation privilege is
denied.
1. The Press Release is Not Opinion.
As previously held, Maxwell's statement that Giuffre's
claims of sexual assault are lies is not an expression of
opinion:
65
A-383
First, statements that Giuffre's claims 'against

[Maxwell] are untrue,' have been 'shown to be
untrue,' and are 'obvious lies' have a specific
and readily understood factual meaning: that
Giuffre is not telling the truth about her
history of sexual abuse and [Maxwell]'s role, and
that some verifiable investigation has occurred
and come to a definitive conclusion proving that
fact. Second, these statements (as they
themselves allege), are capable of being proven
true or false, and therefore constitute
actionable fact and not opinion. Third, in their
full context, while [Maxwell]'s statements have
the effect of generally denying Giuffre's story,
they also clearly constitute fact to the reader.
Giuffre v. Maxwell, 165 F. Supp. 3d 147, 152 (S.D.N.Y. 2016).
This Court further concluded that
[Giuffre] cannot be making claims shown to be

untrue that are obvious lies without being a
liar. Furthermore, to suggest an individual is
not telling the truth about her history of having
been sexually assaulted as a minor constitutes
more than a general denial, it alleges something
deeply disturbing about the character of an
individual willing to be publicly dishonest about
such a reprehensible crime. [Maxwell)'s
statements clearly imply that the denials are
based on facts separate and contradictory to
those that [Giuffre] has alleged.
Id.
Maxwell argues that the "context" of the entire
statement "tested against the understanding of the average
reader" should be that of a press release as a whole being read
only by journalists. Def.'s Br. at 22 (quoting Aronson v.
Wiersma, 483 N.E.2d 1138, 1139 (1985)). However, the ultimate
66
A-384
audience for a press release is the public. The motion to
dismiss opinion clearly addressed this issue:
Sexual assault of a minor is a clear-cut issue;

either transgression occurred or it did not.
Either Maxwell was involved or she was not. The
issue is not a matter of opinion, and there
cannot be differing understandings of the same
facts that justify diametrically opposed opinion
as t o whether Maxwell was involved in Giuffre's
abuse as Giuffre has claimed. Either Giuffre is
telling the truth about her story and Maxwell's
involvement, or Maxwell is telling the truth and
she was not involved in the trafficking and
ultimate abuse of Giuffre.
Giuffre, 165 F. Supp. at 1 52.
Maxwell has urged that these conclusions at the motion
to dismiss stage should be revisited and revised when
considering the summary judgment motion since the standard for
deciding a Rule 12(b) (6) motion is different from the standard
for deciding a Rule 56 motion. In deciding a 12(b) (6) motion,
the court must accept as true the factual allegations and draw
all inferences in the plaintiff's favor; a plaintiff need only
state a claim that is "plausible on its face." Id. at 149
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In contrast,
for a Rule 56 motion, the plaintiff defending the motion may not
"rest on [the) allegations" in her complaint. Anderson, 477 U.S.
at 249.
67
A-385
In deciding its motion to dismiss opinion, the Court
relied on Davis v. Boeheim, 22 N.E . 3d 999 (2014), and held that
the three allegedly defamatory statements in the Press Release
have a specific and readily understood factual meaning, are
capable of being proven true or false, and "clearly constitute
fact to the reader." Giuffre, 165 F. Supp. at 152. The Court
determined that "[t]he dispositive inquiry" for purposes of
deciding whether an allegedly defamatory statement is fact or
nonactionable opinion is whether "a reasonable reader could have
concluded that the statements were conveying facts about the
plaintiff." Id. at 151 (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). To answer that inquiry, three factors enumerated in
Davis were applied. See id. These three factors are the same as
the four factors in Immuno AG v. Moor-Jankowski, 567 N.E.2d 1270
(N.Y. 1991); the difference is that the Davis court collapsed
the Immuno AG's third and fourth factors into one. See Davis, 22
N.E.3d at 1005. "[T]he critical aspect of the inquiry, as
articulated in the third factor set forth above, is to view the
statements in context." Jewell, 23 F. Supp. 2d at 377. This
contextual analysis "proceeds on two levels, the 'broader social
setting' of the statements, as well as their 'immediate
context.'" Id. (citing Immuno, 567 N.E.2d at 1280).
68
A-386
Maxwell acknowledges that the Court properly applied
Davis at the motion to dismiss stage, but argues that the third
factor, especially, benefits from the evidence presented in the
motion for summary judgment. See Def.'s Br. at 32. In other
words, Maxwell argues that "the Court did not have the 'full
context'" of the Press Release or the "broader social context
and surrounding circumstances of the statement." Id. At the
motion to dismiss stage, the text of the Press Release had not
yet been produced, nor had there been production of emails or
deposition testimony regarding the Press Release .
The developed record necessitates the same conclusion
as at the motion to dismiss stage. The context and surrounding
circumstances remain the same. The publication was intended by
Maxwell to reach the average reader, not simply the reporters,
Barden's intent, a factual issue in contest, notwithstanding.
The issue of truth or falsity is a factual determination, not a
matter of opinion. See Giuffre, 165 F. Supp. 3d at 152
("[S]tatements that Giuffre's claims 'against [Maxwell] are
untrue,' have been 'shown to be untrue,' and are 'obvious lies'
have a specific and readily understood factual meaning.").
69
A-387
2. The Pre-Litigation Privilege is Inapplicable.
Maxwell has contended that the pre-litigation
privilege as enunciated in Front, Inc. v. Khalil, 28 N.E.3d 15,
16 (N.Y. 2015), applies. See Def.'s Br. at 33.
"A privileged communication is one which, but for the
occasion on which it is uttered, would be defamatory and
actionable." Park Knoll Assocs. v. Schmidt, 451 N.E.2d 182, 184

(N.Y. 1983). "[I]t is well-settled that statements made in the
course of litigation are entitled to absolute privilege." Front,
28 N.E.3d at 18. The privilege that protects statements made in
the course of litigation "can extend to preliminary or
investigative stages of the process, particularly where
compelling public interests are at stake." Rosenberg v. MetLi .r e,
Inc., 866 N.E.3d 439, 443 (N.Y. 2007). In Front, the New York
Court of Appeals ruled that the privilege for "statements made
by attorneys prior to the coITu~encement of litigation" is
qualified rather than absolute. Id. at 16. Specifically, the
Court held that an attorney's statements made before litigation
has commenced are privileged if (1) the attorney has "a good
faith basis to anticipate litigation" and (2) the statements are
"pertinent to that anticipated litigation." Id. at 20.
70
A-388
The anticipated litigation, according to the Press
Release, was "redress at the repetition of such old defamatory
claims." See Press Release. According to Barden, Maxwell's
lawyer, he participated in the preparation of the Press Release,
the purpose of the Press Release was to dissuade the media from
publishing Giuffre's al l egations, and the implication of the
Press Release was that any redress sought by Maxwell would be
against the media. Giuffre has disputed Barden's claim that the
Press Re l ease was his own statement.
Certain of the cases cited by Maxwell in support of
the privilege can be distinguished, according to Giuffre, in
that they involve communications to or from parties to the
ultimate litigation. See, e.g., Kirk v. Heppt, 532 F. Supp. 2d
586, 593 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (the communication at issue was made by
an attorney's client to the attorney's ma l practice carrier
concerning the client's justiciable controversy against the
attorney over which the c l ients actually sued); Black v. Green
Harbour Homeowners' Ass'n, Inc., 19 A.D.3d 962, 963 (N.Y. App.
Div. 3d Dep't 2005) (privilege applied to a letter sent by a
home owner's association board of directors to the association's
members informing them of the status of litigation to which the
71
A-389
association was a party). Giuffre contends that "there was no
statement made by anyone before the commencement of litigation
because litigation never commenced." See Pl.'s Opp'n at 42.
Here, the communication at issue was sent to members
of the media, and no litigation took place between Maxwell and
the media recipients of the Press Release.
However, the pre-litigation privilege is not limited
to statements between parties and their lawyers. ~while the
communications at issue in Front were among lawyers and
potential parties, the New York Court of Appeals did not
explicitly require the recipient of the challenged statements to
be a lawyer or potential party." Feist v. Paxfire, Inc., No. 11
CIV. 5436 (LGS), 2017 WL 177652, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 17, 2017);
see Front, 28 N.E.3d at 16-17. The Second Circuit "summarily
rejected this interpretation when it applied Front to an
attorney's communications to the press." See Tacopina v.
O'Keeffe, 645 F. App'x 7, 8 (2d Cir. 2016) ("Even crediting [the
plaintiff]'s allegation that [the attorney] shared the affidavit
with the Daily News before filing it in court, Tacopina has
still not sustained his burden of showing that the statements
were not pertinent to a good faith anticipated litigation.").
72
A-390
Though a statement made to a non-party may be
privileged, the pre-litigation privilege does not apply here
because the Press Release cannot be considered a "statement[]
made by [an] attorney." Front, 28 N.E.3d at 16. Whether
Maxwell's attorney, Barden, had a hand in drafting the Press
Release, and the extent to which he may have been involved, is a
disputed issue of fact. The record evidence establishes that,
regardless, the Press Release is properly attributable to
Maxwell. Maxwell retained a public relations firm and sent her
representative there, Gow, a forwarded email with the statements
that were to be used in the Press Release. Maxwell instructed
Gow to send it, as he testified in his depositicn. While Maxwell
herself did not disseminate the email to the media recipients,
neither did Barden. The statement was sent out by Gow.
Additionally, the alleged defamatory statements in the
Press Release were attributed to Maxwell, and not to her
attorney or his agents. The email stated that the Press Release
was a "statement on behalf of,, Maxwell and notified the media
recipients that "[n]o further communication will be provided by
her [Maxwell] on this matter." There is no evidence in the email
73
A-391
that the Press Release was anything near an attorney's
statement; Barden was not even copied on the email.
The pre-litigation privilege is intended to protect
attorneys from defamations claims "so that those discharging a
public function may speak freely to zealously represent their
clients without fear of reprisal or financial hazard." Id. at
18. Where the statement cannot be attributed to an attorney,
there is no justification for protecting it by privilege.
In addition, as this Court concluded in denying
Maxwell's motion to dismiss, "[t)here is no qualified privilege
under New York law when such statements are spoken with malice,
knowledge of their falsity, or reckless disregard for their
truth." Giuffre, 165 F. Supp. 3d at 155 (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted). It is Giuffre's contention that
Maxwell knew the statements were false because she engaged in
and facilitated the sexual abuse of Giuffre. Therefore,
according to Giuffre, they were not made in good faith
anticipation of litigation, and instead were made for the
inappropriate purpose of "bully[ing]," "harass]ment]," and
"intimid[ation]." See Front, 28 N.E.3d at 19 (2015). According
to Giuffre, there is ample record evidence that Maxwell acted
74
A-392
with malice in issuing the Press Release, thereby making the
pre-litigation privilege inapplicable.
Because of the existence of triable issues of material
fact rather than opinion and because the pre-litigation
privilege is inapplicable, the motion for summary judgment is
denied.
75
A-393
VII . Conc1usion
For the reasons set forth above, the motion for
summary judgment is denied.
The parties are directed to jointly file a proposed
redacted version of this Opinion consistent with the Protective
Order or notify the Court that none are necessary within one
week of the date of receipt of this Opinion.
It is so ordered.
New York , NY
March).h- 2017
76
A-394

_______________________________________ 1 X
VIRGINIA GIUFFRE,
-against-
OPINION
GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
Defendant.
----------------------------------------x
APPEARANCES:
Counsel for Virginia Giuffre

~----------- l
USDC SDNY
Counsel for Ghislaine Maxwell nr, p,p:-;·... 1•r
.\ D ,J'-..,,,1\~.L,;·"

,, t:;, ···c" ·,L·,-1• 'C·\· 1- .. ,,
j1 u _.i:, _iP, .,l"l - 1 1 - Ll
~TT r·o.i
.t'J!.• -~-
Denver, co 80203
!lpDAlEhLt.U:
I?O(: ,H:.. ----;:·-_--·-·__~.... ~ ;
By: Laura A. Menninger, Esq. 1 - - ---- - - · ,
Counsel for Michael Cernovich
RANDAZZA LEGAL GROUP PLLC

100 Pearl Street, 14 th Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
1
A-395
Sweet, D.J.
Michael Cernovich ("Cernovich" or the "Intervenor")
has moved under Rule 24(b) to intervene in this action and to
modify the protective order entered in this action in order to
unseal particular documents submitted in connection with the
motion of defendant Ghislaine Maxwell ("Maxwell" or the
"Defendant") for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint of
plaintiff Virginia L. Giuffre ("Giuffre" or the "Plaintiff").
Based upon the conclusions set forth below, the motion to
intervene is granted, and the motion to modify the protective
order is denied.
This defamation action was commenced on September 21,
2015 and has been intensely litigated as reflected by over 880
docket entries as of this date. Familiarity with the prior
opinions is assumed. See Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 15 Civ. 7433
(RWS), 2016 WL 831949 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 29, 2016); Giuffre v.
Maxwell, No. 15 CIV. 7433 (RWS), 2016 WL 254932 (S.D.N.Y. Jan.
May 2, 2016); see also March 22, 2017 Redacted Opinion on
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 872.
2
A-396
At issue is the truth or falsity of statements made by
the Plaintiff which have been characterized as lies by the
Defendant, giving rise to this defamation action. Among the
statements at issue are allegations of sexual abuse of minors.
Discovery has proceeded involving these issues and those persons
allegedly involved.
II. The Protective Order
The Protective Order was entered on March 17, 2016 and
provided confidentiality for documents, materials and/or
information so designated by the parties, together with
procedures relating to the designations and any challenges to
the designations among other provisions. It also provided that
the Protective Order would not affect the use of confidential
information at trial.
III. The Motion to Intervene is Granted
Based upon the conclusions reached in the November 2,
2016 order granting intervention to Alan Dershowitz, the motion
3
A-397
of Cernovich to intervene to modify the Protective Order is
granted. 1
IV. The Motion to Modify the Protective Order is Denied
The Protective Order provided confidentiality for
information the parties determine would "improperly annoy,
embarrass or oppress any party, witness or person providing
discovery in this case." Protective Order, ECF No. 62, p. 1.
Intensive discovery has proceeded without challenge to a
significant number of designations, principally by the
Plaintiff. The Intervenor seeks to unseal the materials
submitted in connection with the Defendant's motion for summary
judgment. The opinion denying that motion for summary judgment
has been filed under seal, and includes a direction, in
accordance with the agreed-upon procedure, that the parties
submit an opinion that redacts any information that is subject
to the Protective Order. That opinion, containing uncontested
redactions, has been filed, ECF No. 872. The redactions to the
1 The Plaintiff had moved to strike Cernovich's opposition to her
notice of intent to request certain redactions on the basis that

Cernovich had not been granted standing as an Intervenor. That
motion, ECF No. 763, is now denied as moot.
4
A-398
opinion omit only the confidential fact contentions of the
parties resulting from the discovery. 2
In the Second Circuit, there is 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). Indeed, "once a discovery
protective order is in place, the applicable standard required
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). This Court has, three times,
found the issues presented in the action warrant a Protective
Order, and has specifically expressed concern for its ongoing
efficacy.
The Second Circuit has been hesitant to permit
modifications that might "unfairly disturb the legitimate
2The argument with respect to the summary judgment was held in

open court without objection, see Transcript of February 16,
2017 Hearing, ECF No. 702, at p. 16. The Plaintiff's request for
redaction, ECF No. 721 and 793, is denied.
5
A-399
expectations of the parties or deponents." Dorsett v. County of
Nassau, 289 F.R.D. 54, 65 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (internal citations
and quotations omitted) (denying motion to lift confidentiality
of report of policing failures surrounding the murder of a young
mother). "It is presumptively unfair for courts to modify
protective orders which assure confidentiality and upon which
the parties have reasonably relied." Id. (internal citations and
quotations omitted). Consequently, "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. Int'l
Tel. & Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291, 296 (2d Cir. 1979) (denying
governmental access for criminal investigative purposes civil
deposition transcripts taken under a protective order).
In this case, the parties and multiple deponents have
reasonably relied on the Protective Order in giving testimony
and producing documents including evidence of assault, medical
records, and emails. See Med. 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
6
A-400
third parties reasonably relied upon the terms of the protective
order). Third-party witnesses have done the same.
Cernovich cites no civil case in which a court
modified a protective order to give an intervenor access to
discovery information about the sexual assault of a minor,
except for a case when the intervenor was the handicapped
victim's mother. Instead, Cernovich cites authority that is
inapposite and self-evidently distinguishable.
In In re Pineapple Antitrust Litig., No. 04 MD. 1628
RMB MHD, 2015 WL 5439090 (S.O.N.Y. Aug. 10, 2015), cited by
Cernovich, the motion was granted because it was a "long-closed
civil lawsuit," not an ongoing litigation, as is the case here.
Similarly, in Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann
LLP, 814 F.3d 132, 142 (2d Cir. 2016), the Court only allowed
intervention "[after parties settled the action" - not one month
prior to the commencement of trial. This action is currently
scheduled for trial in mid-May and a release of contested
confidential discovery materials could conceivably taint the
jury pool.
Further, there was "no viable basis to deny the
motion" offered in In re Pineapple, 2015 WL 5439090, at *l,
7
A-401
whereas here, the Plaintiff has provided in opposition
sufficient basis to deny the motion, including the case's status
as ongoing and near trial, and the nature of the documents
requested as sensitive, regarding sexual assault of a minor at
issue. In N.Y. Civ. Liberties Union v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth., 685
F.3d 286, 298 (2d Cir. 2011), the Court stated: "Accordingly, we
have recognized that 'a person's physical safety' as well as
'the privacy interests of individuals' such as witnesses, third
parties, and those investigated in connection with a legal
violation, may 'warrant closure.'" Here, privacy interests of
both parties and third parties warrant closure with respect to
discovery materials. In Schiller v. City of N.Y., No. 04 CIV.
792l(KMK), 2006 WL 2788256 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2006), the motion
was brought by the New York Times and the Court granted the
motion while noting that the intervention "for the limited
purpose of challenging strictures on the dissemination of
information should not impede the progress of the litigation."
Id. at *3. There is no such limited purpose here.
Another case cited by Cernovich, Hartford Courant Co.
v. Pellegrino, 380 F.3d 83, 91 (2d Cir. 2004), is inapposite
because it involved the right of access to docket sheets which
Cernovich already has.
8
A-402
The Court recognizes that there is generally a
presumption of public access to judicial documents. The Second
Circuit has noted that where, as here, "a district court 'denied
the summary judgment motion, essentially postponing a final
determination of substantive legal rights,' the public interest
in access 'is not as pressing.'" United States v. Amodeo, 71
F.3d 1044, 1049 (2d Cir. 1995) (quoting In re Reporters Comm.
for Freedom of the Press, 773 F.2d 1325, 1342 n. 3 (D.C. Cir.
1985) (Wright, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part)).
Because of the sensitive nature of the materials designated as
confidential, involving allegations of sexual abuse and
trafficking of minors, and because we are mere weeks from
assembling a jury for trial, the importance of leaving these
materials protected by the Protective Order outweighs any public
interest in their publication at this time.
The Intervenor seeks to modify the Protective Order
with respect to documents produced in discovery and referred to
in the parties' factual statements. Protection of confidential
discovery in this case is appropriate. See, e.g., Doe v. City of
San Diego, No. 12-CV-689-MMA-DHB, 2014 WL 1921742, at *5 (S.D.
Cal. May 14, 2014) (denying in part a request to unseal where
the court found the information to be of the kind that would
"gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate
9
A-403
libelous statements, or release trade secretsn) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted). To the extent that the
summary judgment decision of March 22, 2017 relied upon the
confidential fact submissions, that reliance was set forth.
The Intervenor has not established a compelling need
for the documents obtained in discovery which undergird the
summary judgment decision.
The motion of the Intervenor to modify the Protective
Order to obtain discovery materials deemed confidential by the
parties is denied.
V. Conclusion
This opinion resolves ECF Nos. 550, 763, and 793.
The motion of the Intervenor to intervene is granted.
The motion to modify the Protective Order is denied.
10
A-404
It is so ordered.
New York, NY
May V, 2017
U.S.D.J.
11
A-405

VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE, :
:
Plaintiff, :
:
- against - : Case No. 15-cv-7433 (RWS)
:
:
Defendant. :
:
NOTICE OF MOTION TO INTERVENE AND UNSEAL
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that upon the memorandum of law in support of proposed
intervenors Julie Brown and the Miami Herald Media Company's Motion to Intervene and Unseal,
dated April 6, 2018, and all prior papers and proceedings in this action, Julie Brown and the Miami
Herald Media Company move to intervene and for an order unsealing all of the documents in the
above-captioned action that have been filed under seal or redacted, and granting such other and
further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
Dated: April 6, 2018

New York, New York
/s Christine N. Walz
Sanford L. Bohrer
Christine N. Walz
31 West 52nd Street
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 513-3200
Attorneys for Movants/Intervenors

Julie Brown and Miami Herald Media Company
#56344674_v1
A-406

VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE, :
:
Plaintiff, :
:
- against - : Case No. 15-cv-7433 (RWS)
:
:
Defendant. :
:
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSED

INTERVENORS JULIE BROWN AND MIAMI HERALD MEDIA COMPANY'S
MOTION TO INTERVENE AND UNSEAL
1
A-407
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... ii

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .....................................................................................................1
I. INTERVENORS' COVERAGE OF ALLEGATIONS AGAINST JEFFREY
EPSTEIN AND GHISLAINE MAXWELL ........................................................................2
II. THE OVERBROAD SEALING ORDER AND PRIOR ATTEMPTS TO UNSEAL ........3
III. THE ORDER DENYING THE MOTIONS TO UNSEAL .................................................6
ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................................6
I. MIAMI HERALD MEDIA HAS THE RIGHT TO INTERVENE AS A NEWS
ORGANIZATION ...............................................................................................................7
II. THE PRESUMPTION OF OPENNESS UNDER THE COMMON LAW AND FIRST
AMENDMENT APPLY TO THE DOCUMENTS AT ISSUE. ...........................................8
A. The First Amendment and Common Law Provide For a Presumption of
Access to Judicial Documents. ................................................................................8
B. The Documents at Issue Qualify As Judicial Documents. .....................................11
III. THE DOCKET SHOULD BE UNSEALED BECAUSE THERE ARE NO
COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCES IN THIS CASE THAT OVERCOME THE
PUBLIC'S RIGHT OF ACCESS........................................................................................13
IV. THE PARTIES HAVE NOT ESTABLISHED GOOD CAUSE FOR SEALING
NON-JUDICIAL DOCUMENTS, IF ANY. ......................................................................15
CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................16
i
A-408
Page(s)
CASES
Alexander Interactive, Inc. v. Adorama, Inc.,

No. 12 CIV. 6608 PKC JCF, 2014 WL 4346174 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 2, 2014) ........................................ 12
Allen v. City of New York,

420 F. Supp. 2d 295 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) .................................................................................................. 15

814 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2016) ....................................................................................................... 9, 11, 14
Bernstein v. O'Reilly,
Case No. 17-cv-9483 (April 3, 2018) ..................................................................................................... 9
Carlson v. Geneva City Sch. Dist.,

277 F.R.D. 90 (W.D.N.Y. 2011) .......................................................................................................... 15
Condit v. Dunne,
225 F.R.D. 113 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) .......................................................................................................... 15
E*Trade Fin. Corp. v. Deutsche Bank AG,

582 F. Supp. 2d 528 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) .................................................................................................... 9
Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Nat'l Children's Ctr., Inc.,

146 F.3d 1042 (D.C. Cir. 1998).............................................................................................................. 8
FDIC v. Ernst & Ernst,

677 F.2d 230 (2d Cir. 1982) ................................................................................................................... 8
Gambale v. Deutsche Bank,

377 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 2004) ................................................................................................................. 15
Globe Newspapers, Co. v. Superior Court,

457 U.S. 596 (1982) ............................................................................................................................. 10
Hardy v. Kaszycki & Sons,

No. 83-CV-6346 (LAP), 2017 WL 6805707 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 21, 2017) ......................................... 9, 14
Havens v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.,

No. 94 CIV. 1402 (CSH), 1995 WL 234710 (S.D.N.Y. April 20, 1995) ............................................. 15
In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) Prods. Liab. Litig.,

MDL No. 1358, 2013 WL 3531600 (S.D.N.Y. July 12, 2013) ............................................................ 10
In re NASDAQ Market-Makers Antitrust Litig.,

164 F.R.D. 346 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) ............................................................................................................ 7
ii
A-409
In re Omnicom Grp., Inc. Sec. Litig.,

No. 02 CIV. 4483 ............................................................................................................................. 9, 12
In re Pineapple Antitrust Litig.,

No. 04 MD. 1628 RMB MHD, 2015 WL 5439090 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 10, 2015) ..................................... 7
In re Terrorist Attacks on Sept.

11, 2001, 454 F. Supp. 2d 220 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) .................................................................................. 15
Landmark Commc'ns, Inc. v. Virginia,

435 U.S. 829 (1978) ............................................................................................................................. 10
Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga,

435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) .......................................................................................................... passim
Mitchell v. Fishbein,
227 F.R.D. 239 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) .......................................................................................................... 15
Nebraska Press Ass'n v. Stuart,

427 U.S. 539 (1976) ............................................................................................................................. 10
Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc.,

435 U.S. 589 (1978) ............................................................................................................................. 10
Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court,

464 U.S. 501 (1984) ............................................................................................................................. 10
Savitt v. Vacco,
No. 95-CV-1842(RSP/DRH), 1996 WL 663888 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 8, 1996)........................................... 7
Schiller v. City of New York,

No. 04 CIV. 7921(KMK), 2006 WL 2788256 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2006) ....................................... 7, 12
Sec. and Exch. Comm'n v. TheStreet.Com,

273 F.3d 222 (2d Cir. 2001) ................................................................................................................... 7
Under Seal v. Under Seal,

273 F. Supp. 3d 460 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) ........................................................................................ 8, 11, 14
United States v. Erie Cnty.,

763 F.3d 235 (2d Cir. 2014) ................................................................................................................. 14
United States v. Sattar,

471 F. Supp. 2d 380 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) .................................................................................................. 11
Wilson v. Am. Motors Corp.,

759 F.2d 1568 (11th Cir. 1985) .............................................................................................................. 8
OTHER AUTHORITIES
Fed. R. Civ. P. 24 ...................................................................................................................................... 1, 7
iii
A-410
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) ................................................................................................................................... 15
U.S. Const. amend. I ............................................................................................................................ passim
iv
A-411
Pursuant to Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Miami Herald Media
Company (the "Miami Herald"), and Julie Brown, investigative journalist for the Miami Herald
("Julie Brown" and together with Miami Herald, the "Intervenors"), respectfully submit this
memorandum of law in support of their motion to intervene and unseal all of the documents in the
above-captioned action that have been filed under seal or redacted. These judicial documents are
germane to the Miami Herald's ongoing coverage of dozens of underage minors who were victims
of Jeffrey Epstein, the South Florida financier who pleaded guilty in 2008 to solicitation of minors
for prostitution and was suspected of involvement in a larger sex-trafficking organization. These
documents are presumptively public, under both the common law and the First Amendment to the
United States Constitution, but have been sealed pursuant to an improvidently granted protective
order (ECF No. 62) (the "Protective Order") that allowed the parties to the above-caption actions
("Parties") to designate information as confidential without the particularized judicial scrutiny
required by the law prior to sealing. Though two previous motions to unseal have been denied,
the reasoning underlying the denial – the imminence of trial, and potential impact on a jury – is no
longer relevant because the case has been settled.
The Parties in this action have made use of the public courts to litigate a claim of intense
public interest. They may not do so in secret without a specific finding of compelling interest.
Since this has not occurred, and no other interest outweighs the public right of access, Intervenors'
motion should be granted.
1
A-412
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
I. INTERVENORS' COVERAGE OF ALLEGATIONS AGAINST JEFFREY

EPSTEIN AND GHISLAINE MAXWELL
The Miami Herald is the second largest newspaper in South Florida. Established in 1903,
it is circulated in Miami-Dade, Broward County, and Monroe County, as well as in the Caribbean
and Latin America. Julie Brown is an investigative journalist at the Miami Herald with over twenty
years of experience. For over three years, the Miami Herald has reported on and investigated Mr.
Epstein and others who were involved in the sexual abuse of underage girls. Recent court filings,
both in federal and state court, have raised new allegations about his involvement in a wider sex-
trafficking ring. The Miami Herald has covered, among other subjects, the initial investigation by
the Palm Beach state attorney, the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office, the negotiations between
those law enforcement agencies and Mr. Epstein's legal defense team, and the ultimate decision
by the U.S. Attorney's Office to sign a non-prosecution agreement that was negotiated in secret
and sealed in return for a guilty plea to a lesser state crime. The deal, which was not revealed until
well after it was signed and Mr. Epstein was sentenced, resulted in him serving 13 months of an
18-month sentence. He now lives in the U.S. Virgin Islands.
The Miami Herald has also reported on civil matters related to the original criminal case
against Mr. Epstein, which include the now-settled above-captioned action. Here, the underlying
claim is a defamation action brought by Virginia Giuffre ("Ms. Giuffre" or "Plaintiff") against
Ghislaine Maxwell ("Ms. Maxwell" or "Defendant") on the grounds that Ms. Maxwell, in
coordination with Mr. Epstein, "facilitated [] sexual abuse" of Ms. Giuffre and "wrongfully
subjected Giuffre to public ridicule, contempt and disgrace by…calling Giuffre a liar in published
statements." (ECF. No. 1.) Specifically, Court transcripts in the Giuffre/Maxwell case make
several references to Ms. Maxwell being the "madame'' of Mr. Epstein's sex-trafficking enterprise,
2
A-413
and to witnesses who may be able to provide evidence of a wider, cross-border sex-trafficking
ring.
In connection with its ongoing investigation, the Miami Herald has sought to access public
court filings that will shed light on the scope of Epstein's crimes and address serious questions
about whether there was any undue influence that tainted the investigation. These include how the
Epstein case was disposed of by the criminal justice system, whether victims were treated properly,
whether Epstein's victims were unfairly kept in the dark, whether Epstein was given favorable
treatment because of his wealth and status, in short, whether the public interest was served. These
questions have yet to be answered because many of the records that could provide responsive
information have been sealed. The public, including Epstein's victims, has the right to know how
Mr. Epstein's case was prosecuted. The law provides the public with the presumption of access in
order to hold our legal instutitions accountable and to maintain confidence that they will protect
the most vulnerable in our society.
TT. THE OVERBROAD SEALING ORDER AND PRIOR ATTEMPTS TO

UNSEAL
During litigation of the defamation claim, the Court, upon Defendant's motion, entered an
overly broad Protective Order stating, inter alia:
This Protective Order shall apply to all documents, materials, and

information, including without limitation, documents produced,
answers to interrogatories, responses to requests for admission,
deposition testimony, and other information disclosed pursuant to
the disclosure or discovery duties created by the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.
***
Information designated "CONFIDENTIAL" shall be information
that is confidential and implicates common law and statutory
privacy interests of (a) plaintiff Virginia Roberts Giuffre and (b)
defendant Ghislaine Maxwell.
***
Designation of a document as CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
shall constitute a representation that such document has been
3
A-414
reviewed by an attorney for the designating party, that there is a

valid and good faith basis for such designation, made at the time of
disclosure or production to the receiving party, and that disclosure
of such information to persons other than those permitted access to
such material would cause a privacy harm to the designating party.
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION with the Court in this matter, it
shall be accompanied by a Motion to Seal pursuant to Section 6.2 of
the Electronic Case Filing Rules & Instructions for the Southern
District of New York.
***
A party may object to the designation of particular
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION by giving written notice to the
party designating the disputed information. The written notice shall
identify the information to which the objection is made. If the
parties cannot resolve the objection within ten (10) business days
after the time the notice is received, it shall be the obligation of 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. If such a motion is timely filed, the disputed information shall
be treated as CONFIDENTIAL under the terms of this Protective
Order until the Court rules on the motion. If the designating party
fails to file such a motion within the prescribed time, the disputed
information shall lose its designation as CONFIDENTIAL and shall
not thereafter be treated as CONFIDENTIAL in accordance with
this Protective Order. In connection with a motion filed under this
provision, the party designating the information as
CONFIDENTIAL shall bear the burden of establishing that good
cause exists for the disputed information to be treated as
CONFIDENTIAL.
Essentially, the Protective Order allowed the Parties the autonomy to designate portions of
the docket as "confidential" and further allowed those designated portions to remain confidential
unless the non-designating party objected.
Following the Protective Order, Defendant designated her deposition as confidential and
submitted at least 13 letter motions to file documents under seal, including exhibits to discovery
motions (see, e.g., ECF. No. 167), and discovery motions themselves. (See, e.g., ECF No. 236.)
Each of the letter motions was so-ordered. Plaintiff also submitted at least 22 motions to file
4
A-415
documents under seal, including additional discovery motions (see, e.g., ECF No. 245), and a
Motion for an Adverse Inference Instruction. (See ECF No. 278.) The Court so-ordered each of
these motions. After at least 35 motions on the part of Plaintiff and Defendant, the Court issued
an order stating that the parties were no longer required to seek court approval to designate
confidential information:
To reduce unnecessary filings and delay, it is hereby ordered that

letter motions to file submissions under seal pursuant to the Court's
Protective Order, ECF No. 62, are granted. The Protective Order is
amended accordingly such that filing a letter motion seeking sealing
for each submission is no longer necessary. A party wishing to
challenge the sealing of any particular submission may do so by
motion.
(ECF No. 348.)
In addition to the wholesale sealing of certain motions, the entire body of Defendant's
motion for summary judgment – 68 pages – was redacted (see ECF No. 538) and over half of the
order denying Defendant's motion for summary judgment was redacted. (ECF No. 872.)
In response to the sealing, two separate parties moved to intervene and to unseal selected
filings. The first, Alan Dershowitz, himself implicated in the Epstein scandal, moved to intervene
and to unseal three documents or in the alternative to modify the Protective Order (the "Dershowitz
Motion"). (ECF No. 362.) The documents that Mr. Dershowitz targeted are currently
unidentifiable because the Dershowitz Motion was partially redacted, and the order denying the
motion to unseal was itself sealed. The second individual, podcast host and investigative journalist
Michael Cernovich, moved to intervene and unseal Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment
(the "Cernovich Motion"). (ECF No. 550.) The portion of the Cernovich motion seeking to unseal
the Motion for Summary Judgment was also denied.
5
A-416
TIT. THE ORDER DENYING THE MOTIONS TO UNSEAL
The order on the Cernovich Motion (which, unlike that on the Dershowitz Motion, was not
sealed) reasoned that both the sensitive nature of the material at issue and the procedural status of
the case merited closure. Regarding the former reason, the Court stated that "privacy interests of
both parties and third parties warrant disclosure with respect to discovery materials." (ECF No.
892, at 8.) Regarding the latter reason, the Court emphasized that, due to the ongoing status of the
litigation and the imminence of trial, "a release of contested confidential discovery material could
conceivably taint the jury pool." (Id., at 7.) Summarizing, the court stated: "Because of the
sensitive nature of the materials designated as confidential, involving allegations of sexual abuse
and trafficking of minors, and because we are mere weeks from assembling a jury for trial, the
importance of leaving these materials protected by the Protective Order outweighs any public
interest in their publication." (Id., at 9.)
Messrs. Dershowitz and Cernovich both appealed to the Second Circuit. (ECF Nos. 500
and 915.) TheaAppeals are currently pending.
On May 24, 2016, Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a settlement agreement. Now, the
Miami Herald seeks to unseal all sealed documents on the docket, including the Parties' depositions
and documents submitted in support of motions, and to remove any redactions from filed
documents unless there remains a compelling need for closure.
ARGUMENT
As a representative of the public interest in the transparency of our courts, the Miami
Herald seeks to intervene in this matter to unseal documents germane to a subject of intense media
coverage and public import. Despite the sensitive nature of some of the materials under seal, the
law affords the presumption of openness, under the common law and the First Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution, more weight. Even if the Parties have reasons compelling enough to overcome
6
A-417
this presumption, the Parties were not required, as they should have been, to articulate those
reasons. Instead, the Parties benefited from a presumption of closure.
Of particular importance, a main reason denying the prior motions to unseal – the on-going
status of the litigation – is no longer relevant because the litigation has been settled. While certain
redactions may remain necessary to shield personal medical information or the identities of crime
victims, the majority of the materials sought here can and should be disclosed. For these reasons,
explained in further detail below, the Miami Herald respectfully requests that the Court unseal all
sealed files on the docket, and remove any redactions from partially redacted documents.
I. THE MIAMI HERALD HAS THE RIGHT TO INTERVENE AS A NEWS

ORGANIZATION
Under the law of this Circuit, news organizations are routinely permitted to intervene and
be heard on issues involving public access to proceedings and documents, including challenges to
discovery protective orders, pursuant to Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, either as
a matter of right or permissively. See, e.g., Sec. and Exch. Comm'n v. TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d
222, 227 n.4 (2d Cir. 2001); Schiller v. City of New York, No. 04 CIV. 7921(KMK)(JC), 2006 WL
2788256, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2006); In re NASDAQ Market-Makers Antitrust Litig., 164
F.R.D. 346, 350-51 (S.D.N.Y. 1996); Savitt v. Vacco, No. 95-CV-1842(RSP/DRH), 1996 WL
663888, at *7 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 8, 1996) ("The Second Circuit Court of Appeals and its district
courts have consistently held that news agencies have standing to challenge protective orders in
cases of public interest."). Accordingly, this Court should permit Intervenors to intervene for the
limited purpose of advocating for public access to these proceedings.
This motion is timely. Intervention has been granted years into litigation - and even long
after a case has concluded. See In re Pineapple Antitrust Litig., No. 04 MD. 1628 RMB MHD,
2015 WL 5439090, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 10, 2015) ("There is no legal authority of which we are
7
A-418
aware … to the effect that there is a deadline by which such a journalistic request for access to
documents must be asserted, and certainly no requirement that the application be made before the
lawsuit is closed."); Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Nat'l Children's Ctr., Inc., 146 F.3d 1042,
1047 (D.C. Cir. 1998) ("Intervention to challenge confidentiality orders may take place long after
a case has been terminated.") (quoting Pansy v. Borough of Stroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772, 779 (3d Cir.
1994)); see also Wilson v. Am. Motors Corp., 759 F.2d 1568 (11th Cir. 1985) (non-party permitted
to intervene after judicially approved settlement in order to challenge a seal on court documents);
FDIC v. Ernst & Ernst, 677 F.2d 230, 231-32 (2d Cir. 1982) (non-party permitted to intervene and
challenge a stipulated confidentiality order two years after a judicially approved settlement). The
public and the Miami Herald are entitled to access these records and proceedings at any time.
II. THE PRESUMPTION OF OPENNESS UNDER THE COMMON LAW AND

FIRST AMENDMENT APPLY TO THE DOCUMENTS AT ISSUE
A. The First Amendment and Common Law Provide For a Presumption of

Access to Judicial Documents
The public holds an affirmative, enforceable right of access to judicial records under both
the common law and the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. See Under Seal v. Under Seal,
273 F. Supp. 3d 460, 467 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (noting that the common law and First Amendment
provide "related but distinct presumptions in favor of public access to court … records") (quoting
Newsday LLC v. Cnty. Of Nassau, 730 F.3d 156, 163 (2d Cir. 2013)). Both regimes protect the
values of transparency and accountability in the judicial process through procedural requirements,
and both place heavy burdens on parties seeking to seal judicial records to ensure that the courts
do not sacrifice the public's right of access to the desires of the litigations. See generally Lugosch
v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) (First Amendment and common law
right to judicial documents); In re Omnicom Grp., Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 02 CIV. 4483 RCC/MHD,
2006 WL 3016311, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 23, 2006) (an application to seal "must address and
8
A-419
overcome the presumption of public filing that finds its twin sources in the common-law right of
public access to judicial documents and the qualified First Amendment right to attend judicial
proceedings. The two are entirely complementary.").
Historically, at common law, "both civil and criminal trials have been presumptively open."
E*Trade Fin. Corp. v. Deutsche Bank AG, 582 F. Supp. 2d 528, 531 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (citing
Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 580 n.17 (1980)). Recently, the Second Circuit
reiterated the common law presumption in Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann
LLP, 814 F.3d 132, 142 (2d Cir. 2016). In Bernstein, the Second Circuit emphasized the "general
right to inspect and copy…judicial records and documents." Id. at 142 (quoting Nixon v. Warner
Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978)). It further explained that the weight of the presumption
is a function of: "(1) the role of the material at issue in the exercise of Article III judicial power
and (2) the resultant value of such information to those monitoring the federal courts, balanced
against competing considerations such as 'the privacy interests of those resisting disclosure.'" Id.
(internal quotation marks omitted). The presumption weakens where "testimony or documents
play only a negligible role in the performance of Article III duties," but even so, there remains a
"prediction of public access." Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d at 121. Moreover,
even if a court determines that the interests of those seeking closure outweigh the presumption of
access, "sealing must be supported by specific findings." Hardy v. Kaszycki & Sons, No. 83-CV-
6346 (LAP), 2017 WL 6805707, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 21, 2017) (citing United States v. Amodeo,
44 F.3d 141, 148 (2d Cir. 1995)); see also Bernstein v. O'Reilly, Case No. 17-cv-9483 (S.D.N.Y.
April 3, 2018) (denying motion to seal where defendant failed to "present compelling
countervailing factors that could overcome the presumption of public access" to court records.).
9
A-420
The First Amendment presumption of access is even stronger. As the U.S. Supreme Court
has said time and again, the First Amendment requires open courts and court records to ensure the
"appearance of fairness [that is] so essential to public confidence in the system." Press-Enterprise
Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501, 508 (1984). The media's access to judicial proceedings and
records keeps the public informed and helps instill public confidence in both the process and the
results of trials. Nebraska Press Ass'n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 559-60 (1976); Nixon, 435 U.S. at
609. "The press does not simply publish information about trials but guards against the miscarriage
of justice by subjecting the police, prosecutors, and judicial processes to extensive public scrutiny
and criticism." Landmark Commc'ns, Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U.S. 829, 838-39 (1978).
The First Amendment access right imposes a heavy burden on those who seek to limit
public access to justify the restriction. See Globe Newspapers, Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S.
596, 606 (1982) ("the State's justification in denying access must be a weighty one"); Lugosch v.
Pyramid Co., 435 F.3d 110 at 126 (First Amendment "gives rise to a higher burden on the party
seeking to prevent disclosure than does the common law presumption"); In re Methyl Tertiary
Butyl Ether (MTBE) Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 1358, 2013 WL 3531600, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. July
12, 2013) ("Once properly invoked, the public's right of access to judicial documents under the
First Amendment must be given strong weight.") (internal quotation marks omitted). As the
Supreme Court explained in Globe Newspapers, the standard to be met is a strict one: "Where . . .
the State attempts to deny the right of access in order to inhibit the disclosure of sensitive
information, it must be shown that the denial is necessitated by a compelling governmental interest,
and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest." 457 U.S. at 606-07 (1982).
In this case, the Protective Order improperly reversed the common law and First
Amendment presumption of openness to one of closure. Instead of requiring the Parties to
10
A-421
demonstrate a compelling need for closure, the Protective Order effectively rubber-stamped any
information designated as confidential by the Parties. The Court then reaffirmed the presumption
of closure by lifting the requirement in the original Protective Order that required the parties to
submit letter motions in order to seal documents. (ECF No. 348.) Though the original Protective
Order provided the non-designating party with a mechanism to dispute a confidentiality
designation (ECF No. 62, ¶ 11), this did not, and cannot, replace the public's baseline right to
access.
B. The Documents at Issue Qualify As Judicial Documents
All of the documents that the Miami Herald seeks to unseal – in whole or in part – qualify
as "judicial documents" to which applies the common law and First Amendment presumption of
access. Recently, this court noted that "[g]enerally, the presumption of access applies to all
documents filed with the court." Under Seal, 273 F. Supp. 3d at 269; see also United States v.
Sattar, 471 F. Supp. 2d 380, 385 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (generally, a document is a "judicial document"
if it is "submitted to the Court for the purposes of seeking or opposing adjudication."); Lugosch v.
Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119 (2d Cir. 2006) (a judicial document is one that is
"relevant to performance of judicial function and useful in judicial process"). Defendant's motion
for summary judgment fits this definition squarely because it presents the substantive reasons for
final adjudication. See Bernstein, 814 F.3d at 136 (holding that motions for summary judgments,
as well as reports submitted in connection with a motion for summary judgment, are entitled a
strong presumption of access).
11
A-422
The remaining documents, the majority of which are those submitted in opposition or
support to discovery motions, also qualify.1 Citing the broad rule in Lugosch, the court in
Alexander Interactive, Inc. v. Adorama, Inc., No. 12 CIV. 6608 PKC JCF, 2014 WL 4346174, at
*2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 2, 2014), stated that "documents to be submitted are in support of a motion to
compel discovery [] presumably will be necessary to or helpful in resolving that motion. They are,
therefore, judicial documents." Similarly, in In re Omnicom Grp., the court held that a "series of
letter briefs with accompanying exhibits…certainly qualify as judicial documents." 2006 WL
3016311 at *2. These briefs were submitted, "to request the court to exercise its adjudicative
powers in favor of the parties' respective views of a discovery dispute." Id.; see also Schiller, 2006
WL 2788256, at *5 (holding that briefs and supporting papers submitted in connection with a
dispute over the confidentiality of discovery materials were "created by or at the behest of counsel
and presented to a court in order to sway a judicial decision" and were therefore "judicial
documents that trigger the presumption of public access"). The docket entries and accompanying
exhibits, including deposition testimony, sealed by the following orders are therefore "judicial
documents": ECF Nos. 100, 145, 158, 163, 167, 183, 186, 196, 344 (entries related to motions to
compel); ECF Nos. 168, 178, 197, 209, 236, 256, 273, 285, 319, 249 (entries related to motions to
serve deposition subpoenas, exceed deposition limits, reopen Plaintiff's deposition, or complete
depositions); ECF Nos. 266, 282, 285, 297, 328, 350 (entries related to motion for adverse
inference); ECF Nos. 125, 329 (entries related to motions concerning forensic examination of
computer); ECF No. 146 (entries related to brief in support of privilege claimed for Plaintiff's in
camera submission); ECF no. 354, 275 (entries related to Defendant's response to non-party's
1
The Miami Herald is only able to identify the nature of the sealed documents that were filed before the Court
issued its order (ECF. No. 348), which lifted the requirement that the Parties file a letter motion in order to designate
information as confidential and seal.
12
A-423
motion to quash subpoena); ECF No. 281, 286 (entries related to Plaintiff's sur-reply); ECF No.
322 (entries related to Plaintiff's proposed search terms); ECF. No. 332 (entries related to exhibit
accompanying Plaintiff's notice of supplemental authority); ECF. 351 (entries related to motion
for protective order).
III. THE DOCKET SHOULD BE UNSEALED BECAUSE THERE ARE NO

COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCES IN THIS CASE THAT OVERCOME
THE PUBLIC'S RIGHT OF ACCESS
In light of the First Amendment and common law presumption against closure and the First
Amendment's stringent, "compelling reason" standard, the interests of the Parties are insufficient
when weighed against the public's right of access.
As a preliminary matter, one of the main reasons for closure identified in the Court's denial
of the Cernovich Motion – the ongoing status of the litigation – is no longer relevant because the
case has settled. Accordingly there is no more risk that the "release of contested confidential
discovery materials could conceivably taint the jury pool." (ECF No. 892, at 7.) Any weight given
to the fact that, at the time of the denial of the Cernovich motion, the case was "mere weeks from
assembling" trial, should be disregarded. The legal rights of the parties are now settled, and if the
public's interest in this matter was at all tempered in light of the on-going litigation, it is now
renewed.
Further, even if the case remained open, the privacy interests of the litigants do not
outweigh the public's right of access under the First Amendment. Ms. Giuffre's allegations have
been the subject of significant public interest and have been covered at length by the Miami Herald
and other members of the news media. Coverage is ongoing, and there are several aspects of the
story that require further investigation. As such, the judicial documents in question involve issues
that are "manifestly ones of public concern and therefore ones in which the public has an interest
in overseeing." United States v. Erie Cnty., 763 F.3d 235, 242 (2d Cir. 2014); see also Under Seal
13
A-424
273 F. Supp. 3d at 472 (unsealing entire docket and holding that public right of access outweighed
defendant's concern of adverse publicity and her reliance on previously executed confidentiality
agreement); Bernstein, 814 F.3d at 143-44 (attempt to seal complaint against law firm alleging that
partners engaged in kick-back scheme was properly denied where complaint was of "legitimate
interest to the public" and where disclosure would not reveal details of an ongoing investigation,
pose a risk to witnesses, endanger national security, reveal trade secrets, or implicate duty to
protect attorney-client material or confidential client information); Hardy, 2017 WL 6805707, at
*6-7 (unsealing transcript of settlement between workers' union and, inter alia, the Trump
Organization and holding that, under common law and the First Amendment, public interest
outweighed reliance on sealing order and the "generalized interest" in promoting settlement).
Neither of the Parties have presented the "specific, on-the-record findings" that establish a
compelling reason for sealing or redaction. Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 126. Quite the opposite – the
Court initially granted at least 35 letter motions to seal documents, the vast majority with de
minimis justification. See, e.g. ECF No. 285 (So-ordering sealing where Defendant reasoned
"Exhibits contain content designated as confidential by the parties pursuant to the Protective
Order"); ECF No. 236 (So-ordering the sealing where Defendant reasoned "These Motions,
Declarations, and Exhibits contain content designated as confidential by the parties pursuant to the
protective order"). The Court then lifted any requirement for justification whatsoever when it
ceased to require letter motions prior to sealing. In sum, the parties did not – and were not required
to – rebut the presumption of access afforded by the common law and the First Amendment, much
less establish the prerequisite "compelling interest" needed to justify sealing.
14
A-425
IV. THE PARTIES HAVE NOT ESTABLISHED GOOD CAUSE FOR SEALING
NON-JUDICIAL DOCUMENTS, IF ANY
Even if the Court were to hold that the documents at issue are not "judicial documents"
the Parties have not met the "good cause" standard that is still required to justify closure of other
documents. "[T]he party seeking a protective order has the burden of showing that good cause
exists for issuance of that order. However, it is equally apparent that the obverse also is true, i.e.,
if good cause is not shown, the discovery materials in question should not receive judicial
protection and therefore would be open to the public for inspection." Gambale v. Deutsche Bank,
377 F.3d 133, 142 (2d Cir. 2004) (quotation marks and citation omitted); Mitchell v. Fishbein,
227 F.R.D. 239, 254 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (movant must demonstrate good cause for order barring
public dissemination of discovery materials); Condit v. Dunne, 225 F.R.D. 113, 115 (S.D.N.Y.
2004) (same).
To show good cause under Rule 26(c), parties must demonstrate that disclosure will cause
a clear and serious injury via a "particular and specific demonstration of fact, as distinguished from
stereotyped and conclusory statements." Havens v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., No. 94 CIV.
1402 (CSH), 1995 WL 234710, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. April 20, 1995) (quoting Cipollone v. Liggett
Grp., Inc., 785 F.2d 1108, 1121 (3d Cir. 1986)); see also Carlson v. Geneva City Sch. Dist., 277
F.R.D. 90, 94 (W.D.N.Y. 2011) (requiring "defined, specific, and serious injury") (citation
omitted); Allen v. City of New York, 420 F. Supp. 2d 295, 302 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (to establish good
cause, a party must demonstrate that "a clearly defined and serious injury … would result from
disclosure of the document." (internal citations and quotation marks omitted)); In re Terrorist
Attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, 454 F. Supp. 2d 220, 222 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (ordinarily good cause
demonstrated "when a party shows that disclosure will result in a clearly defined, specific and
serious injury") (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). In this case, the blanket
15
A-426
Protective Order allows the Parties to seal presumptively public information merely by
designation, without any judicial scrutiny at all, and therefore the good cause standard is not
satisfied.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Miami Herald's motion to intervene and unseal all sealed
or redacted docket entries should be granted.
Dated: April 6, 2018 Respectfully Submitted,
/s Christine N. Walz
Sanford L. Bohrer
Christine N. Walz
31 West 52nd Street
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: 212.513.3200
Fax: 212.385.9010
Attorneys for Movants/Intervenors

Julie Brown and Miami Herald Media Company
#55775939_v1
16
A-427

Plaintiff, Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS
v.
Ghislaine Maxwell,
Defendant.
________________________________/
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO PROPOSED INTERVENORS JULIE BROWN AND

MIAMI HERALD MEDIA COMPANY’S MOTION TO INTERVENE AND UNSEAL
Sigrid McCawley
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
401 E. Las Olas Boulevard
Suite 1200
A-428
Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre, by and through her undersigned counsel, responds to
Intervenors Julie Brown and the Miami Herald Media Company’s (hereinafter collectively
referred to as “The Miami Herald”) Motion to Intervene and Unseal as follows:
BACKGROUND
A Protective Order was entered in this case on March 17, 2016 to maintain the privacy
of the parties and deponents during the pendency of discovery and to facilitate selection of an
unbiased jury. (DE 62) During the course of the litigation, Ms. Giuffre objected to the piecemeal
release of only certain documents proposed by Intervenors Alan Dershowitz and Michael
Cernovich. This Court denied Dershowitz and Cernovich’s efforts to selectively unseal only
portions of the record in advance of trial (November 2, 2016 Sealed Order and DE 892).
Dershowitz and Cernovich appealed this Court’s ruling to the Second Circuit, and the appeal is
presently pending.1 Ms. Giuffre and Ms. Maxwell settled their case in May 2017 just a few
weeks before the trial was scheduled to commence. Now the Miami Herald requests that the
Court unseal the Court record.
ARGUMENT
Ms. Giuffre has consistently taken the position that if anything is going to be unsealed in
this matter, in fairness to Ms. Giuffre and the other victims who provided testimony, all filings
must be unsealed, including all deposition testimony that was designated for trial. Only then,
will the complete picture of the abuse that occurred be clear and only then will Ms. Giuffre be
able to defend against the horrific public attacks that Mr. Dershowitz and others have launched
against her, despite knowing full well she was a victim of abuse when she was a minor. To
1
The Second Circuit recently requested supplemental briefing on whether it has jurisdiction to
hear the appeal, in light of the fact that this Court’s rulings might not be appealable “final
orders.” See Dershowitz v. Giuffre, No. 16-3945(2d Cir.) (DE 187).
2
A-429
allow Intervenor Dershowitz, or anyone else, to selective use and mischaracterize documents
without all of the other key testimony and documents being made public, would be inherently
unfair. As explained in this Court’s May 3, 2017 Order (DE 892):
“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, 65 (E .D. N. Y. 2012) (internal citations and quotation omitted)
(denying motion to lift confidentiality of report of policing failures surrounding the
murder of a young mother). “It is presumptively unfair for courts to modify protective
orders which assure confidentiality and upon which the parties have reasonably relied.”
Id. (internal citations and quotations omitted). Consequently, “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. Int’l Tel. & Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291, 296 (2d Cir. 1979) (denying
governmental access for criminal investigative purposes civil deposition transcripts taken
under a protective order).”
The Miami Herald’s request, unlike Mr. Dershowitz and Mr. Cernovich, appears to seek
the unsealing of the entire court record. Accordingly, Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre, does not oppose
Intervenor Julie Brown and the Miami Herald Media Company’s Motion to Intervene and Unseal
to the extent it seeks to unseal -all docket entries, and not simply select entries, including the
unsealing of all trial designated deposition transcripts.
Of course, “unsealing” the substantive court records will not mean that every single piece
of the documents in the Court record would be made public. For example, any unsealing would
be with (among others) the following necessary protections: (1) any social security numbers are
redacted from the record; (2) the names of victims who were minors at the time of the abuse are
redacted and substituted with initials; and (3) any document that the Court reviewed in camera
and determined was protected by a privilege or comparable protection will remain sealed.
3
A-430
CONCLUSION
Fairness dictates that if the Court is going to entertain the Miami Herald’s request for an
unsealing of the Court records, all filings with their exhibits and related trial designated
testimony must be unsealed.
Dated: April 27, 2018 Respectfully Submitted,
By: /s Sigrid McCawley

Sigrid McCawley (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
Meredith Schultz (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
Boies Schiller Flexner LLP
(954) 356-0011
David Boies
333 Main Street
Armonk, NY 10504
Bradley J. Edwards (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)

(954) 524-2820
Paul G. Cassell (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)

S.J. Quinney College of Law
University of Utah
383 University St.
(801) 585-52022
2
This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is not intended
to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private representation.
4
A-431
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 27th day of April, 2018, I served the attached document
via CM/ECF and e-mail to the following counsel of record.
Laura A. Menninger, Esq.

Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq.
Tel: (303) 831-7364
Fax: (303) 832-2628
jpagliuca@hmflaw.com
Christine N. Walz
Sanford L. Bohrer
31 West 52nd Street
New York, NY 10019
Email: Christine.walz@hklaw.com
Sandy.bohrer@hklaw.com
By: /s Sigrid McCawley

Sigrid McCawley
5
A-432

X
VIRGINIA GIUFFRE,
:
Plaintiff, : Case No. 15-cv-7433(RWS)
:
against :
:
:
Defendant.
X
NOTICE OF APPEAL
Herald"), Intervenors in the above-captioned case, hereby appeal to the United States Court of

New York, New York
/s/ Christine N. Walz

Sanford L. Bohrer
Sandy.Bohrer@hklaw.com
Christine N. Walz
Madelaine.Harrington@hklaw.com
31 West 52nd Street
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: 212.513.3200
Fax: 212.385.9010


18-2868________
Name: Adam Mueller
Firm: Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C.
Address: 150 East 10th Avenue, Denver, CO 80203
Telephone: 303.831.7364
___________________________ Fax: 303.832.1015
E-mail: amueller@hmflaw.com
Appearance for: Ghislaine Maxwell/ Defendant- Appellee

(party/designation)
Select One:
(name/firm)

(name/firm)
G Additional counsel (co-counsel with: Ty Gee/ Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C.
✔ )
(name/firm)

(party/designation)
CERTIFICATION
I certify that:
✔
my admission on OR
Signature of Counsel: s/ Adam Mueller
Type or Print Name: Adam Mueller


18-2868
Docket Number(s): ________________________________________ _______________Caption [use short title]_____________________
to Dismiss Plaintiff-Appellee Virginia L. Giuffre
Motion for: ______________________________________________
from the Appeal
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

Dismissal of Plaintiff-Appellee Virginia L. Giuffre from this
________________________________________________________
Giuffre v. Maxwell
appeal.
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell
MOVING PARTY:_______________________________________ OPPOSING PARTY:____________________________________________
___Plaintiff ✔
___Defendant
___Appellant/Petitioner ___Appellee/Respondent
Adam Mueller
MOVING ATTORNEY:___________________________________ Paul Cassell
OPPOSING ATTORNEY:________________________________________
Hadodn, Morgan and Foreman, P.C.
________________________________________________________ S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah
_______________________________________________________________
150 E. 10th Avenue, Denver, CO 80203
________________________________________________________ 383 S. University Street, Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0730
_______________________________________________________________
303.831.7364; amueller@hmflaw.com
________________________________________________________ 801.585.5202; cassellp@law.utah.edu
_______________________________________________________________
Hon. Robert W. Sweet, District Judge (S.D.N.Y.)
Court- Judge/ Agency appealed from: _________________________________________________________________________________________
INJUCTIONS PENDING APPEAL:
Has movant notified opposing counsel (required by Local Rule 27.1): Has this request for relief been made below? ___Yes ___No
✔
___Yes ___No (explain):__________________________ Has this relief been previously sought in this court? ___Yes ___No
_______________________________________________ Requested return date and explanation of emergency: ________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
✔
___Unopposed ___Opposed ___Don’t Know
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
✔
___Yes ___No ___Don’t Know
Is oral argument on motion requested? ✔ (requests for oral argument will not necessarily be granted)
___Yes ___No
Has argument date of appeal been set? ___ February 6, 2019

✔ Yes ___No If yes, enter date:_______________________________________________________

s/ Adam Mueller
_________________________________ 12/13/2018
Date:__________________ ✔
Service by: ___CM/ECF ___Other [Attach proof of service]
Form T-1080 (rev.12-13)


Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
Defendant-Appellee,
v. No. 18-2868

Respondents,
COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellee Ghislaine Maxwell’s Motion to

Dismiss Plaintiff-Appellee Virginia L. Giuffre from the
Appeal
Defendant-Appellee Ghislaine Maxwell, through her attorneys Haddon,
Morgan and Foreman, P.C., moves to dismiss Plaintiff-Appellee Virginia L. Giuffre
from this appeal.
Factual Background
This appeal arises from the district court’s denial of Intervenors-Appellants’
(collectively “the Miami Herald” or “the Herald”) motion to unseal all sealed and
redacted court submissions in the underlying action. In that action Plaintiff-

Appellee Virginia L. Giuffre alleged Ms. Maxwell defamed her by denying
plaintiff’s public allegations that Ms. Maxwell had “forced” her to be a “child”
“sex slave” for a long list of prominent men. While the lawsuit was for defamation,
Ms. Giuffre sought to prosecute the action as a sexual abuse lawsuit. Ms. Giuffre in
her complaint made numerous salacious sexual allegations against Ms. Maxwell
and a multitude of public and private figures, and using the discovery rules and
subpoenas she sought and obtained extensive discovery from and about them on a
wide range of private and sexual matters, which were among the matters sealed or
redacted when attached to or referenced in court submissions.
The underlying action was settled and the court in May 2017 dismissed and
closed the case. A year later the Miami Herald moved to unseal the dozens of
sealed and redacted court submissions. (App. 405–26). Ms. Giuffre responded that
she did not oppose the motion. (App. 427–31). She said she had “consistently taken
the position that if anything is going to be unsealed in this matter, in fairness to
Ms. Giuffre and all the other victims who provided testimony, all filings must be
unsealed, including all deposition testimony that was designated for trial.” (App.
428). Ms. Giuffre continued:
The Miami Herald’s request . . . appears to seek the unsealing of

the entire court record. Accordingly, Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre, does not
oppose Intervenor Julie Brown and the Miami Herald Media
Company’s Motion to Intervene and Unseal to the extent it seeks to
2
unseal all docket entries, and not simply select entries, including the
unsealing of all trial designated deposition transcripts.
(App. 429) (emphasis supplied).
Intervenor Alan Dershowitz, whose own 2017 motion to the district court to
unseal discrete submissions by the parties was denied, requested that the district
court grant the Miami Herald’s motion. (Special App. 10–11, 13).
Ms. Maxwell opposed the motion, asserting among other things her right to
privacy. (Special App. 37).
Denying the Miami Herald’s motion, the district court concluded:
The privacy interests of Maxwell, Giuffre, Dershowitz, as well as

dozens of third persons, all of whom relied upon the promise of
secrecy outlined in the Protective Order and enforced by the Court,
have been implicated. It makes no difference that Giuffre and
Dershowitz have chosen to waive their privacy interests to the
underlying confidential information by supporting this motion, as
Maxwell has not agreed to such a waiver.
(Special App. 37).
The Miami Herald filed a notice of appeal on September 26, 2018. (App.
421). Even though Ms. Giuffre agreed to the relief requested by the Herald—
unsealing the entire court record—she did not appeal the district court’s order
denying the relief.
On commencing the appeal in this Court, the Miami Herald inexplicably
listed Ms. Giuffre as the appellee, even though she consented to the relief requested
3
in the Herald’s motion to unseal. (Doc.11). The Miami Herald did not list as an
appellee Ms. Maxwell, who was the only party to oppose the relief requested in the
district court.1
Shortly afterward this Court issued its Docket Notice. (Doc.1-1). It required
the Herald to “review the caption carefully and promptly advise this Court of any
improper or inaccurate designations in writing . . . .” (Id. 2). Neither the docket
sheet nor the caption listed Ms. Maxwell as an appellee. Yet neither the Herald nor
Ms. Giuffre when their respective attorneys entered their appearances notified the
Court that the only party who had opposed the Herald’s motion to unseal,
Ms. Maxwell, was not listed as an appellee. (See Docs.18-19, 24-25, 29, 37). Nor did
the Herald or Ms. Giuffre notify the Court that Ms. Giuffre was listed as an
appellee even though she had consented to the relief requested in the motion to
unseal.
Since Ms. Maxwell was not listed as a party, the Court did not transmit
notices to her or her counsel. The attorneys for the Herald and Ms. Giuffre did not
serve on Ms. Maxwell’s counsel the appellate submissions. Ms. Maxwell’s counsel
1
On November 14, 2018, this Court granted Ms. Maxwell’s motion to be
added as an appellee. (Doc.45).
4
on November 8, 2018, moved to be added as an appellee (Doc.41), and the Court
granted the motion (Doc.45).
Argument
This Court should dismiss Ms. Giuffre from this appeal. By consenting in
the district court to the relief requested by the Miami Herald, she has no standing
as an appellee to defend the district court’s judgment. And by failing to file a notice
of appeal of her own, Ms. Giuffre cannot be realigned as an appellant.
Article III of the Constitution limits this Court’s jurisdiction to actual cases
and controversies. U.S. CONST. art. III, § 2; Hollingsworth v. Perry, 570 U.S. 693,
700 (2013). The case-and-controversy requirement limits the power of federal
courts to decide only live disputes between actual adversaries, and then only those
disputes “historically viewed as capable of resolution through the judicial
process.” Id. (quoting Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 95 (1968)).
Doubts about Article III jurisdiction typically arise in the context of a
plaintiff’s standing to assert a legal claim in district court, a requirement that
demands the plaintiff have suffered an injury in fact that was caused by the
challenged conduct and that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992). But the standing
requirement is broader in scope, because a case and controversy must exist at all
5
stages of a case, including on appeal. Hollingsworth, 570 U.S. at 705 (“Most
standing cases consider whether a plaintiff has satisfied the requirement when filing
suit, but Article III demands that an ‘actual controversy’ persist throughout all
stages of litigation.”).
The requirement that a case and controversy exist on appeal necessarily
demands an inquiry into an appellee’s standing to defend the judgment being
appealed. Barrows v. Jackson, 346 U.S. 249, 254–57 (1953); see Pierce v. Society of
Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535–36 (1925); see also Arizonans for Official English v.
Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 64 (1997); Diamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54, 62 (1986). The
right to defend a trial court decision on appeal flows from a litigant’s having “a
direct stake in the outcome” she seeks from the appellate court. Arizonans, 520
U.S. at 64 (quoting Diamond, 476 U.S. at 62). Such a personal stake in the outcome
“ensures the presence of ‘that concrete adverseness which sharpens the
presentation of issues upon which a court so largely depends.’” Cortlandt
St. Recovery Corp. v. Hellas Telecommunications, S.À.R.L., 790 F.3d 411, 417 (2d Cir.
2015) (brackets omitted) (quoting Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 204 (1962)). In the
words of the United States Supreme Court, “Standing to sue or defend is an aspect
of the case-or-controversy requirement.” Arizonans, 520 U.S. at 64 (emphasis
6
added); see also Barrows, 346 U.S. at 254–57 (addressing standing of appellee to
defend the judgment below).
Here, Ms. Giuffre has no direct stake in a judgment from this Court
affirming the district court’s order. To the contrary, Ms. Giuffre consented to the
relief requested in the Herald’s motion to unseal. Having aligned herself with the
Miami Herald, the appellant in this Court, Ms. Giuffre has no standing to defend
the district court’s judgment as an appellee. Only “prevailing parties in the district
court . . . have standing to defend the district court’s judgment.” See In re
O’Connor, 258 F.3d 392, 400 (5th Cir. 2001).
In Barrows, the Supreme Court held that Leola Jackson had standing to
defend a district court decision dismissing a complaint for money damages alleging
she violated a racially restrictive residential covenant: (1) by conveying her property
without including the restrictive covenant in the deed; and (2) by permitting non-
Caucasians to move in to occupy the premises. 346 U.S. at 252. The Court reached
this conclusion even though Ms. Jackson was Caucasian and no “non-Caucasian
[was] before the Court claiming to have been denied his constitutional rights.” Id.
at 254. According to the Court, Ms. Jackson had standing to defend the district
court judgment by asserting the rights of “non-Caucasians, unidentified but
identifiable,” not to be deprived “of equal protection of the laws in violation of the
7
Fourteenth Amendment.” Id. (citing Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948)); see also
Pierce, 268 U.S. at 234–36 (reviewing an Oregon law requiring children to attend
public school and allowing a private school and a parochial school to appear as
appellees in defense of a judgment invalidating the law because it unreasonably
interfered with the liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and
education of their children). A money judgment of $11,600 against Ms. Jackson,
concluded the Court, conferred standing on her to defend the district court’s
decision because such an award “would constitute a direct, pocketbook injury to
her.” Id. at 256.
The lesson of Barrows is that an appellee (or respondent) must have a direct,
personal stake in a judgment affirming the lower court’s decision if she is to have
standing to defend the district court’s judgment on appeal. Id. at 254–56.
Ms. Jackson had such a stake in Barrows, even though her right to equal protection
wasn’t violated by the racially restrictive residential covenant.
Here, by contrast, Ms. Giuffre has no such stake. In the district court, she
consented to the Miami Herald’s request for an order unsealing records covered by
the protective order. She is in no position before this Court to defend a judgment
rejecting that request. To conclude otherwise would be to condone “friendly or
feigned proceedings,” Arizonans, 520 U.S. at 71, between Ms. Giuffre and the
8
Miami Herald. See Flast, 392 U.S. at 100 (explaining “the rule that federal courts
will not entertain friendly suits, or those which are feigned or collusive in nature”
(citing United States v. Johnson, 319 U.S. 302 (1943); Chicago & Grand Trunk R. Co.
v. Wellman, 143 U.S. 339 (1892); Lord v. Veazie, 49 U.S. (8 How.) 251 (1850))).
Ms. Giuffre, intervenor-appellant Herald reporter Julie Brown, and the
Herald are “friendly,” and but for Ms. Maxwell’s appearance this appeal would be
a “feigned proceeding.” Arizonans, 520 U.S. at 71. During the pendency of this
very appeal Ms. Giuffre has cooperated extensively with Ms. Brown and the Herald
in publicizing Ms. Giuffre’s salacious allegations that led to the entry of the
protective order at issue in this appeal. As part of her cooperation Ms. Giuffre
voluntarily sat for an extensive videotaped interview with Ms. Brown. Her
cooperation and interview resulted in a lengthy multi-part “investigative
journalism” story that was published by the Herald on November 28 to great
fanfare. See https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/article220097825.html.
There is an additional reason to believe Ms. Giuffre is friendly with Ms.
Brown and the Herald based on a district court submission ten days ago by counsel
for Alan Dershowitz, the appellant in an appeal consolidated with the appeal at bar
for oral argument (Doc.47). On December 3, 2018, Mr. Dershowitz notified the
district court (Sweet, J.) that materials subject to the protective order and sealing
9
orders “have been improperly leaked to members of the press.” Letter Mot. [1]
(Dec. 3, 2018), attached as EXHIBIT A. Mr. Dershowitz stated:
In recent days, the Miami Herald and other media outlets—

prompted, we believe, by Ms. [Giuffre] and/or her representatives—
have revived the story of the criminal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein,
and, in the process, have repeated the false allegations against
Mr. Dershowitz. At least one reporter has stated to Mr. Dershowitz
that she has been given materials that are subject to the Court’s
protective and sealing orders.
Id. at 2.
The Miami Herald’s prosecution of this appeal raises serious questions
about its commitment to ensure a genuine dispute between actual adversaries.
When commencing this appeal the Miami Herald did not list Ms. Maxwell as the
appellee, even though Ms. Maxwell was the only party who opposed its motion to
unseal. It listed Ms. Giuffre as the sole appellee even though she had consented to
the relief requested in the motion to unseal. When submitting the “joint”
appendix, the Herald omitted Ms. Maxwell’s opposition to its motion to unseal,
which as noted was the only opposition to its motion. When this Court requested
that both the Herald and Ms. Giuffre “review the caption carefully and promptly
advise this Court of any improper or inaccurate designations in writing,” the
Herald and Ms. Giuffre stood silent.
10
Nevertheless, Ms. Maxwell is now added as an appellee and she, not
Ms. Giuffre, has standing to defend the district court’s order. See Bowers, 346 U.S.
at 254–56. In contrast to Ms. Giuffre, Ms. Maxwell opposed the Miami Herald’s
motion, has a direct stake in the affirmance of the district court’s order denying the
motion, and can ensure the adverseness that will sharpen the presentation of the
issues on appeal. See Flast, 392 U.S. at 94–95 (“[T]he words ‘cases’ and
‘controversies’ . . . limit the business of federal courts to questions presented in an
adversary context” (emphasis added)).
Finally, the problem of Ms. Giuffre’s participation in this appeal cannot be
solved simply by realigning the parties and calling her an appellant rather than an
appellee. Ms. Giuffre did not file a notice of appeal challenging the district court’s
order; only the Miami Herald did. (App. 432). By failing to appeal within the time
provided by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4, Ms. Giuffre lost standing to
participate in this appeal as an appellant, and deprived this Court of jurisdiction to
consider her arguments. See Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 209 (2007) (“This
Court has long held that the taking of an appeal within the prescribed time is
‘mandatory and jurisdictional.’” (quoting Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount
Co., 459 U.S. 56, 61 (1982) (per curiam)); Chaka v. Lane, 894 F.2d 923, 924–25
11
(7th Cir. 1990) (“Each losing party must decide whether to appeal; some may press
on while others quit.”).
Conclusion
Ms. Giuffre lacks standing to participate in this appeal. The Court should
dismiss her from this appeal.
December 13, 2018.
s/ Adam Mueller
Ty Gee
Adam Mueller
Denver, CO 80203
Tel 303.831.7364
Attorneys for Defendant-Appellee Ghislaine
Maxwell
12
I certify that on December 13, 2018, I served via CM/ECF a copy of this
Defendant-Appellee Ghislaine Maxwell’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff-Appellee Virginia
L. Giuffre from the Appeal on the following persons:

Christine N. Walz
Sanford L. Bohrer
s/ Nicole Simmons
13
EXHIBIT A
CaseCase
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
18-2868, Document
Document
64, 12/13/2018,
956 Filed
2455279,
12/03/18
Page2
Page
of 4
1 of 3
RICHARD D. EMERY
EMERY CELLI BRINCKERHOFF & ABADY LLP CHARLES J. OGLETREE, JR.
ANDREW G. CELLI, JR. EMERITUS
MATTHEW D. BRINCKERHOFF ATTORNEYS AT LAW
JONATHAN S. ABADY 600 FIFTH AVENUE AT ROCKEFELLER CENTER DIANE L. HOUK
EARL S. WARD 10TH FLOOR JESSICA CLARKE
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10020
ILANN M. MAAZEL
HAL R. LIEBERMAN ALISON FRICK
TEL: (212) 763-5000 DAVID LEBOWITZ
DANIEL J. KORNSTEIN
FAX: (212) 763-5001 DOUGLAS E. LIEB
O. ANDREW F. WILSON
www.ecbalaw.com ALANNA KAUFMAN
ELIZABETH S. SAYLOR
KATHERINE ROSENFELD EMMA L. FREEMAN
DEBRA L. GREENBERGER DAVID BERMAN
ZOE SALZMAN ASHOK CHANDRAN
SAM SHAPIRO
DANIEL TREIMAN
December 3, 2018
By ECF
Honorable Robert W. Sweet

500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10007
Re: Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 15 Civ. 7433 (RWS)
Dear Judge Sweet:
This firm represents Intervenor Professor Alan M. Dershowitz, and we write to alert the
Court to certain troubling developments concerning the treatment of materials subject to this
Court’s orders, and to seek the Court’s assistance and guidance. Specifically, we have reason to
believe that materials subject to this Court’s Protective Order and sealing order have been
improperly leaked to members of the press. We believe that these materials, which repeat
provably-false and defamatory allegations of sexual misconduct against Mr. Dershowitz, were
leaked by persons associated with Virginia Roberts Giuffre (“Ms. Roberts”), the plaintiff in the
above-captioned matter. Once again, Mr. Dershowitz – who has conscientiously and
expeditiously pressed, through the judicial process, for disclosure of all documents in the case –
has been the victim of one-sided and selective leaking of materials, with no recourse because of
the existence of this Court’s protective and sealing orders. We ask that the Court immediately
convene a conference with counsel for all parties to discuss how to address this grave matter,
given the procedural posture of this case and the ongoing harm being inflicted upon Mr.
Dershowitz.
Background, Recent Developments, and Request for An Immediate Conference
As this Court knows, Mr. Dershowitz is a criminal defense lawyer and retired professor at
Harvard Law School. In or about 2006, Mr. Dershowitz joined a defense team assembled by
Jeffrey Epstein, a financier who was then under investigation for having sex with underage girls.
In 2008, Mr. Epstein pleaded guilty to state charges of solicitation of prostitution and solicitation
CaseCase
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
18-2868, Document
Document
64, 12/13/2018,
956 Filed
2455279,
12/03/18
Page3
Page
of 4
2 of 3
EMERY CELLI BRINCKERHOFF & ABADY LLP
Page 2
of prostitution with a minor under the age of 18 and entered into a non-prosecution agreement
with federal authorities.
In a 2014 court filing that has since been struck by the court and withdrawn by counsel,
Ms. Roberts, who asserts that she was a victim of Epstein, alleged, among other things, that
Epstein had “trafficked” her to Mr. Dershowitz for sex. The allegation is utterly false and
defamatory: Mr. Dershowitz has never even met Ms. Roberts – and, as an investigation by
former FBI director Louis Freeh concluded, records prove that Mr. Dershowitz could not have
abused Ms. Roberts because he was not present in the places where she claims such abuse
occurred. Notwithstanding the demonstrable falsity of the allegations, however, media outlets
ran with the story – and Mr. Dershowitz’s reputation has been forever tarnished.
In or about 2016, Mr. Dershowitz, a witness in the instant matter, became aware of
additional documentary materials – materials that were part of the record in this case – that
further exculpate him of the false allegations, and that demonstrate that the whole story about
him being part of a sex ring is made up. For over two years, over the objection of Ms. Roberts,
Mr. Dershowitz, who is now 80 years old, has been litigating to unseal those materials and
release them to the public, all in an effort to clear his name. Intervenor’s appeal of this Court’s
order denying his motion, inter alia, to unseal materials filed in this case is slated for argument
in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in February 2019.
In recent days, the Miami Herald and other media outlets – prompted, we believe, by Ms.
Roberts and/or her representatives – have revived the story of the criminal investigation of
Jeffrey Epstein, and, in the process, have repeated the false allegations against Mr. Dershowitz.
At least one reporter has stated to Mr. Dershowitz that she has been given materials that are
subject to the Court’s protective and sealing orders. Mr. Dershowitz supports full disclosure of
the underlying record in this case. But the selective leaking of parts of the record to smear Mr.
Dershowitz and destroy his good name is patently improper and ought not be countenanced.
In this instance, the proper remedy for selective disclosure of the record is full disclosure:
“sunlight is the best of disinfectants.” L. Brandeis (1914). Full disclosure is what Mr.
Dershowitz seeks – on the same basis that he been seeking such disclosure for over two years.
But, because this Court has thrice denied applications for such disclosure (once when made by
Mr. Dershowitz; once when made by Michael Cernovich; and a third time when made by the
Miami Herald), and because these issues are currently on appeal in the Second Circuit, Mr.
Dershowitz asks that the Court immediately convene an in-person conference with counsel for
all parties to discuss how to address this grave matter – whether through motion practice or
otherwise. Given the ongoing harm being suffered by Mr. Dershowitz, and the procedural
posture of this case, we submit that convening such a conference immediately is critical to
ensuring a fair and orderly process.
* * *
CaseCase
1:15-cv-07433-RWS
18-2868, Document
Document
64, 12/13/2018,
956 Filed
2455279,
12/03/18
Page4
Page
of 4
3 of 3

-------
Name:Bruce D. Brown
Firm: Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
Address: 1156 15th St. NW, Suite 1020, Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: 202-795-9301 Fax: 202-795-9310
E-mail: bbrown@rcfp.org
Appearance for: Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and 32 Media Organizations, amici curiae
(party/designation)
Select One:
Osubstitute counsel (replacing lead counsel: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~
(name/firm)
Osubstitute counsel (replacing other counsel:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _...1

(name/firm)
DAdditional counsel (co-counsel with: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

(name/firm)
~miens (in support of: Julie Brown, Miami Herald Media Company, intervenors/appellants
(party/designation)
CERTIFICATION
I certify that:
lvlr am admitted to practice in this Court and, if required by Interim Local Rule 46.l(a)(2), have renewed
my admission on April 6, 2018 OR
Di applied for admission on _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
. fC Isl Bruce D. Brown

S1gnature o ounse1: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Type or Print Name: Bruce D. Brown

18-2868 IN THE
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
Defendant-Appellee,
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York
BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE THE REPORTERS COMMITTEE

FOR FREEDOM OF THE PRESS AND 32 MEDIA
ORGANIZATIONS IN SUPPORT OF
INTERVENORS-APPELLANTS SEEKING REVERSAL
Bruce D. Brown
Counsel of Record
Katie Townsend
Caitlin Vogus
Lindsie Trego
THE REPORTERS COMMITTEE FOR
FREEDOM OF THE PRESS
1156 15th St. NW, Suite 1020
Telephone: (202) 795-9300
bbrown@rcfp.org
Additional amici counsel listed in Appendix B
v.

Respondents,

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press is an unincorporated
association of reporters and editors with no parent corporation and no stock.
American Society of News Editors is a private, non-stock corporation that
has no parent.
The Associated Press Media Editors has no parent corporation and does not
issue any stock.
Association of Alternative Newsmedia has no parent corporation and does
not issue any stock.
Digital First Media, LLC. is a privately held company. No publicly-held
company owns ten percent or more of its equity interests.
Dow Jones is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in
New York. News Corporation, a publicly held company, is the indirect parent
corporation of Dow Jones. Ruby Newco, LLC, a subsidiary of News Corporation
and a non-publicly held company, is the direct parent of Dow Jones. No publicly
held company directly owns 10% or more of the stock of Dow Jones.
The E.W. Scripps Company is a publicly traded company with no parent
company. No individual stockholder owns more than 10% of its stock.
First Amendment Coalition is a nonprofit organization with no parent
company. It issues no stock and does not own any of the party’s or amicus’ stock.
First Look Media Works, Inc. is a non-profit non-stock corporation
organized under the laws of Delaware. No publicly-held corporation holds an
interest of 10% or more in First Look Media Works, Inc.
Fox Television Stations, LLC is an indirect subsidiary of Twenty-First
Century Fox, Inc., a publicly held company. No other publicly held company owns
10% or more of Twenty-First Century Fox, Inc. stock.
Gannett Co., Inc. is a publicly traded company and has no affiliates or
subsidiaries that are publicly owned. No publicly held company holds 10% or more
of its stock.
The Inter American Press Association (IAPA) is a not-for-profit
organization with no corporate owners.
The International Documentary Association is an not-for-profit organization
with no parent corporation and no stock.
The Investigative Reporting Workshop is a privately funded, nonprofit news
organization affiliated with the American University School of Communication in
Washington. It issues no stock.
The Media Institute is a 501(c)(3) non-stock corporation with no parent
corporation.
MPA – The Association of Magazine Media has no parent companies, and
no publicly held company owns more than 10% of its stock.

National Press Photographers Association is a 501(c)(6) nonprofit
organization with no parent company. It issues no stock and does not own any of
the party’s or amicus’ stock.
New England First Amendment Coalition has no parent corporation and no
stock.
The New York Times Company is a publicly traded company and has no
affiliates or subsidiaries that are publicly owned. No publicly held company owns
10% or more of its stock.
Newsday LLC is a Delaware limited liability company whose members are
Tillandsia Media Holdings LLC and Newsday Holdings LLC. Newsday Holdings
LLC is an indirect subsidiary of Cablevision Systems Corporation. Cablevision
Systems Corporation is (a) directly owned by Altice USA, Inc., a Delaware
corporation which is publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange and (b)
indirectly owned by Altice N.V., a Netherlands public company.
The News Guild – CWA is an unincorporated association. It has no parent
and issues no stock.
NYP Holdings, Inc. is a Delaware corporation, with its principal place of
business in New York, and is the publisher of the New York Post. News
Corporation, a publicly held company, is the parent of NYP Holdings, Inc. News
Corporation has no parent company and no publicly held company owns more than
10 percent of its shares.
Online News Association is a not-for-profit organization. It has no parent
corporation, and no publicly traded corporation owns 10% or more of its stock.
POLITICO LLC’s parent corporation is Capitol News Company. No
publicly held corporation owns 10% or more of POLITICO LLC’s stock.
Radio Television Digital News Association is a nonprofit organization that
has no parent company and issues no stock.
Reporters Without Borders is a nonprofit association with no parent
corporation.
Reveal from The Center for Investigative Reporting is a California non-
profit public benefit corporation that is tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the
Internal Revenue Code. It has no statutory members and no stock.
Society of Professional Journalists is a non-stock corporation with no parent
company.
Student Press Law Center is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit corporation that has
no parent and issues no stock.
Tribune Publishing Company is a publicly held corporation. Merrick Media,
LLC, Merrick Venture Management, LLC and Michael W. Ferro, Jr., together own
over 10% of Tribune Publishing Company’s common stock. Nant Capital LLC, Dr.
Patrick Soon-Shiong and California Capital Equity, LLC together own over 10%
of Tribune Publishing Company's stock.
The Tully Center for Free Speech is a subsidiary of Syracuse University.
Univision Communications Inc. is wholly owned by Broadcast Media
Partners Holdings, Inc., which is wholly owned by Univision Holdings, Inc. Grupo
Televisa, S.A.B. indirectly holds a 10% or greater ownership interest in the stock
of Univision Holdings, Inc. No publicly held company owns 10% or more of
Univision Communications Inc. or any of its parent companies, subsidiaries, or
affiliates.
WP Company LLC d/b/a The Washington Post is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Nash Holdings LLC, a holding company owned by Jeffrey P. Bezos.
WP Company LLC and Nash Holdings LLC are both privately held companies
with no securities in the hands of the public.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ....................................................................................ii
IDENTITY AND INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ................................................ 1
SOURCE OF AUTHORITY TO FILE ..................................................................... 3
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ............................... 4
ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................ 7
I. Public access is an essential feature of our judicial system. ............................ 7
II. The district court erred in dismissing the significant public interest in access
to the Summary Judgment Documents. ............................................................ 9
A. Access will allow the public to evaluate the judicial system’s handling
of litigation related to sexual abuse and assault of minors, an issue of
paramount public concern..................................................................... 9
B. This case, in particular, relates to a matter that has been the subject of
widespread reporting and is certainly a matter of public concern. ..... 12
C. A strong presumption of access applies to a motion for summary

judgment and documents filed in connection thereto, even when that
motion
is denied. ............................................................................................. 15
III. Generalized privacy interests cannot support sealing. ................................... 17
IV. The district court failed to make an independent determination regarding the
sealing of specific records. ............................................................................. 19
CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................... 21
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ...................................................................... 22
APPENDIX A ......................................................................................................... 23
APPENDIX B ......................................................................................................... 33
i
Cases
Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP, 814 F.3d 132 (2d Cir.
2016) ...................................................................................................................... 9
Co. Doe v. Pub. Citizen, 749 F.3d 246 (4th Cir. 2014) ........................................... 16
Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596 (1982).................... 8, 12, 19
Hicklin Eng’g, L.C. v. Bartell, 439 F.3d 346 (7th Cir. 2006).................................. 17
In re N.Y. Times Co., 828 F.2d 110 (2d Cir. 1987) ................................................. 18
In re Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 773 F.2d 1325 (D.C. Cir.
1985) .................................................................................................................... 15
In re Sealing & Non-Disclosure of Pen/Trap/2703(d) Orders, 562 F. Supp. 2d 876

(S.D. Tex. 2008) ................................................................................................... 17
Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) ..................... 15
N.Y. Civil Liberties Union v. N.Y. City Transit Auth., 684 F.3d 286
(2d Cir. 2012) ......................................................................................................... 4
Press-Enter. Co. v Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501 (1984) ................................... 8, 20
Press-Enter. Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1 (1986) .......................................... 18
Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (1980)

............................................................................................................................ 4, 7
Under Seal v. Under Seal, 273 F. Supp. 3d 460 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) .......................... 18
United States v. Amodeo, 44 F.3d 141 (2d Cir. 1995) ............................................. 19
United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044 (2d Cir. 1995) ......................................... 4, 8
United States v. Aref, 533 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2008) ................................................... 16
United States v. Erie Cty., 763 F.3d 235 (2d Cir. 2014) ........................................... 7
ii
Other Authorities
Alan Dershowitz, Alan Dershowitz: ‘I never had sex with Virginia Roberts’, Miami
Herald (Dec. 2, 2018), https://perma.cc/HYW5-D2MM ..................................... 13
Alexandra Berzon, Chris Kirkham, Elizabeth Bernstein & Kate O'Keefe, Dozens of
People Recount Pattern of Sexual Misconduct by Las Vegas Mogul Steve Wynn,
Wall Street J. (Jan. 27, 2018), https://perma.cc/DK92-YJBW ............................ 10
Conchita Sarnoff, Jeffrey Epstein, Billionaire Pedophile, Goes Free, Daily Beast
(July 20, 2010), https://perma.cc/HMC3-HQJG .................................................. 13
David Von Drehle, Jeffrey Epstein’s plea deal is a travesty. But we can still find
justice, Washington Post (Dec. 11, 2018), https://perma.cc/RZR2-JCWE .......... 13
Eric Levenson, Bill Cosby sentenced to 3 to 10 years in prison for sexual assault,
CNN (Sept. 26, 2018), https://perma.cc/WQ82-7SBZ................................... 11, 12
Eric Levenson, Bill Cosby’s maximum sentence now 10 years after charges
merged, CNN (Sept. 24, 2018), https://perma.cc/A7JY-J9Q6 ............................. 11
Hannah Knowles, Documents from Court, District Attorney reveal details in Brock
Turner case, Stanford Daily (June 10, 2016), https://perma.cc/3C7R-57CW ..... 11
Irene Plagianos & Kitty Greenwald, Mario Batali Steps Away From Restaurant
Empire Following Sexual Misconduct Allegations, Eater (Dec. 11, 2017),
https://perma.cc/M96P-XD3Q ............................................................................. 10
Jan Musgrave, Will President Trump be used as witness in sex offender Epstein’s
case?, Palm Beach Post (May 12, 2017), https://perma.cc/GPA7-QRLR ........... 12
Jane Mayer & Ronan Farrow, Four Women Accuse New York’s Attorney General
of Physical Abuse, New Yorker (May 7, 2008), https://perma.cc/3HLN-7F68 ... 10
Jodi Kantor & Megan Twohey, Harvey Weinstein Paid Off Sexual Harassment
Accusers for Decades, N.Y. Times (Oct. 5, 2017), https://perma.cc/B9KL-GH77
.............................................................................................................................. 10
Josh Gerstein, The one weird court case linking Trump, Clinton, and a billionaire
pedophile, Politico (May 14, 2017), https://perma.cc/8D55-QGJU .................... 12
iii
Josh Gerstein, Woman who sued convicted billionaire over sex abuse levels claims
at his friends, Politico (Dec. 31, 2014), https://perma.cc/QWC9-A2FF.............. 12
Julie K. Brown & Caitlin Ostroff, Epstein sex abuse victims press judge for
decision on tossing his lenient plea deal, Miami Herald, (Dec. 10, 2018),
https://perma.cc/7RL8-V5FL ............................................................................... 14
Julie K. Brown et al, Lawmakers issue call for investigation of serial sex abuser
Jeffrey Epstein’s plea deal, Miami Herald (Dec. 6, 2018),
https://perma.cc/H6ZB-D6Z2 .............................................................................. 13
Julie K. Brown, How a future Trump Cabinet member gave a serial sex abuser the
deal of a lifetime, Miami Herald (Nov. 28, 2018), https://perma.cc/GA2C-UW97
.............................................................................................................................. 14
Melena Ryzik et al., Louis C.K. Is Accused by 5 Women of Sexual Misconduct,

N.Y. Times (Nov. 9, 2017), https://perma.cc/9588-E5CQ .................................. 10
Patricia Mazzei, Jeffrey Epstein Settles Lawsuit, Avoiding Testimony From

Accusers in Sex Case, N.Y. Times (Dec. 4, 2018), https://nyti.ms/2zKIGro....... 14
Ramin Setoodeh & Elizabeth Wagmeister, Matt Lauer Accused of Sexual

Harassment by Multiple Women, Variety (Nov. 29, 2017),
https://perma.cc/UFY7-NK4G ............................................................................. 10
Ray Sanchez, Stanford rape case: Inside the court documents, CNN (June 11,
2016), https://perma.cc/389Z-EU35 ..................................................................... 11
Stephanie Zacharek et al., Person of the Year 2017: The Silence Breakers, TIME,
https://perma.cc/J5CU-69KC (last visited Dec. 7, 2018) ..................................... 10
Susan Svrluga, ‘Did you rage?’ In Stanford sexual assault case, court records shed
new light, Wash. Post (June 10, 2016), https://perma.cc/C8F4-FKJA ................ 11
Tom Leonard, Prince Andrew risks losing ambassador job as girl in underage sex
case reveals meeting him, Daily Mail (Mar. 2, 2011), http://dailym.ai/2wni8s1 13
Travis M. Andrews, Ex-Stanford swimmer Brock Turner leaves jail Friday but
controversy still rages, Wash. Post (Aug. 30, 2016), https://perma.cc/7V9J-
VBEW .................................................................................................................. 11
iv
IDENTITY AND INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE
Amici curiae are the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press,
American Society of News Editors, Associated Press Media Editors, Association
of Alternative Newsmedia, Digital First Media, Dow Jones & Company, Inc., The
E.W. Scripps Company, First Amendment Coalition, First Look Media Works,
Inc., Fox Television Stations, LLC, Gannett Co., Inc., Inter American Press
Association, International Documentary Assn., Investigative Reporting Workshop
at American University, The Media Institute, MPA – The Association of Magazine
Media, National Press Photographers Association, New England First Amendment
Coalition, The New York Times Company, Newsday LLC, The NewsGuild -
CWA, NYP Holdings, Inc., Online News Association, POLITICO LLC, Radio
Television Digital News Association, Reporters Without Borders, Reveal from The
Center for Investigative Reporting, Society of Professional Journalists, Student
Press Law Center, Tribune Publishing Company, Tully Center for Free Speech,
Univision Communications Inc., and The Washington Post. A supplemental
statement of identity and interest of amici is included below as Appendix A. 1
1
Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 29(a)(4)(E) and Local R 29.1(b), amici state as
follows: (1) no party’s counsel authored this brief in whole or in part; (2) no party
or party’s counsel contributed money that was intended to fund preparing or
submitting this brief; and (3) no person—other than the amici curiae, their
1
The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press is an unincorporated
nonprofit association. The Reporters Committee was founded by leading
journalists and media lawyers in 1970 when the nation’s news media faced an
unprecedented wave of government subpoenas forcing reporters to name
confidential sources. Today, its attorneys provide pro bono legal representation,
amicus curiae support, and other legal resources to protect First Amendment
freedoms and the newsgathering rights of journalists.
As representatives and members of the news media, amici have a strong
interest in protecting the public’s First Amendment and common law rights of
access to court documents. Members of the press regularly rely upon court
documents to keep the public apprised of cases within the public interest, as well as
to facilitate public monitoring of the judicial system. When courts fail to
adequately consider the costs to the public interest in sealing court records, the
ability of journalists to gather facts and keep the public apprised of actions of the
judicial branch is threatened. Amici write in support of the Intervenors-Appellants
Julie Brown and the Miami Herald (collectively, the “Miami Herald”) because the
district court’s decision in this case seals court records in an overly broad manner,
members, or their counsel—contributed money that was intended to fund preparing

or submitting this brief.
2
preventing the news media from accessing judicial records and informing the
public about important litigation of community concern.
SOURCE OF AUTHORITY TO FILE
Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellee, Defendant-Appellee, and Intervenors-
Appellants have consented to the filing of this brief. See Fed. R. App. P. 29(a)(2).
3
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
“People in an open society do not demand infallibility from their institutions,
but it is difficult for them to accept what they are prohibited from observing.”
Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 573 (1980) (plurality
opinion). For this reason, the public’s First Amendment and common law rights of
access to judicial proceedings and records play a critical, fundamental part in
ensuring public confidence in the judicial system. United States v. Amodeo, 71
F.3d 1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995) (“Amodeo II”). And public access, which is
necessary to both the fairness of the judicial system and the public’s perception of
its fairness, cannot be curtailed except where necessitated by compelling interests.
Where the First Amendment right of access applies, judicial documents may
only be sealed if—and only to the extent that—an “overriding interest” overcomes
the public’s strong, presumptive right of access. N.Y. Civil Liberties Union v. N.Y.
City Transit Auth., 684 F.3d 286, 304 (2d Cir. 2012). Under the common law,
judicial documents may only be sealed if “countervailing factors” outweigh the
public’s interest in access. Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1050.
4
The Miami Herald seeks access to all of the documents filed under seal in
this case, which include (1) discovery motions and their exhibits;2 (2) the entire
body of the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and more than half of the
order denying Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (the “Summary
Judgment Documents”) and (3) parts of a motion to intervene and unseal filed by
Alan Dershowitz and the order denying that motion. See Giuffre v Maxwell, Mem.
of Law in Support of Proposed Intervenors Julie Brown and Miami Herald Media
Company’s Mot. to Intervene and Unseal (filed Apr. 6, 2018), ECF No. 936 at 4–6.
The district court denied the Miami Herald’s motion to unseal, concluding
that what it deemed the “Discovery Documents” were not subject to the common
law or First Amendment presumptions of access; it held that those presumptions of
access were applicable but overcome with respect to the Summary Judgment
Documents.3 Sp.A.-27–28, 33–41. In denying the Miami Herald’s motion to
2
Because the district court allowed the parties to file many documents under
seal without first filing a motion to seal, see A.-265, it is difficult to determine the
nature of all of the sealed documents in this case. In its brief, the Miami Herald
has listed the sealed discovery documents that were identified in the record. See
Br. and Special App. for Intervenors-Appellants at 14.
3
The district court’s opinion divides the documents the Miami Herald seeks
to unseal into two categories: “Discovery Documents” and “Summary Judgment
Judicial Documents.” Sp.A.-27–29. It did not address the partial sealing of Mr.
Dershowitz’s motion to intervene and the order denying that motion. See id.
Despite the district court’s designation of the first category of documents as
“Discovery Documents,” amici agree with the Miami Herald that these documents
5
unseal the Summary Judgment Documents, the district court severely undervalued
the powerful public interest in this case and vastly overstated the asserted
countervailing interests in favor of secrecy. Contrary to the district court’s concern
that public access to the Summary Judgment Documents will serve only to
“promote scandal,” access will provide the public and the press with information
key to their understanding of this litigation, which relates to allegations of serial
sexual assault and abuse of minors by convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, and
has implicated high-level public officials and public figures. The district court
made only broad, general references to the protection of private information,
including information about minor sexual abuse victims, to conclude that privacy
interests in this case weighed heavily against the public’s right of access.
are not merely unfiled discovery exchanged between the parties, but rather are
documents that were filed in connection with discovery motions. See Br. and
Special App. for Intervenors-Appellants at 18–19. Amici also agree with the
Miami Herald that the district court erred in concluding that the Discovery
Documents are not judicial records subject to the First Amendment and common
law rights of access. See id. at 13–17. Because that issue has been fully addressed
in the Miami Herald’s opening brief, id., and the previous amici brief filed by
many of the same amici who join this brief, see Br. of Amici Curiae the Reporters
Comm. for Freedom of the Press and 18 Media Organizations in Support of
Intervenors Appellants, Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 16-3945(L) at 10–14 (filed Sept.
20, 2017), ECF No. 106, amici do not address that issue in this brief. In addition,
amici agree with the Miami Herald that the district court must engage in a
document-by-document analysis of the Discovery Documents to ensure that any
sealing is justified by a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored. See Br. and
Special App. for Intervenors-Appellants at 26–27.
6
In addition, the district court’s ruling essentially delegated its authority to
seal the Summary Judgment Documents to the parties’ judgment. Rather than
conducting an independent review of the Summary Judgment Documents to
determine whether or not compelling interests continue to justify sealing, the
district court simply relied on the parties’ initial designation of portions of the
Summary Judgment Documents as “confidential” to justify their continued sealing.
And the district court completely failed to address the Miami Herald’s motion to
unseal Mr. Dershowitz’s motion to intervene and the order denying that motion.
For the reasons set forth herein and in the Miami Herald’s brief, amici
respectfully urge this Court to reverse the district court’s order.
ARGUMENT
I. Public access is an essential feature of our judicial system.
Openness of judicial proceedings “has long been recognized as an
indispensable attribute” of the American justice system. Richmond Newspapers,
Inc., 448 U.S. at 569. “The notion that the public should have access to the
proceedings and documents of courts is integral to our system of government.”
United States v. Erie Cty., 763 F.3d 235, 238–39 (2d Cir. 2014).
Access to judicial proceedings and documents “permits the public to
participate in and serve as a check upon the judicial process—an essential
component in our structure of self-government.” Globe Newspaper Co. v.

7
Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596, 606 (1982). Indeed, as this Court has emphasized,
the presumption of access to judicial records arises from “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.” Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1048.
Public access to judicial proceedings and records allows the public to
observe and monitor the workings of the federal judiciary. Id. It “provides judges
with critical views of their work,” “deters arbitrary judicial behavior,” and
promotes “confidence in the conscientiousness, reasonableness, [and] honesty of
judicial proceedings.” Id. In order to effectively monitor the courts, the public
requires information—information that is often found in judicial documents and
brought to light by the press. See id. (“Such monitoring is not possible without
access to testimony and documents that are used in the performance of Article III
functions”). Thus, public access to judicial documents “enhances both the basic
fairness of” the judicial system “and the appearance of fairness so essential to
public confidence in the system.” Press-Enter. Co. v Superior Court, 464 U.S.
501, 508 (1984) (“Press-Enterprise I”).
8
II. The district court erred in dismissing the significant public interest in
access to the Summary Judgment Documents.
A. Access will allow the public to evaluate the judicial system’s handling
of litigation related to sexual abuse and assault of minors, an issue of
paramount public concern.
In denying the Miami Herald’s motion to unseal, the district court closed its
eyes to the particularly strong public interest in access to the Summary Judgment
Documents. See Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP, 814
F.3d 132, 143 (2d Cir. 2016) (finding that strong public interest in the subject of a
case weighs against sealing documents related to the matter). Rather, the district
court concluded that the Miami Herald had not identified a particular need for the
Summary Judgment Documents and that unsealing would simply “promote
scandal.” Sp.A.-40. To the contrary, sexual assault and trafficking of minors,
including the judicial system’s handling of these issues, are squarely matters of
public concern. Educating readers about these threats is not promoting scandal but
providing knowledge that will enable the public to be better informed about risks
in their own communities.
With the emergence of the “#MeToo Movement,” public awareness of issues
of sexual assault, abuse, and trafficking has only risen in recent years. Public
attention to these issues has become so great that in 2017, Time magazine named
“the silence breakers”—individuals who have spoken out after being victims of
9
sexual assault—its “Person of the Year.” Stephanie Zacharek et al., Person of the
Year 2017: The Silence Breakers, TIME, https://perma.cc/J5CU-69KC (last visited
Dec. 7, 2018). Many news outlets have brought to light allegations of sexual
harassment and abuse in Hollywood, politics, the media, and other industries. See,
e.g., Jodi Kantor & Megan Twohey, Harvey Weinstein Paid Off Sexual
Harassment Accusers for Decades, N.Y. Times (Oct. 5, 2017),
https://perma.cc/B9KL-GH77; Jane Mayer & Ronan Farrow, Four Women Accuse
New York’s Attorney General of Physical Abuse, New Yorker (May 7, 2008),
https://perma.cc/3HLN-7F68; Ramin Setoodeh & Elizabeth Wagmeister, Matt
Lauer Accused of Sexual Harassment by Multiple Women, Variety (Nov. 29,
2017), https://perma.cc/UFY7-NK4G; Irene Plagianos & Kitty Greenwald, Mario
Batali Steps Away From Restaurant Empire Following Sexual Misconduct
Allegations, Eater (Dec. 11, 2017), https://perma.cc/M96P-XD3Q; Melena Ryzik
et al., Louis C.K. Is Accused by 5 Women of Sexual Misconduct, N.Y. Times (Nov.
9, 2017), https://perma.cc/9588-E5CQ; Alexandra Berzon, Chris Kirkham,
Elizabeth Bernstein & Kate O'Keefe, Dozens of People Recount Pattern of Sexual
Misconduct by Las Vegas Mogul Steve Wynn, Wall Street J. (Jan. 27, 2018),
https://perma.cc/DK92-YJBW.
The public has a legitimate interest in examining how courts handle both
criminal and civil cases related to sexual assault. For example, when college
10
student Brock Turner was convicted of sexually assaulting an unconscious woman
and sentenced to only a few months in jail, news reports and the resulting public
outcry led to calls to alter sentencing guidelines for sex-based crimes. See Travis
M. Andrews, Ex-Stanford swimmer Brock Turner leaves jail Friday but
controversy still rages, Wash. Post (Aug. 30, 2016), https://perma.cc/7V9J-VBEW.
News reports used court records to examine the evidence against Turner, allowing
the public to better understand—and criticize—how the criminal justice system
handled his case. See, e.g., Susan Svrluga, ‘Did you rage?’ In Stanford sexual
assault case, court records shed new light, Wash. Post (June 10, 2016),
https://perma.cc/C8F4-FKJA; Ray Sanchez, Stanford rape case: Inside the court
documents, CNN (June 11, 2016), https://perma.cc/389Z-EU35; Hannah Knowles,
Documents from Court, District Attorney reveal details in Brock Turner case,
Stanford Daily (June 10, 2016), https://perma.cc/3C7R-57CW.
Similarly, when comedian Bill Cosby was tried and convicted of three
counts of aggravated indecent assault, the news media used court records to report
arguments presented in the case, as well as how the judge ruled on various
motions. Eric Levenson, Bill Cosby’s maximum sentence now 10 years after
charges merged, CNN (Sept. 24, 2018), https://perma.cc/A7JY-J9Q6; see also Eric
Levenson, Bill Cosby sentenced to 3 to 10 years in prison for sexual assault, CNN
(Sept. 26, 2018), https://perma.cc/WQ82-7SBZ. Some advocates for reform of

11
sexual violence laws lauded Cosby’s sentencing as one that inspired confidence in
the judicial system. Id.
In short, the press regularly uses court records to report on cases related to
allegations of sexual assault, and such reporting allows “the public to participate in
and serve as a check upon the judicial process.” Globe Newspaper Co., 457 U.S.
at 606.
B. This case, in particular, relates to a matter that has been the subject of
widespread reporting and is certainly a matter of public concern.
Not only does the public have a legitimate interest in the general subject
matter of this dispute, see Section II.A., supra, the interest in this case and in its
related judicial records is particularly acute due to the variety of public figures and
public officials who are alleged to be connected to Jeffrey Epstein and his victims,
such as President Donald Trump, former-President Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew,
Duke of York, and Alan Dershowitz. See, e.g., Jan Musgrave, Will President
Trump be used as witness in sex offender Epstein’s case?, Palm Beach Post (May
12, 2017), https://perma.cc/GPA7-QRLR; Josh Gerstein, The one weird court case
linking Trump, Clinton, and a billionaire pedophile, Politico (May 14, 2017),
https://perma.cc/8D55-QGJU; Josh Gerstein, Woman who sued convicted
billionaire over sex abuse levels claims at his friends, Politico (Dec. 31, 2014),
https://perma.cc/QWC9-A2FF; Tom Leonard, Prince Andrew risks losing
12
ambassador job as girl in underage sex case reveals meeting him, Daily Mail
(Mar. 2, 2011), http://dailym.ai/2wni8s1; Alan Dershowitz, Alan Dershowitz: ‘I
never had sex with Virginia Roberts’, Miami Herald (Dec. 2, 2018),
https://perma.cc/HYW5-D2MM (letter to the editor by Dershowitz in which he
states that sealed court records “directly establishes [his] innocence”).
Here, the Miami Herald seeks access to court records so that it may continue
its groundbreaking investigative reporting on the handling of Epstein’s criminal
prosecution, as well as related civil litigation. See Br. and Special App. for
Intervenors-Appellants at 4-5. Epstein’s plea deal, under which he pled guilty to
state criminal charges and agreed to serve a 13-month sentence, continues to make
headlines. David Von Drehle, Jeffrey Epstein’s plea deal is a travesty. But we can
still find justice, Washington Post (Dec. 11, 2018), https://perma.cc/RZR2-JCWE;
Conchita Sarnoff, Jeffrey Epstein, Billionaire Pedophile, Goes Free, Daily Beast
(July 20, 2010), https://perma.cc/HMC3-HQJG. Recently, a group of legislators
called for a Department of Justice probe into now-U.S. Secretary of Labor
Alexander Acosta’s involvement in the deal, in his prior capacity as the U.S.
Attorney for the Southern District of Florida. See Julie K. Brown et al, Lawmakers
issue call for investigation of serial sex abuser Jeffrey Epstein’s plea deal, Miami
Herald (Dec. 6, 2018), https://perma.cc/H6ZB-D6Z2; Julie K. Brown, How a
future Trump Cabinet member gave a serial sex abuser the deal of a lifetime,
13
Miami Herald (Nov. 28, 2018), https://perma.cc/GA2C-UW97. Other litigation
related to Epstein and his victims has been the subject of recent news reports as
well. See Julie K. Brown & Caitlin Ostroff, Epstein sex abuse victims press judge
for decision on tossing his lenient plea deal, Miami Herald, (Dec. 10, 2018),
https://perma.cc/7RL8-V5FL; Patricia Mazzei, Jeffrey Epstein Settles Lawsuit,
Avoiding Testimony From Accusers in Sex Case, N.Y. Times (Dec. 4, 2018),
https://nyti.ms/2zKIGro.
These matters have received extensive coverage in the news media because
they are of significant and legitimate interest to the public. Reporting related to the
allegations against Epstein—which are central to this case—is not to “promote
scandal” or misuse judicial records “to gratify private spite,” as the district court
stated. Sp.A.-40. Nor is it an attempt to disseminate “reservoirs of libelous
statements.” Id. Rather, coverage of this case builds public understanding of a
major news story that implicates national conversations related to sexual assault,
the actions of public officials and public figures, and the role of the courts in
litigating these disputes. Access to the Summary Judgment Documents will further
public monitoring of the judicial system in a case that is of paramount public
interest.
14
C. A strong presumption of access applies to a motion for summary

judgment and documents filed in connection thereto, even when that
motion is denied.
Amici agree with the Miami Herald that, in addition to giving short-shrift to
the powerful public interest in this case, the district court erroneously concluded
that under the common law the presumption of access to the Summary Judgment
Documents “is less” because the “‘district court denied the summary judgment
motion.’” Sp.A.-34 (quoting Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1049); see Br. and Special
App. for Intervenors-Appellants at 20–21.
In support of that conclusion, the district court quoted Amodeo II, which
itself cited, in dicta, a partial concurrence and partial dissent from the D.C.
Circuit’s decision in In re Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 773 F.2d
1325, 1342, n.3 (D.C. Cir. 1985). Id. (quoting Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1049).
However, in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, this Court expressly rejected
reliance on that dicta as “neither central to our holding nor a point of thorough
analysis” in Amodeo II. 435 F.3d 110, 121 (2d Cir. 2006). Moreover, this Court in
Lugosch also clarified that the presumption of access to motions for summary
judgment and related documents “is of the highest [order]: ‘documents used by
parties moving for, or opposing, summary judgment should not remain under seal
absent the most compelling reasons.’” Id. at 123 (quoting Joy v. North, 692 F.2d
880, 893 (2d Cir. 1982)). Thus, the district court erred in attaching little weight to
15
the common law presumption of access to the Summary Judgment Documents
because of the district court’s denial of the motion. The public has just as great an
interest in understanding why a court has denied a motion for summary judgment
as it would in understanding why a court has granted such a motion.
The public also has a particularly strong interest in access to the entirety of
the district court’s opinion granting or denying a motion for summary judgment
under both the First Amendment and the common law. See Co. Doe v. Pub.
Citizen, 749 F.3d 246, 267 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The public has an interest in learning
not only the evidence and records filed in connection with summary judgment
proceedings but also the district court’s decision ruling on a summary judgment
motion and the grounds supporting its decision. Without access to judicial
opinions, public oversight of the courts, including the processes and the outcomes
they produce, would be impossible.”). As this Court has observed, “Transparency
is pivotal to public perception of the judiciary’s legitimacy and independence. . . .
Because the Constitution grants the judiciary ‘neither force nor will, but merely
judgment,’ The Federalist No. 78 (Alexander Hamilton), courts must impede
scrutiny of the exercise of that judgment only in the rarest of circumstances.”
United States v. Aref, 533 F.3d 72, 83 (2d Cir. 2008). Thus, “[i] n the top drawer
of judicial records are documents authored or generated by the court itself in
discharging its public duties, including opinions, orders, judgments, docket sheets,
16
and other information related to the court’s public functions” and “this drawer is
hardly ever closed to the public.” In re Sealing & Non-Disclosure of
Pen/Trap/2703(d) Orders, 562 F. Supp. 2d 876, 891 (S.D. Tex. 2008). As the
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has explained:
What happens in the federal courts is presumptively open

to public scrutiny. Judges deliberate in private but issue
public decisions after public arguments based on public
records. The political branches of government claim
legitimacy by election, judges by reason. Any step that
withdraws an element of the judicial process from public
view makes the ensuing decision look more like fiat and
requires rigorous justification. The Supreme Court issues
public opinions in all cases, even those said to involve
state secrets. See New York Times Co. v. United States,
403 U.S. 713, 91 S.Ct. 2140, 29 L.Ed.2d 822 (1971). A
district court issued public opinions in a case dealing
with construction plans for hydrogen bombs. United
States v. Progressive, Inc., 467 F.Supp. 990, rehearing
denied, 486 F.Supp. 5 (W.D.Wis.), appeal dismissed, 610
F.2d 819 (7th Cir.1979). . . .
Hicklin Eng’g, L.C. v. Bartell, 439 F.3d 346, 348–49 (7th Cir. 2006), abrogated on
other grounds by RTP LLC v. ORIX Real Estate Capital, Inc., 827 F.3d 689, 692
(7th Cir. 2016). In other words, public access to judicial decisions, in particular,
plays an especially important role in ensuring public trust in the judiciary.
III. Generalized privacy interests cannot support sealing.
The district court’s decision focused on “the privacy rights of individuals,”
citing caselaw related to, inter alia, the Fourth Amendment, Freedom of
17
Information Act, and trade secrets. Sp.A.-16–19. But broad, general notions of
privacy are not enough to demonstrate either a “higher value” that overcomes the
First Amendment presumption of access, see Press-Enter. Co. v. Superior Court,
478 U.S. 1, 13–14 (1986) (“Press-Enterprise II”), or a “substantial interest” that
overcomes the common law presumption of access, Under Seal v. Under Seal, 273
F. Supp. 3d 460, 467 (S.D.N.Y. 2017).
The First Amendment right of access requires that judicial documents may
be sealed only if and to the extent that “specific, on the record findings . . .
demonstrat[e] that ‘closure is essential to preserve higher values[.]’” Press-
Enterprise II, 478 U.S. at 13–14 (quoting Press Enterprise I, 464 U.S. at 510).
“Broad and general findings” by the district court “are not sufficient to justify
closure.” In re N.Y. Times Co., 828 F.2d 110, 116 (2d Cir. 1987).
As an initial matter, as the Miami Herald notes, the alleged victim of sexual
abuse and trafficking in this case, Ms. Giuffre, who is now an adult, has advocated
for unsealing all of the records in this case. See Br. and Special App. for
Intervenors-Appellants at 22 (citing A.-428). In addition, the revelation of
information related to sexual assault of minors does not automatically create a
compelling interest that overcomes the First Amendment or common law rights of
access, as the district court erroneously concluded. Sp.A.-38–40. For example, in
Globe Newspapers, the Supreme Court struck down a Massachusetts statute that
18
automatically closed court proceedings during the testimony of minor victims of
sexual offenses, concluding that whether the First Amendment presumption of
access had been overcome must be determined on a case-by-case basis. 457 U.S.
at 608–09.
Here, generalized privacy interests of the alleged victims and perpetrators of
sexual abuse and trafficking cannot overcome the public’s strong interest in access.
IV. The district court failed to make an independent determination

regarding the sealing of specific records.
This Court has made clear that it is “improper” for a district court “to
delegate its authority” regarding the sealing of judicial records to litigants; a
district court must “make its own redactions, supported by specific findings, after a
careful review of all claims for and against access.” United States v. Amodeo, 44
F.3d 141, 147 (2d Cir. 1995) (“Amodeo I”). Here, the district court permitted the
parties to make redactions to the Summary Judgment Documents based on the
parties’ determinations as to what information should be kept from the press and
the public. See Sp.A.-32 (stating that certain portions of the Summary Judgment
Documents “reveal[] the substance of the evidence jointly deemed confidential by
the parties. It was therefore redacted by the parties”). In denying the Miami
Herald’s motion to unseal the Summary Judgment Documents, the district court
simply accepted the parties’ decisions regarding redactions without any indication
19
that it had conducted an independent, particularized review of the propriety of
those redactions. See id. at 33–35.
The First Amendment required the district court to evaluate each specific
portion of the Summary Judgment Documents that the parties redacted to
determine if the presumption of access was overcome. See Press-Enterprise I, 464
U.S. at 510 (stating that a lower court must articulate an overriding interest “along
with findings specific enough that a reviewing court can determine whether the
closure order was properly entered”). There is no indication that the district court
did so. The district court merely found that the Summary Judgment Documents, in
general, discuss allegations of sexual assault and sexual trafficking of minors—a
conclusory finding that does not justify keeping any specific portion of any
document under seal.
In addition, the district court ignored the Miami Herald’s motion to unseal
Mr. Dershowitz’s motion to intervene and the order denying that motion. Just as
the district court was required to undertake an individualized analysis of the
redactions to the Summary Judgment Documents that were made by the parties, it
should also have considered whether an overriding or substantial interest justified
sealing Mr. Dershowitz’s motion to intervene and the order denying that motion.
20
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons and those set forth in the Miami Herald’s brief,
amici curiae urge this Court to reverse the district court’s order denying access to
judicial documents in this case.
/s/ Bruce D. Brown

Bruce D. Brown
Counsel of Record
Katie Townsend
Caitlin Vogus
Lindsie Trego
1156 15th St. NW, Suite 1020
Telephone: (202) 795-9300
Facsimile: (202) 795-9310
Dated: December 17, 2018

Washington, D.C.
21
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I, Bruce D. Brown, do hereby certify that the foregoing brief of amici
curiae:
1) Complies with the type-volume limitation of Fed. R. App. P. 29(a)(5)
because it contains 6,507 words, excluding the parts of the brief
exempted by Fed. R. App. P. 32(f), as calculated by the word-processing
system used to prepare the brief; and
2) Complies with the typeface requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(5) and
the type style requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(6) because it has
been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using Microsoft Office
Word in 14-point, Times New Roman font.
/s/ Bruce D. Brown

Bruce D. Brown
Counsel of Record

Washington, D.C.
22
APPENDIX A
Descriptions of amici:
The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press is a voluntary,
unincorporated association of reporters and editors that works to defend the First
Amendment rights and freedom of information interests of the news media. The
Reporters Committee has provided representation, guidance and research in First
Amendment and Freedom of Information Act litigation since 1970.
With some 500 members, American Society of News Editors (“ASNE”) is
an organization that includes directing editors of daily newspapers throughout the
Americas. ASNE changed its name in April 2009 to American Society of News
Editors and approved broadening its membership to editors of online news
providers and academic leaders. Founded in 1922 as American Society of
Newspaper Editors, ASNE is active in a number of areas of interest to top editors
with priorities on improving freedom of information, diversity, readership and the
credibility of newspapers.
The Associated Press Media Editors is a nonprofit, tax-exempt
organization of newsroom leaders and journalism educators that works closely
with The Associated Press to promote journalism excellence. APME advances the
principles and practices of responsible journalism; supports and mentors a diverse
23
network of current and emerging newsroom leaders; and champions the First
Amendment and promotes freedom of information.
Association of Alternative Newsmedia (“AAN”) is a not-for-profit trade
association for approximately 110 alternative newspapers in North America. AAN
newspapers and their websites provide an editorial alternative to the mainstream
press. AAN members have a total weekly circulation of seven million and a reach
of over 25 million readers.
Digital First Media publishes the San Jose Mercury News, the East Bay
Times, St. Paul Pioneer Press, The Denver Post and the Detroit News and other
community papers throughout the United States, as well as numerous related
online news sites.
Dow Jones & Company, Inc., is a global provider of news and business
information, delivering content to consumers and organizations around the world
across multiple formats, including print, digital, mobile and live events. Dow Jones
has produced unrivaled quality content for more than 130 years and today has one
of the world’s largest newsgathering operations globally. It produces leading
publications and products including the flagship Wall Street Journal; Factiva;
Barron’s; MarketWatch; Financial News; Dow Jones Risk & Compliance; Dow
Jones Newswires; and Dow Jones VentureSource.
24
The E.W. Scripps Company serves audiences and businesses through
television, radio and digital media brands, with 33 television stations in 24
markets. Scripps also owns 33 radio stations in eight markets, as well as local and
national digital journalism and information businesses, including mobile video
news service Newsy and weather app developer WeatherSphere. Scripps owns and
operates an award-winning investigative reporting newsroom in Washington, D.C.
and serves as the long-time steward of the nation’s largest, most successful and
longest-running educational program, the Scripps National Spelling Bee.
First Amendment Coalition is a nonprofit public interest organization
dedicated to defending free speech, free press and open government rights in order
to make government, at all levels, more accountable to the people. The Coalition’s
mission assumes that government transparency and an informed electorate are
essential to a self-governing democracy. To that end, we resist excessive
government secrecy (while recognizing the need to protect legitimate state secrets)
and censorship of all kinds.
First Look Media Works, Inc. is a new non-profit digital media venture
that produces The Intercept, a digital magazine focused on national security
reporting.
Directly and through affiliated companies, Fox Television Stations, LLC,
owns and operates 28 local television stations throughout the United States. The 28
25
stations have a collective market reach of 37 percent of U.S. households. Each of
the 28 stations also operates Internet websites offering news and information for its
local market.
Gannett Co., Inc. is a leading news and information company which
publishes USA TODAY and more than 100 local media properties. Each month
more than 110 million unique visitors access content from USA TODAY and
Gannett’s local media organizations, putting the company squarely in the Top 10
U.S. news and information category.
The Inter American Press Association (IAPA) is a not-for-profit
organization dedicated to the defense and promotion of freedom of the press and of
expression in the Americas. It is made up of more than 1,300 publications from
throughout the Western Hemisphere and is based in Miami, Florida.
The International Documentary Association (IDA) is dedicated to
building and serving the needs of a thriving documentary culture. Through its
programs, the IDA provides resources, creates community, and defends rights and
freedoms for documentary artists, activists, and journalists.
The Investigative Reporting Workshop, a project of the School of
Communication (SOC) at American University, is a nonprofit, professional
newsroom. The Workshop publishes in-depth stories at
investigativereportingworkshop.org about government and corporate

26
accountability, ranging widely from the environment and health to national
security and the economy.
The Media Institute is a nonprofit research foundation specializing in
communications policy issues founded in 1979. The Media Institute exists to foster
three goals: freedom of speech, a competitive media and communications industry,
and excellence in journalism. its program agenda encompasses all sectors of the
media, from print and broadcast outlets to cable, satellite, and online services.
MPA – The Association of Magazine Media, (“MPA”) is the largest
industry association for magazine publishers. The MPA, established in 1919,
represents over 175 domestic magazine media companies with more than 900
magazine titles. The MPA represents the interests of weekly, monthly and
quarterly publications that produce titles on topics that cover news, culture, sports,
lifestyle and virtually every other interest, avocation or pastime enjoyed by
Americans. The MPA has a long history of advocating on First Amendment issues.
The National Press Photographers Association (“NPPA”) is a 501(c)(6)
non-profit organization dedicated to the advancement of visual journalism in its
creation, editing and distribution. NPPA’s members include television and still
photographers, editors, students and representatives of businesses that serve the
visual journalism industry. Since its founding in 1946, the NPPA has vigorously
promoted the constitutional rights of journalists as well as freedom of the press in

27
all its forms, especially as it relates to visual journalism. The submission of this
brief was duly authorized by Mickey H. Osterreicher, its General Counsel.
New England First Amendment Coalition is a non-profit organization
working in the six New England states to defend, promote and expand public
access to government and the work it does. The coalition is a broad-based
organization of people who believe in the power of transparency in a democratic
society. Its members include lawyers, journalists, historians and academicians, as
well as private citizens and organizations whose core beliefs include the principles
of the First Amendment. The coalition aspires to advance and protect the five
freedoms of the First Amendment, and the principle of the public’s right to know
in our region. In collaboration with other like-minded advocacy organizations,
NEFAC also seeks to advance understanding of the First Amendment across the
nation and freedom of speech and press issues around the world.
The New York Times Company is the publisher of The New York Times
and The International Times, and operates the news website nytimes.com.
Newsday LLC (“Newsday”) is the publisher of the daily newspaper,
Newsday, and related news websites. Newsday is one of the nation’s largest daily
newspapers, serving Long Island through its portfolio of print and digital products.
Newsday has received 19 Pulitzer Prizes and other esteemed awards for
outstanding journalism.
28
The News Guild – CWA is a labor organization representing more than
30,000 employees of newspapers, newsmagazines, news services and related
media enterprises. Guild representation comprises, in the main, the the editorial
and online departments of these media outlets. The News Guild is a sector of the
Communications Workers of America. CWA is America’s largest communications
and media union, representing over 700,000 men and women in both private and
public sectors.
The New York Post, owned by NYP Holdings, Inc., is the oldest
continuously published daily newspaper in the United States, with the seventh
largest circulation. It is published in print and online.
Online News Association (“ONA”) is the world’s largest association of
online journalists. ONA’s mission is to inspire innovation and excellence among
journalists to better serve the public. ONA’s more than 2,000 members include
news writers, producers, designers, editors, bloggers, technologists, photographers,
academics, students and others who produce news for the Internet or other digital
delivery systems. ONA hosts the annual Online News Association conference and
administers the Online Journalism Awards. ONA is dedicated to advancing the
interests of digital journalists and the public generally by encouraging editorial
integrity and independence, journalistic excellence and freedom of expression and
access.
29
POLITICO is a global news and information company at the intersection of
politics and policy. Since its launch in 2007, POLITICO has grown to more than
350 reporters, editors and producers. It distributes 30,000 copies of its Washington
newspaper on each publishing day, publishes POLITICO Magazine, with a
circulation of 33,000 six times a year, and maintains a U.S. website with an
average of 26 million unique visitors per month.
Radio Television Digital News Association (“RTDNA”) is the world’s
largest and only professional organization devoted exclusively to electronic
journalism. RTDNA is made up of news directors, news associates, educators and
students in radio, television, cable and electronic media in more than 30 countries.
RTDNA is committed to encouraging excellence in the electronic journalism
industry and upholding First Amendment freedoms.
Reporters Without Borders has been fighting censorship and supporting
and protecting journalists since 1985. Activities are carried out on five continents
through its network of over 150 correspondents, its national sections, and its close
collaboration with local and regional press freedom groups. Reporters Without
Borders currently has 10 offices and sections worldwide.
Reveal from The Center for Investigative Reporting, founded in 1977, is
the nation’s oldest nonprofit investigative newsroom. Reveal produces
investigative journalism for its website https://www.revealnews.org/, the Reveal

30
national public radio show and podcast, and various documentary projects. Reveal
often works in collaboration with other newsrooms across the country.
Society of Professional Journalists (“SPJ”) is dedicated to improving and
protecting journalism. It is the nation’s largest and most broad-based journalism
organization, dedicated to encouraging the free practice of journalism and
stimulating high standards of ethical behavior. Founded in 1909 as Sigma Delta
Chi, SPJ promotes the free flow of information vital to a well-informed citizenry,
works to inspire and educate the next generation of journalists and protects First
Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech and press.
Student Press Law Center (“SPLC”) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan
organization which, since 1974, has been the nation’s only legal assistance agency
devoted exclusively to educating high school and college journalists about the
rights and responsibilities embodied in the First Amendment to the Constitution of
the United States. SPLC provides free legal assistance, information and
educational materials for student journalists on a variety of legal topics.
Tribune Publishing Company is one of the country’s leading media
companies. The company’s daily newspapers include the Chicago Tribune, New
York Daily News, The Baltimore Sun, Sun Sentinel (South Florida), Orlando
Sentinel, Hartford Courant, The Morning Call, the Virginian Pilot and Daily Press.
Popular news and information websites, including www.chicagotribune.com,

31
complement Tribune Publishing’s publishing properties and extend the company’s
nationwide audience.
The Tully Center for Free Speech began in Fall, 2006, at Syracuse
University’s S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications, one of the nation’s
premier schools of mass communications.
Univision Communications Inc. (UCI) is the leading media company
serving Hispanic America. UCI is a leading content creator in the U.S. and
includes the Univision Network, UniMás and Univision Cable Networks. UCI also
includes the Fusion Media Group, a division that serves young, diverse audiences,
which includes cable networks and a collection of leading digital news sites
including Gizmodo, Deadspin, The Root, Splinter and Jezebel.
The Washington Post (formally, WP Company LLC d/b/a The Washington
Post) is a news organization based in Washington, D.C. It publishes The
Washington Post newspaper and the website www.washingtonpost.com, and
produces a variety of digital and mobile news applications. The Post has won 47
Pulitzer Prizes for journalism, including awards in 2018 for national and
investigative reporting.
32
APPENDIX B
Additional Counsel:
Kevin M. Goldberg
Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth, PLC
1300 N. 17th St., 11th Floor
Arlington, VA 22209
Counsel for American Society of News Editors
Counsel for Association of Alternative Newsmedia
Marshall W. Anstandig
Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary
Digital First Media
4 North 2nd Street, Suite 800
San Jose, CA 95113
manstandig@bayareanewsgroup.com
1-408-920-5784
James Chadwick
Counsel for Digital First Media LLC
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
379 Lytton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301-1479
jchadwick@sheppardmullin.com
1-650-815-2600
Jason P. Conti
Jacob P. Goldstein
Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
New York, NY 10036
Counsel for Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
David M. Giles
Vice President/
Deputy General Counsel
The E.W. Scripps Company
312 Walnut St., Suite 2800
Cincinnati, OH 45202
33
David Snyder
First Amendment Coalition
534 Fourth St., Suite B
San Rafael, CA 94901
David Bralow
First Look Media Works, Inc.
18th Floor
114 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10011
David M. Keneipp
FOX TELEVISION STATIONS, LLC
1999 S. Bundy Drive
Los Angeles, CA 90025
310-584-3341
david.keneipp@foxtv.com
Barbara W. Wall
Senior Vice President & Chief Legal Officer
Gannett Co., Inc.
7950 Jones Branch Drive
McLean, VA 22107
(703)854-6951
Kurt Wimmer
Covington & Burling LLP
Counsel for The Media Institute
James Cregan
Executive Vice President
MPA – The Association of Magazine Media
1211 Connecticut Ave. NW Suite 610
Mickey H. Osterreicher
34
200 Delaware Avenue

Buffalo, NY14202
Counsel for National Press Photographers Association
Robert A. Bertsche (BBO #554333)

Prince Lobel Tye LLP
100 Cambridge Street
Boston, MA 02114
Counsel for the New England First Amendment Coalition
David McCraw
V.P./Assistant General Counsel
The New York Times Company
620 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018
Dina Sforza, Esq.

VP/General Counsel
Newsday LLC
235 Pinelawn Road
Melville, NY 11747
Barbara L. Camens
Barr & Camens
1025 Connecticut Ave., NW
Suite 712
Counsel for The News Guild – CWA
Eugenie C. Gavenchak
NYP Holdings, Inc.
1211 Avenue of Americas
Laura R. Handman
Alison Schary
1919 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Suite 800
35
Thomas R. Burke
Suite 800
500 Montgomery Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Counsel for Online News Association
Elizabeth C. Koch
Ballard Spahr LLP
1909 K Street, NW
12th Floor
Counsel for POLITICO LLC
Kathleen A. Kirby
Wiley Rein LLP
1776 K St., NW
Counsel for Radio Television Digital News Association
D. Victoria Baranetsky
General Counsel
Reveal from The Center for Investigative Reporting
1400 65th Street, Suite 200
Emeryville, California 94608
Bruce W. Sanford
Mark I. Bailen
Baker & Hostetler LLP
1050 Connecticut Ave., NW
Suite 1100
Counsel for Society of Professional Journalists
Karen H. Flax
VP/Deputy General Counsel
Tribune Publishing Company
160 North Stetson Avenue
36
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Lan Nguyen
Head of Litigation
Univision Communications Inc.
605 Third Avenue, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10158
(212) 455-5248
lnguyen@univision.net
John B. Kennedy
James A. McLaughlin
Kalea S. Clark
The Washington Post
One Franklin Square
Tel: (202) 334-6000
Fax: (202) 334-5075
37
I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing with the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit by using the appellate CM/ECF
system with a resulting electronic notice to all counsel of record on December 17,
2018.
Dated: December 17, 2018 By: /s/ Bruce D. Brown

Bruce D. Brown
Counsel for Amici Curiae
38

Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
Defendant-Appellee,
No. 18-2868
v.
SHARON CHURCH, JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Respondents,
COMPANY,
Intervenors-Appellants
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE VIRGINIA GIUFFRE’S RESPONSE IN

OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT-APPELLEE GHISLAINE MAXWELL’S
MOTION TO DISMISS
Appellee Virginia Giuffre, by her counsel, hereby files this Response in
Opposition to Defendant-Appellee Maxwell’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff-Appellee Virginia
L. Giuffre from the Appeal. The motion is meritless and should be denied.
Maxwell’s motion confuses two very different things: the jurisdictional requirements
for a “case or controversy” and the mechanical requirements for organizing parties for
purposes of briefing and argument. This appeal clearly involves a case or controversy
1
properly before this Court. And because Ms. Giuffre has interests clearly at stake in that case
or controversy, she is entitled to be heard as an appellee.
In this case, the Miami Herald has appealed a ruling from the district court that certain
materials from an underlying civil case brought by Ms. Giuffre – Giuffre v. Maxwell – are to
remain under seal. Once the Herald filed its appeal, by operation of Rule 12(a) of the Federal
Rules of Appellate Procedure, this Court’s Clerk was required to “docket the appeal under the
title of the district-court action and . . . identify the appellant, adding the appellant’s name if
necessary.” That is precisely what the Clerk did here.
Despite this mechanical approach to docketing the case, Maxwell alleges some kind
of constitutional violation inheres this routine approach. In Maxwell’s view, because Ms.
Giuffre supported unsealing the documents at issue in the trial court, that rendered her
functionally an “appellant” in the case for all purposes – and, because she has not filed a notice
of appeal, then she cannot participate in the appeal.
Maxwell’s motion should be denied for three reasons. First, Maxwell lacks standing
to complaining about case captioning and docketing procedures. Maxwell suffers no injury
from Ms. Giuffre presenting arguments to this Court, as Maxwell remains fully entitled to
present all of her arguments. Generally, purely procedural issues do not rise to the level of
creating an “injury in fact” conferring standing for a challenge. See, e.g., Strubel v. Comenity
Bank, 842 F.3d 181, 189 (2d Cir. 2016) (“In the absence of a connection between a
procedural violation and a concrete interest, a bare violation of the former does not manifest
2
injury in fact.”). Indeed, it would be impossible for Maxwell to be injured from the mere
presentation of legal argument to this Court, as this Court can be presumed to follow the law.
Hearing arguments from Ms. Giuffre creates no harm to Maxwell – and thus no right for her
to complain.
Second, Ms. Maxwell’s complaint is untimely. On November 8, 2018, Maxwell filed
a motion to be added as a party to this case. On November 14, 2018, this Court granted
Maxwell permission to be a party. Thereafter, Maxwell raised no concern about the case
caption in this case until about a month later. Maxwell offers no explanation of this delay –
which has resulted in litigation only after the opening brief has been filed in this appeal.
Third and finally, Maxwell has conflated situations where no party is genuinely
challenging a trial court ruling – the “friendly or feigned proceedings” to which Maxwell
refers, Mot. to Dismiss at 8 – with situations where two parties are in adversarial posture
regarding a trial court ruling and other parties have concrete interests at stake in their dispute.
Maxwell concedes that her position (keep the documents secret) is directly opposite to the
Miami Herald’s position (make the document public). And thus the constitutionally required
“case and controversy,” U.S. Const., art. III, § 2, exists before this Court.
The only remaining question is whether Ms. Giuffre has interests at stake in that
controversy. How this Court addresses the documents in question clearly implicates concerns
of Ms. Giuffre. For example, even if the Miami Herald prevails on the general issue of
unsealing the documents, Ms. Giuffre wishes to be heard to ensure that (for example) social
3
security numbers and similar information are redacted in the disclosures and that privileged
materials are not improperly released. Moreover, as the Court is aware, this appeal (No. 18-
2868) is companion litigation with three other consolidated appeals (Nos. 16-3945, 17-1625,
and 17-1722), which seek partial unsealing of some of the records in this case is at issue. Here
again, Ms. Giuffre is entitled to be heard on the scope of any unsealing order. She has a “direct
stake in the outcome” that will result from this litigation. Arizonans for Official English v.
Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 64 (1976).
Finally, if for any reason the Court should conclude that Ms. Giuffre’s status is not
accurately reflected in the case caption, then Ms. Giuffre could still be heard in this appeal as
an amicus. If the Court identifies a technical problem with her position as an appellee, Ms.
Giuffre would simply ask that this response then be treated as a motion for leave to file an
amicus brief under Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and, for all the reasons
explained above, her brief be accepted as an amicus brief.
For all these reasons, the Court should deny Ms. Maxwell’s motion to dismiss
Ms. Maxwell from this appeal.
/s/ Paul G.Cassell

Paul G. Cassell
University of Utah
4
(801) 585-52021
I hereby certify that on December 19, 2018, I caused the foregoing
document(s) to be submitted to the Court’s ECF system for service and filing, and
the document was thereby served upon counsel of record through that system.
/s/ Paul G. Cassell

PAUL G. CASSELL
University of Utah
(801) 585-52022
Sigrid McCawley
(954) 356-0011
1
This daytime business address is provided for contact purposes only and is not intended
2
5

18-2868 ________
Name: KatieLynn Townsend
Firm: Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
Address: 1156 15th St. NW, Suite 1020, Washington, DC 20002
Telephone: 202-795-9303
___________________________ Fax: 202-795-9310
E-mail: ktownsend@rcfp.org
Appearance for: Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and 32 Media Organizations
(party/designation)
Select One:
(name/firm)

(name/firm)
G Additional counsel (co-counsel with: )

(name/firm)
Julie Brown, Miami Herald Media Company
G Amicus (in support of:
✔ )
(party/designation)
CERTIFICATION
I certify that:
✔
my admission on admitted
9/16/2016- 9/16/2016 OR
Signature of Counsel: /s/ KatieLynn Townsend
Type or Print Name: KatieLynn Townsend


40 Foley Square
New York, NY 10007

Date: December 26, 2018 DC Docket #: 15-cv-7433

DC Judge: Sweet
On December 19, 2018 the brief, on behalf of the Appellee Virginia L. Giuffre, was submitted in
the above referenced case. The document does not comply with the FRAP or the Court's Local
Rules for the following reason(s):
______ Not Text-Searchable (Local Rule 25.1, Local Rules 25.2), click here
__X___ Incorrect pagination, click here for instructions on how to paginate PDFs
(Local Rule 32.1)

__X___ Other: You must select the same docketing event when re-filing.
necessary, no later than December 28, 2018. The resubmitted documents, if compliant with
FRAP and the Local Rules, will be deemed timely filed.


Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
Defendant-Appellee,
v. No. 18-2868

Respondents,
COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellee Ghislaine Maxwell’s Reply in Support

of Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff-Appellee Virginia L. Giuffre
from the Appeal
In response to the motion to dismiss her from the appeal, Ms. Giuffre offers
three defenses of her participation in this appeal as an appellee, even though she
agrees with the Miami Herald that the district court’s order should be reversed.
None of Ms. Giuffre’s arguments is persuasive.
Ms. Giuffre first claims that Ms. Maxwell lacks “standing” to seek dismissal
of her from the appeal. Of course, no law supports this proposition. If Ms. Giuffre
lacks standing to defend the district court’s order (which she does, because she
consented to the relief requested by the Miami Herald in the court below), and if
Ms. Giuffre cannot be realigned as an appellant (which she can’t, because she did
not comply with the jurisdictional requirement of filing a notice of appeal), then
this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider her arguments on appeal. Any party can
point out that lack of jurisdiction at any time. Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443, 455
(2004).
Next, Ms. Giuffre claims that Ms. Maxwell’s motion to dismiss is untimely.
According to Ms. Giuffre, because Ms. Maxwell was added as an appellee on
November 14, she should have filed her motion to dismiss at some unspecified time
before December 13. This argument makes no sense.
Ms. Giuffre does not cite any authority—no rule, statute, or case—
supporting her contention that Ms. Maxwell should have moved faster. And of
course no such authority exists, if only because jurisdictional issues (such as an
appellee’s lack of standing to defend) can be raised at any time. See United Food &
Commercial Workers Union, Local 919, AFL-CIO v. CenterMark Properties Meriden
Square, Inc., 30 F.3d 298, 301 (2d Cir. 1994) (“[A]ny party or the court sua sponte,
at any stage of the proceedings, may raise the question of whether the court has
subject matter jurisdiction”).
2
Even more conspicuous, though, is Ms. Giuffre’s failure and inability to
assert prejudice from Ms. Maxwell’s filing her motion on December 13. Although
the motion to dismiss was filed three days after the filing of the Herald’s opening
brief, it was filed before the filing of Ms. Giuffre’s “answer brief.” Ms. Giuffre does
not and cannot claim to be prejudiced when she had notice of Ms. Maxwell’s
motion to dismiss well in advance of filing her answer brief.1
Moreover, Ms. Giuffre filed her answer brief nearly one month before it was
due. The speed with which Ms. Giuffre filed her brief belies any claim that she was
prejudiced by the timing of Ms. Maxwell’s motion. In fact, it underscores her
alignment with the interests of the Miami Herald. It didn’t take very long for Ms.
Giuffre to craft a brief agreeing with everything the Miami Herald said.
Ms. Giuffre’s final argument is entirely nonresponsive to Ms. Maxwell’s
motion. According to Ms. Giuffre an Article III “case and controversy” exists in
this Court because the Miami Herald challenges the district court’s order while
Ms. Maxwell defends it. That is correct, and Ms. Maxwell did not argue otherwise
in her motion to dismiss Ms. Giuffre.
1
The Miami Herald hasn’t complained about this timing. In fact, the Herald
didn’t respond to the motion to dismiss Ms. Giuffre from the appeal. Moreover,
counsel for the Herald indicated to counsel for Ms. Maxwell that the Herald will
not file a response to Ms. Maxwell’s forthcoming motion to strike Ms. Giuffre’s
“answer brief.”
3
Rather, Ms. Maxwell argued that Ms. Giuffre should be dismissed from the
appeal because she consented to the Herald’s motion in the district court (and
therefore cannot participate in the appeal as an appellee) and because she did not
file a notice of appeal of her own (and therefore cannot participate in this appeal as
an appellant). The Miami Herald is the proper appellant in this appeal. Ms.
Maxwell is the proper appellee. Ms. Giuffre is neither.
Were there any doubt about the proper resolution of Ms. Maxwell’s motion
to dismiss, Ms. Giuffre removed that doubt when, on December 19, 2018, she
submitted her answer brief in “opposition” to the Miami Herald’s opening brief.2
Ms. Giuffre’s answer brief is extraordinary. The text of the entire brief spans four
pages. 2d Cir. Doc.72, at 1-4. The entire “argument” is three paragraphs. Id. at 2-
4. The argument is a copy-and-paste of Ms. Giuffre’s district court argument that
consented to the relief requested in the Miami Herald’s motion to unseal. See id.
at 2. Most remarkably, Ms. Giuffre purports as “appellee” to “defend” the district
court’s ruling denying the motion to unseal by urging this Court to reverse the
district court’s ruling. See id. at 2, 4.3
2
On December 26, this Court ordered Ms. Giuffre to refile her answer brief
because her pagination did not comply with local rules.
3
As noted in Ms. Maxwell’s motion to dismiss, on December 3, 2018,
Mr. Dershowitz notified the district court that materials subject to the protective
4
Ms. Giuffre’s answer brief is a compelling admission she is “friendly” with
the Miami Herald, and she is “feign[ing]”4 a dispute between her and the
appellants. She lacks standing to serve as an appellee, and this Court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction to hear her arguments. See Central States SE & SW Areas Health
& Welfare Fund v. Merck–Medco Managed Care, LLC, 433 F.3d 181, 198 (2d Cir.
2005), quoted with approval in Plante v. Dake, 621 Fed. Appx. 67, 69 n.5 (2d Cir.
2015) (summary order).
Recognizing the impropriety of her participation in this appeal, Ms. Giuffre
in the alternative asks this Court for leave to file her answer brief as an amicus brief.
That request, however, is too late. Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
29(a)(6), “An amicus curiae must file its brief, accompanied by a motion for filing
when necessary, no later than 7 days after the principal brief of the party being
supported is filed.” Ms. Giuffre, who supports the Miami Herald, filed her brief on
December 19, more than seven days after the Herald filed its principal brief on
order and sealing orders “have been improperly leaked to members of the press,”
including the Miami Herald. Mot. at 10. The district court has scheduled a show
cause hearing for January 9, 2019, to decide whether Ms. Giuffre and her counsel
should not be sanctioned for violating the court’s protective order. Ms. Giuffre’s
alleged out-of-court conduct is even more reason to conclude that she is “friendly”
with the Miami Herald and has no business defending the district court in this
appeal.
4
Russman v. Bd. of Educ. of Enlarged City Sch. Dist. of City of Watervliet, 260
F.3d 114, 118 (2d Cir. 2001).
5
December 10. From any perspective, therefore, Ms. Giuffre cannot participate in
this appeal.
For these reasons, as well as those provided in Ms. Maxwell’s motion to
dismiss, this Court should dismiss Ms. Giuffre from this appeal.
December 26, 2018.
s/ Adam Mueller
Ty Gee
Adam Mueller
Denver, CO 80203
Tel 303.831.7364
Maxwell
6
Defendant-Appellee Ghislaine Maxwell’s Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff-Appellee Virginia L. Giuffre from the Appeal on the following persons:

Christine N. Walz
Sanford L. Bohrer
s/ Nicole Simmons
7
18-2868
_______________________________________________

for the
Second Circuit
______________________________________
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
Defendant-Appellee;
(caption continued on inside cover)

_____________________________________________

BRIEF FOR PLAINTIFF- APPELLEE

VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE
Paul G. Cassell
Sigrid McCawley
Virginia Giuffre
v.
Respondents,

All parties to this appeal are reflected in the case caption (as supplemented
by the corporate disclosure made by appellant Miami Herald).
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ......................................................... i

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iii
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ...............................................................................1
ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW .....................................................................2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE ..................................................................................2

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .................................................................................2
ARGUMENT .............................................................................................................2
I. APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF REVIEW. ........................................... 2
II. THE ENTIRE DOCKET BELOW SHOULD BE UNSEALED. .......... 2

CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................................4
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH F.R.A.P RULE 32(a) ..........................6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ..................................................................................7
ii
Page
Dorsett v. County of Nassau,

289 F.R .D. 54 (E .D. N. Y. 2012) ........................................................................3
Martindell v. Int’l Tel. & Tel. Corp.,

594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979) .................................................................................3
iii
Ms. Giuffre is a victim of Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking organization.
When she bravely came forward to explain what happened to her at the hands of
Epstein and his powerful friends, Epstein’s “Madame” and girlfriend, Ghislaine
Maxwell, told the world that Ms. Giuffre was a liar. Ms. Giuffre filed a
defamation action. After the Court denied Maxwell’s motions to dismiss and for
summary judgment, Ms. Giuffre prepared to prove the truth of her allegations of
being sexually abused as a minor at trial.
Discovery produced in this case concerned sexual trafficking and child sex
abuse. Both parties asked the District Court to place sensitive documents under
seal as the prepared for trial. On the eve of trial, the case settled.
Since then, claims have been made about Ms. Giuffre. She is now prepared
to have the world see what the record contains. As she explained to the District
Court below, she does not oppose unsealing of the entire record – not just hand-
picked, selected aspects as others have proposed. Because her position conflicts
with the position that the trial court took, Ms. Giuffre agrees that the records below
should be unsealed. That unsealing, however, should follow the standard
procedures for protecting confidential personal information, such as redacting
social security numbers and protecting privileged material.
1
ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

Whether materials subject to a protective order in the District Court should
now be unsealed?
STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Ms. Giuffre adopts her Statement of the Case from the related appeal, No.
16-3945, and the procedural history in this appeal, as presented by appellant Miami
Herald.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
Because the need for sealing the materials in the Court below has
disappeared, this Court should now unseal the entire docket – but should protect
against improper disclosure of confidential information such as social security
numbers.
ARGUMENT
I. APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF REVIEW.
Ms. Giuffre adopts the applicable standards of review, as set forth in her
brief in the related appeal, No. 16-3945.
II. THE ENTIRE DOCKET BELOW SHOULD BE UNSEALED.

Ms. Giuffre takes the same position in this Court as she took in the Court
below. See App. A-429-30. As she explained to the Court below:
Ms. Giuffre has consistently taken the position that if anything is

going to be unsealed in this matter, in fairness to Ms. Giuffre and the
other victims who provided testimony, all filings must be unsealed,
2
including all deposition testimony that was designated for trial. Only
then, will the complete picture of the abuse that occurred be clear and
only then will Ms. Giuffre be able to defend against the horrific public
attacks that Mr. Dershowitz and others have launched against her,
despite knowing full well she was a victim of abuse when she was a
minor. To allow Intervenor Dershowitz, or anyone else, to selectively
use and mischaracterize documents without all of the other key
testimony and documents being made public, would be inherently
unfair. As explained in this Court’s May 3, 2017 Order (DE 892):
“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, 65 (E .D. N. Y. 2012) (internal
citations and quotation omitted) (denying motion to lift
confidentiality of report of policing failures surrounding the
murder of a young mother). “It is presumptively unfair for
courts to modify protective orders which assure
confidentiality and upon which the parties have reasonably
relied.” Id. (internal citations and quotations omitted).
Consequently, “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. Int’l Tel. & Tel. Corp.,
594 F.2d 291, 296 (2d Cir. 1979) (denying governmental
access for criminal investigative purposes civil deposition
transcripts taken under a protective order).”
The Miami Herald’s request, unlike Mr. Dershowitz and Mr.

Cernovich, appears to seek the unsealing of the entire court record.
Accordingly, Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre, does not oppose Intervenor
Julie Brown and the Miami Herald Media Company’s Motion to
Intervene and Unseal to the extent it seeks to unseal all docket entries,
and not simply select entries, including the unsealing of all trial
designated deposition transcripts.
Of course, “unsealing” the substantive court records will not mean

that every single piece of the documents in the Court record would be
3
made public. For example, any unsealing would be with (among

others) the following necessary protections: (1) any social security
numbers are redacted from the record; (2) the names of victims who
were minors at the time of the abuse are redacted and substituted with
initials; and (3) any document that the Court reviewed in camera and
determined was protected by a privilege or comparable protection will
remain sealed.
App. A-428-29.
CONCLUSION
Ms. Giuffre was sexually abused by Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and
their powerful friends. As she has repeatedly made clear – both to the District
Court and to this Court in the related appeals – she is not opposed to general
unsealing of the entire factual record in the district court – a record that validates
her word over Epstein, Maxwell, and Dershowitz. That unsealing should follow
standard protections, such as preventing the release of social security numbers or
privileged information.
December 19, 2018 Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ Paul G. Cassell

PAUL G. CASSELL
University of Utah
(801) 585-52021
1
This daytime business address is provided for contact purposes only and is not
intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this
private representation.
4
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
Sigrid McCawley
Boies Schiller Flexner LLP
(954) 356-0011
5
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH F.R.A.P RULE 32(A)

1. This brief complies with the type-volume limitation of Fed. R. App. P.
32(a)(7)(B), as modified by this Court’s Local Rule 32.1. The brief contains xxx
words, excluding the parts of the brief exempted by Fed. R. App. P. 32(f), as
calculated by the Microsoft Word computer software used by counsel.
2. This brief complies with the typeface requirements of Fed. R. App. P.
32(a)(5) and the type style requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(6). It has been
prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using Microsoft Word in 14-point
Times New Roman.
6
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on December 19, 2018, 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.
/s/ Paul G. Cassell

Paul G. Cassell
7

18-2868
Docket Number(s): ________________________________________ _______________Caption [use short title]_____________________
to Strike Plaintiff-Appellee's Brief
Motion for: ______________________________________________
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

Strike Plaintiff-Appellee Virginia L. Giuffre's Brief
________________________________________________________
Giuffre v. Maxwell
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell
MOVING PARTY:_______________________________________ Virginia L. Giuffre
OPPOSING PARTY:____________________________________________
___Plaintiff ✔
___Defendant
___Appellant/Petitioner ___Appellee/Respondent
Adam Mueller
MOVING ATTORNEY:___________________________________ Paul Cassell
OPPOSING ATTORNEY:________________________________________
Hadodn, Morgan and Foreman, P.C.
________________________________________________________ S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah
_______________________________________________________________
150 E. 10th Avenue, Denver, CO 80203
________________________________________________________ 383 S. University Street, Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0730
_______________________________________________________________
303.831.7364; amueller@hmflaw.com
________________________________________________________ 801.585.5202; cassellp@law.utah.edu
_______________________________________________________________
Hon. Robert W. Sweet, District Judge (S.D.N.Y.)
Court- Judge/ Agency appealed from: _________________________________________________________________________________________
INJUCTIONS PENDING APPEAL:
Has movant notified opposing counsel (required by Local Rule 27.1): Has this request for relief been made below? ___Yes ___No
✔
___Yes ___No (explain):__________________________ Has this relief been previously sought in this court? ___Yes ___No
_______________________________________________ Requested return date and explanation of emergency: ________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
✔
___Unopposed ___Opposed ___Don’t Know
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
✔
___Yes ___No ___Don’t Know
Is oral argument on motion requested? ✔ (requests for oral argument will not necessarily be granted)
___Yes ___No
Has argument date of appeal been set? ___ February 6, 2019

✔ Yes ___No If yes, enter date:_______________________________________________________

s/ Adam Mueller
_________________________________ 12/27/2018
Date:__________________ ✔
Service by: ___CM/ECF ___Other [Attach proof of service]
Form T-1080 (rev.12-13)


Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
Defendant-Appellee,
v. No. 18-2868

Respondents,
COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellee Ghislaine Maxwell’s Motion to Strike

Plaintiff-Appellee Virginia L. Giuffre’s “Answer Brief”
In this appeal, Intervenors-Appellants Julie Brown and Miami Herald Media
Company (collectively the “Miami Herald” or the “Herald”) challenge the
district court’s denial of their motion to unseal all sealed and redacted judicial
submissions. When the Miami Herald docketed the appeal, it listed Plaintiff
Virginia L. Giuffre as the sole appellee, even though in the district court Ms.
Giuffre consented to the relief requested in the Herald’s motion. Upon learning of
the appeal, Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell moved to be added as an appellee, given

that she was the only party in the district court to oppose the Miami Herald’s
motion to unseal.
On December 13, 2018, Ms. Maxwell filed in this Court a motion to dismiss
Ms. Giuffre from the appeal due to lack of standing. As explained in that motion,
and the reply in support thereof, Ms. Giuffre lacks standing to defend the district
court’s order because Ms. Giuffre consented to the Herald’s request to unseal.
Moreover, Ms. Giuffre never filed a notice of appeal of her own. She cannot
participate in this appeal as either an appellee or an appellant.
Even so, on December 27, 2018, Ms. Giuffre submitted her answer brief in
“opposition” to the Miami Herald’s opening brief.1 As explained in more detail in
Ms. Maxwell’s reply in support of the motion to dismiss, the answer brief confirms
what was already apparent: Ms. Giuffre and the Miami Herald are aligned in this
appeal and Ms. Giuffre cannot with a straight face claim to defend a district court
order she actually disagrees with.
For the reasons given in Ms. Maxwell’s motion to dismiss and reply in
support thereof, Ms. Giuffre lacks standing to participate in this appeal. This Court
1
Ms. Giuffre originally filed her “answer brief” on December 19 but was
ordered by the Clerk to refile the brief due to a pagination error. 2d Cir. Doc.80.
The cured brief was refiled on December 27. 2d Cir. Doc.83.
2
should grant the motion to dismiss Ms. Giuffre from the appeal and, in turn, grant
this motion to strike her “answer brief.”
December 27, 2018.
s/ Adam Mueller
Ty Gee
Adam Mueller
Denver, CO 80203
Tel 303.831.7364
Maxwell
3
Defendant-Appellee Ghislaine Maxwell’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff-Appellee Virginia L.
Giuffre’s “Answer Brief” on the following persons:

Christine N. Walz
Sanford L. Bohrer
s/ Nicole Simmons
4

Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
Defendant-Appellee,
No. 18-2868
v.
SHARON CHURCH, JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Respondents,
COMPANY,
Intervenors-Appellants
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE VIRGINIA GIUFFRE’S RESPONSE IN

OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT-APPELLEE GHISLAINE
MAXWELL’S MOTION TO STRIKE HER BFIEF
Appellee Virginia Giuffre, by her counsel, hereby files this Response in
Opposition to Defendant-Appellee Maxwell’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff-Appellee
Virginia L. Giuffre’s Answer Brief. The motion is meritless and should be denied for the
reasons Ms. Giuffre explained in her previously-filed opposition to Maxwell’s motion to
dismiss her from the appeal.
1
As Ms. Giuffre explained earlier, she possesses appellate standing to participate in
this appeal. She was a party to proceedings below and continues to have potential
“interest[s] affected by the ... judgment,” Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of
WorldCom, Inc. v. S.E.C., 467 F.3d 73, 78 (2d Cir. 2006) – i.e., the extent to which
currently sealed documents in the court below will be unsealed and the conditions
associated with any unsealing. She has a “direct stake in the outcome” that will result
from this litigation. Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 64 (1976).
Maxwell does not deny that this Court has jurisdiction to consider this appeal. Nor
does Maxwell deny that Ms. Giuffre has interests at stake in the appeal. Nonetheless,
Maxwell questions Ms. Giuffre’s right to be heard at all in this appeal. But Maxwell
merely quibbles with the way in which the clerk’s office has aligned the briefing schedule
for the parties to file their briefs. And Maxwell waited weeks before raising any question
about Ms. Giuffre’s alignment in this case.
In an effort to avoid any prejudice to Maxwell, Ms. Giuffre filed her answer brief
well in advance of the deadline for Maxwell’s brief, ensuring that Maxwell can raise any
points in response that she believes that Court should consider. Maxwell is entitled to
nothing more.
For all these reasons, the Court should deny Maxwell’s motion to strike Ms.
Giuffre’s brief.
2
Dated: January 3, 2019
/s/ Paul G. Cassell

Paul G. Cassell
University of Utah
(801) 585-52021
1
This daytime business address is provided for contact purposes only and is not
intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private
representation.
3
I hereby certify that on January 3, 2019, I caused the foregoing document(s)
to be submitted to the Court’s ECF system for service and filing, and the document
was thereby served upon counsel of record through that system.
/s/ Paul G. Cassell

_______________________
PAUL G. CASSELL
University of Utah
(801) 585-52022
Sigrid McCawley
(954) 356-0011
2
to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private
representation.
4
18-2868
for the Second Circuit
Plaintiff-Appellee,
—against—
GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
Defendant-Appellee,
—against—

Respondents,


Ghislaine Maxwell’s Answer Brief
Ty Gee
Adam Mueller
(303) 831-7364
Table of Contents
Table of Authorities ............................................................................................... ii
Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1
Jurisdictional Statement .......................................................................................... 3
Issues Presented .....................................................................................................3
Statement of the Case and the Facts ...................................................................... 4
Factual Background and Proceedings in the District Court. ............................. 4
The Miami Herald’s Prosecution of this Appeal. ............................................ 10
Argument.............................................................................................................. 12
I. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Miami Herald’s
motion to unseal.............................................................................................. 12
A. Standard of Review. .................................................................................. 12
B. The district court properly denied the motion to unseal. ........................... 13
1. The district court correctly determined that the discovery documents

were not judicial documents presumptively accessible to the Herald. . 17
2. The district court reasonably balanced the competing interests

implicated by the Herald’s motion to unseal the summary judgment
documents. ........................................................................................ 22
3. Assuming this Court concludes that the district court abused its
discretion, a remand is the appropriate remedy. ..................................30
Conclusion ............................................................................................................30
Certificate of Compliance with Rule 32(A) ........................................................... 31
Certificate of Service............................................................................................. 32
i
Table of Authorities
Cases
Alexander Interactive, Inc. v. Adorama, Inc., No. 12 Civ. 6608 (PKC) (JCF), 2014
WL 4346174, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 2, 2014) ............................................... 9, 17
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). ................................................................. 20
Diversified Grp., Inc. v. Daugerdas, 217 F.R.D. 152 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)................. 17,27
Errant Gene Therapeutics, LLC v. Sloan-Kettering Inst. for Cancer Research, No. 15-
CV-2044(AJN)(RLE), 2017 WL 4641247, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 16, 2017) ...... 18
Gambale v. Deutsche Bank AG, 377 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 2004) ......................... 12,26,27
Hartford Courant Co. v. Pellegrino, 380 F.3d 83 (2d Cir.2004) ............................... 14
Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947) .................................................................29
In re Application of Newsday, 895 F.2d 74 (2d Cir. 1990) ........................................ 23
In re Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 773 F.2d 1325 (D.C. Cir. 1985)....... 22
In re Snyder, 472 U.S. 634 (1985)........................................................................... 12
Jane Doe 1, No. 08-CV-80736-KAM, 2015 WL 11254692, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 7,

2015) ............................................................................................................ 4,6
Joy v. North, 692 F.2d 880 (2d Cir. 1982).............................................................. 18
Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) 3,14,15,22,24,27,28
Martindell v. Int’l Tel. & Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979)........................... 24
N.Y. Civil Liberties Union v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth., 684 F.3d 286 (2d Cir. 2012).... 13
Newsday LLC v. Cnty. of Nassau, 730 F.3d 156(2d Cir. 2013) ....................... 13,15,17
Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978)......................... 13,14,19,24,30
ii
S.E.C. v. Am. Int’l Grp., 712 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2013) ............................................. 19
S.E.C. v. TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d 222 (2d Cir. 2001) ...................................... 16,24
United States v. Amodeo (Amodeo I), 44 F.3d 141 (2d Cir. 1995) ................ 15,19,20,30
United States v. Amodeo (Amodeo II), 71 F.3d 1044 (2d Cir. 1995)
....................................................................... 9,10,13,15,16,17,18,19,22,23,29,30
United States v. Gangi, No. 97 CR. 1215(DC), 1998 WL 226196, at *2 (S.D.N.Y.

May 4, 1998) ................................................................................................... 17
United States v. Graham, 257 F.3d 143 (2d Cir. 2001). .......................................... 22
United States v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 863 F.3d 125 (2d Cir. 2017) ..... 14,15,19,20
United States v. Reyes, 866 F.3d 316 (5th Cir. 2017). ................................................5
United States v. Wolfson, 55 F.3d 58 (2d Cir. 1995) ............................................... 20
Zervos v. Verizon New York, Inc., 252 F.3d 163 (2d Cir. 2001) ................................ 13
Statutes
18 U.S.C. § 3500 .................................................................................................. 20
18 U.S.C. § 3771...................................................................................................4,5
28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).................................................................................................3
Rules
2d Cir. Local R. 30.1.............................................................................................. 11
Fed. R. App. P. 30(b)(1) .................................................................................... 11,12
Fed. R. App. P. 46(c) ............................................................................................ 12
Other Authorities
ABA MODEL RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT § 8.4(d) (2018 ed).................... 12
iii
Introduction
This appeal arises out of a single-count defamation action. “Appellee”
Virginia L. Giuffre, plaintiff below, alleged that Defendant-Appellee Ghislaine
Maxwell defamed her. The alleged defamation centers on a statement from
Ms. Maxwell’s attorney generally denying as “untrue” and “obvious lies” Ms.
Giuffre’s numerous allegations, over the span of four years, that Ms. Maxwell
participated in a scheme causing her to be “sexually abused and trafficked” by
Jeffrey Epstein.
Ms. Giuffre, a public figure required to prove actual malice, litigated her
defamation action by trying to transform it into a criminal or tort action for sexual
abuse and sexual trafficking of minors. Her lawyers intended to prove the
defamation claim solely by, in effect, “prosecuting” Ms. Maxwell as a proxy for
Epstein. Ms. Giuffre chose this course of action because even she admitted some of
her public statements were false.
Discovery in the case was correspondingly intrusive, hard-fought, and wide-
ranging. It spanned more than a year and included voluminous document
productions and responses to interrogatories and thirty-some depositions,
including depositions of Ms. Giuffre and Ms. Maxwell as well as numerous third-
parties. Ms. Giuffre sought and obtained a wide variety of private and confidential
1
information about Ms. Maxwell and numerous third parties, including information
about financial and sexual matters.
Given the amount of personal, confidential material and information
exchanged between the parties during discovery, the district court entered a
stipulated protective order protecting from public disclosure information the
parties in good faith concluded was confidential. The protective order included a
mechanism for one party to challenge another party’s confidentiality designation
(such a challenge never occurred) and expressly provided that it was not applicable
to any information or material disclosed at trial.
After the district court denied Ms. Maxwell’s motion for summary
judgment, the parties agreed to a settlement of the defamation claim and the case
was dismissed. As the district court below recognized, a significant component of
the settlement agreement was its confidentiality, a feature that echoes the purpose
of the protective order on which Ms. Maxwell and numerous third parties
justifiably relied. A year later, the Miami Herald sought to reopen the case and to
unseal every sealed filing on the district court docket.
A casual reader of the Herald’s opening brief in this Court might conclude
that the district court did not afford the Herald’s request sufficient weight or treat
its arguments with sufficient care. But that is not so. The district court carefully
2
considered the scope of the protective order, Ms. Maxwell’s justifiable reliance on
it, and the interests protected thereby, and it balanced those considerations against
both the common law and the First Amendment. Without gainsaying the Herald’s
arguments, the district court struck a balance that favored Ms. Maxwell’s right to
privacy, a right she and numerous others justifiably expected the court to vindicate
through the protective order. The careful balance struck by the district court was
not an abuse of discretion, and this Court should affirm the denial of the Herald’s
motion to unseal.
Jurisdictional Statement
The district court had diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to the collateral order doctrine. Lugosch v.
Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 117 (2d Cir. 2006).
Issues Presented
Whether the district court abused its broad discretion in denying the Miami
Herald’s belated motion to unseal the entire docket, including discovery
documents and documents appended to the summary judgment filings, which were
sealed pursuant to a protective order meant to protect Ms. Maxwell and numerous
others from the public airing of their most private information.
3
Statement of the Case and the Facts

Factual Background and Proceedings in the District Court.
Ms. Giuffre alleges that she was the victim of an international sex-trafficking
ring organized for the benefit of Jeffrey Epstein. A.-118, ¶¶ 8–9. Ms. Giuffre claims
that Ms. Maxwell recruited her into Epstein’s sex trafficking organization and
facilitated his sexual abuses. A.-118, ¶ 9. According to Ms. Giuffre’s complaint,
Epstein abused as many as thirty girls. Id.
In September 2007, Epstein entered into a non-prosecution agreement with
the federal government. A.-118, ¶ 11. In Florida state court, Epstein pleaded guilty
to procuring a minor for prostitution. A.-118, ¶ 14.
In the wake of the non-prosecution agreement, an individual identified as
Jane Do. No. 1 filed a civil action in the Southern District of Florida pursuant to the
Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771. A.-119, ¶ 16. Doe
complained that, in negotiating the non-prosecution agreement with Epstein, the
federal government failed to vindicate her rights under the CVRA. A.-119, ¶ 16.
In late 2014, Ms. Giuffre moved to join the CVRA litigation. A.-120, ¶ 26.
The district court denied her motion to join. Jane Doe 1, No. 08-CV-80736-KAM,
2015 WL 11254692, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 7, 2015). Not only that, the court also
struck from the record substantial portions of her motion because it consisted of
4
“relatively little argumentation regarding why the Court should permit [her] to join
in this action. . . .” Id. at *2. Said the court:
[T]he bulk of the . . . motion consists of copious factual details that

[Ms. Giuffre] would prove if allowed to join this action. Specifically,
[Ms. Giuffre] proffers that she could prove the circumstances under
which a non-party [Ms. Maxwell] 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. She names several
individuals, and she offers details about the type of sex acts performed
and where they took place.
Id. at *2 (cleaned up).1 The “lurid details,” said the court, were “unnecessary to
the determination of whether [Ms. Giuffre] should be permitted to join Petitioners’
claim that the Government violated their rights under the CVRA.” Id. at *3.
Of the many “lurid and unnecessary” details, Ms. Giuffre alleged that Ms.
Maxwell was “one of the main women who Epstein used to procure under-aged
girls for sexual activities and a primary co-conspirator and participant in his sexual
abuse and sex trafficking scheme.” A.-121 ¶ 27. About this and other irrelevant and
scandalous allegations, the court concluded:
1
This brief uses (cleaned up) to indicate that internal quotation marks,
alterations, and citations have been omitted from quotations in order to improve
clarity. See, e.g., United States v. Reyes, 866 F.3d 316, 321 (5th Cir. 2017).
5
The factual details regarding with whom and where [Ms. Giuffre]
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 [like Ms. Maxwell] who are not
related to the respondent Government. These unnecessary details
shall be stricken.
Jane Doe 1, 2015 WL 11254692, at *3.
Notwithstanding the court’s order denying Ms. Giuffre’s motion to join and
its order striking “unnecessary and lurid” details from the record, the damage was
done. Numerous media outlets obtained a copy of the joinder motion, which Ms.
Giuffre publicly filed, and all but indicted Ms. Maxwell in the public’s mind.
In response to Ms. Giuffre’s joinder filing, Ms. Maxwell’s publicist issued a
public statement (1) stating the Ms. Giuffre’s allegations “against Ghislaine
Maxwell are untrue;” (2) the allegations have been “shown to be untrue;” and the
“claims are obvious lies.” A.-121 ¶ 30.
Seeing an opportunity, Ms. Giuffre commenced this defamation action
against Ms. Maxwell in the Southern District of New York. A.-116–27. Ms.
Giuffre’s complaint and actions made clear she intended to transform her
defamation case into a criminal or tort action for sexual abuse and sexual
trafficking. A.-118, ¶¶ 8–10; A.-121, ¶ 27; A.-124, ¶ 12; A.-125, ¶¶ 14, 16; A.-126,
6
¶ 20. Her lawyers intended to prove the defamation claim by “prosecuting”
Ms. Maxwell as a proxy for Epstein. E.g., A.-126, ¶ 20.
At the request of Ms. Maxwell, the district court on March 18, 2016 entered
a protective order governing the exchange and production of materials during
discovery. A.-131-36. The protective order was justified because
[t]he nature of this case concerns highly personal and sensitive

information from both parties. In this action, both parties have sought
and will seek confidential information in the course of discovery from
the other party and from non-party witnesses. Release of such
confidential information outside of the litigation could expose the
parties to “annoyance, embarrassment, [and] oppression” and result
in significant injury to one or more of the parties’ business or privacy
interests.
A.-128. As Ms. Maxwell explained in her request, Ms. Giuffre intended
to question Ms. Maxwell concerning her personal and professional

relationships as well as matters concerning her private affairs.
Furthermore, [she had] served Ms. Maxwell with document requests
that seek information of a sensitive and confidential nature.
Dissemination of such information to third parties could be
significantly harmful to Ms. Maxwell’s business and personal privacy
interests.
A.-128–29.
The district court’s protective order allowed either Ms. Maxwell or Ms.
Giuffre to designate a document as confidential so long as that designation was
made in good faith. A.-133, ¶ 8. It also provided either party with the right to
challenge the other party’s confidentiality designation. A.-134, ¶ 11. Once a party
7
designated a document as confidential, the party was required to file a separate
motion to seal. A.-134, ¶ 10.
On August 9, 2016, the district court amended the protective order to
remove the requirement that a party file a separate motion to seal. A.-265. Under
the amended protective order, the court prospectively granted all sealing requests.
Id. The district court calculated that, in the end, one hundred sixty-seven
documents were sealed. Sp.A.-10. No party, and especially not Ms. Giuffre, ever
challenged a confidentiality designation or a request to seal. S.A.-105.
On January 6, 2017, Ms. Maxwell filed a motion for summary judgment. The
district court denied the motion on March 24, 2017. Sp.A.-12. “The parties, in
accordance with the agreed upon procedures, . . . jointly file[d] a proposed redacted
version of the Summary Judgment Opinion consistent with the Protective Order.
The agreed upon redacted opinion was filed with the Court and made public on the
docket on April 27, 2017.” Sp.A.-12. Shortly before trial, the parties reached a
confidential settlement, and the case was dismissed with prejudice on May 24, 2017
and closed the next day. Sp.A.-13.
Nearly one year later, on April 9, 2018, the Miami Herald filed a motion to
intervene in the case and to unseal the entire docket. A.-405–26. The Herald
argued that all sealed documents were presumptively public judicial documents
8
pursuant to the common law and First Amendment. Sp.A.-13. Ms. Giuffre
consented to the Herald’s request to unseal, A.-427–31, while Ms. Maxwell filed a
response in opposition, S.A.-97–107.
The district court granted the motion to intervene. Sp.A.-14–15. As to the
motion to unseal, the district court categorized the Herald’s request as seeking the
unsealing of two types of documents, what it called “discovery documents” and
“summary judgment documents.” As to the former, the court held that the
discovery documents were not judicial documents within the meaning of the
presumptive right to access. Sp.A.-27–28. According to the court, “the documents
sealed in the course of discovery were neither relied upon by this Court in the
rendering of an adjudication, nor ‘necessary to or helpful in resolving [a] motion.’”
Sp.A.-28 (quoting Alexander Interactive, Inc. v. Adorama, Inc., No. 12 Civ. 6608
(PKC) (JCF), 2014 WL 4346174, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 2, 2014)). Quoting this
Court’s decision in United States v. Amodeo (Amodeo II), 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 (2d Cir.
1995), the court explained that it “would be unthinkable” to provide “access to
every item turned up in the course of litigation.” Sp.A.-28.
As to the summary judgment documents, the district court agreed with the
Miami Herald that they qualified as “judicial documents” subject to a presumptive
right of access. Sp.A.-32. Even so, and again in reliance on this Court’s decision in
9
Amodeo II, the court reasoned that the “this presumption is less ‘where[, as here,] a
district court denied the summary judgment motion, essentially postponing a final
determination of substantive legal rights. . . .’” Sp.A.-34 (quoting Amodeo II, 71
F.3d at 1049). Then, in a discussion spanning twenty-four pages, the court balanced
the Herald’s “lesser” interest in accessing the summary judgment documents
against numerous countervailing interests, including Ms. Maxwell’s right to
privacy and the justifiable reliance of Ms. Maxwell and third parties on the
confidentiality guaranteed by the protective order. Sp.A.-16–26, -29–41. As a
matter of discretion, and in view of its careful balancing of interests, the court
declined to unseal the summary judgment documents. Sp.A.-41.
The Miami Herald’s Prosecution of this Appeal.
On September 26, 2018, the Miami Herald filed a notice of appeal
challenging the district court’s decision denying the motion to unseal. A.-432. Ms.
Giuffre, who consented to Herald’s request and also sought to have the docket
unsealed, did not file a notice of appeal.
When the Herald docketed the appeal in this Court, it listed Ms. Giuffre as
the sole appellee, notwithstanding that they were on the same side of the issue:
both agreed the district court should have unsealed the docket. 2d Cir. Docs. 11, 18;
A.-405–26, 427–31. Counsel for the Miami Herald did not list Ms. Maxwell as an
10
appellee, even though she was the only party to oppose the Herald’s motion to
unseal. 2d Cir. Doc. 11. In turn, when this Court docketed and opened the appeal,
neither the Miami Herald nor Ms. Giuffre informed this Court that Ms. Maxwell
was left out of the appeal or that Ms. Giuffre was improperly listed as an appellee.
2d. Cir. Docs. 1, 11, 18. To the contrary, the Miami Herald proceeded as if nothing
was amiss.
Ms. Maxwell filed a motion in this Court to be added as an appellee. 2d Cir.
Doc. 41. This Court granted the motion on November 14, 2018. 2d Cir. Doc. 45.
The Herald filed its opening brief and “joint” appendix one month later, on
December 10, 2018. 2d Cir. Doc. 51. Notwithstanding the requirement that counsel
for the Herald confer with counsel for Ms. Maxwell regarding the contents of the
joint appendix and include in the joint appendix any material designated by Ms.
Maxwell, Fed. R. App. P. 30(b)(1); see 2d Cir. Local R. 30.1, the Herald never
contacted or conferred with Ms. Maxwell before it filed the “joint” appendix in
this Court. Conspicuously, though consistent with its modus operandi, the Herald
did not include in the “joint” appendix Ms. Maxwell’s district court opposition to
the motion to unseal. See 2d Cir. Docs. 52-1, 52-2, 53-1, 53-2. That didn’t stop the
Herald, however, from listing counsel for Ms. Maxwell on the caption of the joint
11
appendix, implying they had been consulted regarding its contents. 2d Cir. Doc. 52-
1, at [Cover-2].
Contemporaneous with the filing of this brief, Ms. Maxwell is filing a
supplemental appendix that includes her response to the Miami Herald’s motion to
unseal, the only pleading in the district court opposing the Herald’s request, as well
as a transcript of the unsealing hearing before the district court.
In addition, Ms. Maxwell is filing a motion pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 46(c)
requesting an order requiring the Herald to show cause why its attorneys should
not be sanctioned for unprofessional conduct prejudicial to the administration of
justice. See In re Snyder, 472 U.S. 634, 645 (1985) (quoting Fed. R. App. P. 46(c));
ABA MODEL RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT § 8.4(d) (2018 ed). The Herald
attempted to orchestrate a “friendly or feigned” appeal without Ms. Maxwell’s
involvement, and it violated Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 30(b)(1).
Argument
I. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Miami
Herald’s motion to unseal.
A. Standard of Review.
This Court reviews for an abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of a
motion to unseal. Gambale v. Deutsche Bank AG, 377 F.3d 133, 139 (2d Cir. 2004).
A district court abuses its discretion only if its decision “cannot be located within
12
the range of permissible decisions.” Zervos v. Verizon New York, Inc., 252 F.3d 163,
169 (2d Cir. 2001). The Supreme Court has recognized “that the decision as to
access is one best left to the sound discretion of the trial court, a discretion to be
exercised in light of the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case.”
Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 599 (1978).
B. The district court properly denied the motion to unseal.
There are “two related but distinct presumptions in favor of public access to
court proceedings and records: a strong form rooted in the First Amendment and a
slightly weaker form based in federal common law.” Newsday LLC v. Cnty. of
Nassau, 730 F.3d 156, 163 (2d Cir. 2013). These presumptions exist because of 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.” Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1048.
A presumption of access, however, is just that: a presumption. There is no
absolute right of access, and the presumption, where it applies, can always be
overcome. Newsday, 730 F.3d at 164. “What offends the First Amendment is the
attempt to [exclude the public] without sufficient justification,” not the act of
exclusion itself. N.Y. Civil Liberties Union v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth. (NYCTA), 684
F.3d 286, 296 (2d Cir. 2012); see Newsday, 730 F.3d at 165. Indeed,
13
[e]very court has supervisory power over its own records

and files, and access has been denied where court files
might have become a vehicle for improper purposes. For
example, the common-law right of inspection has bowed
before the power of a court to insure that its records are
not used to gratify private spite or promote public
scandal… [and when its] files . . . serve as reservoirs of
libelous statements for press consumption.
Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598 (cleaned up).
When a nonparty seeks access to records in possession of a court pursuant
either to the common law or the First Amendment, the threshold question is
whether the records qualify as “judicial documents.” United States v. HSBC Bank
USA, N.A., 863 F.3d 125, 134 (2d Cir. 2017) (“The threshold merits question in
this case is whether the Monitor’s Report is a judicial document, as only judicial
documents are subject to a presumptive right of public access, whether on common
law or First Amendment grounds.”); Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 119 (“Before any such
common law right can attach, however, a court must first conclude that the
documents at issue are indeed ‘judicial documents.’”); Hartford Courant Co. v.
Pellegrino, 380 F.3d 83, 91 (2d Cir.2004) (recognizing that there exists a “qualified
First Amendment right to attend judicial proceedings and to access certain judicial
documents” (emphasis added)). This Court has made clear 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.” United States v. Amodeo (Amodeo I),
14
44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995). “In order to be designated a judicial document,
‘the item filed must be relevant to the performance of the judicial function and
useful in the judicial process.’” Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 119 (quoting Amodeo I, 44 F.3d
at 145).
In considering whether a record qualifies as a “judicial document,” this
Court must “determine the degree of judicial reliance on the document in question
and the relevance of the document’s specific contents to the nature of the
proceeding.” Newsday, 730 F.3d at 166–67. The filing with the court of “deposition
transcripts, interrogatories, and documents exchanged in discovery” does not,
from that fact of filing alone, convert the transcripts, interrogatories, and discovery
documents into “judicial documents” for purposes of the right to access. HSBC,
863 F.3d at 139. Nor does the “mere fact that a dispute exists about whether a
document should be sealed or disclosed” render the disputed document a judicial
document. Newsday, 730 F.3d at 167. Were the rule otherwise, it “would bootstrap
materials that are not closely related to judicial proceedings into judicial
documents.” Id.
If a filing qualifies as a judicial document triggering the presumptive right of
access, the court must determine the weight to be afforded to the presumption and
then balance the interest in access against competing considerations. Amodeo II, 71
15
F.3d at 1050. Competing considerations include, but are not limited to, the right to
privacy and the reliance interests of those resisting disclosure. Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at
1150 (privacy). S.E.C. v. TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d 222, 229–31 (2d Cir. 2001)
(reliance).
As elaborated below, the district court faithfully applied these principles and
reasonably denied the Miami Herald’s motion to unseal. The discovery documents
at issue are not judicial documents, and the Herald’s limited interest in accessing
the summary judgment documents is outweighed by numerous countervailing
considerations. The Miami Herald has not demonstrated otherwise in its opening
brief, and this Court should affirm.2
2
Ms. Giuffre filed an “answer” brief of her own. 2d Cir. Doc. 83. That brief,
however, is nothing but a copy-and-paste of her response to the motion to unseal in
the district court, in which she consented to the Miami Herald’s request for relief.
Id. at 2–4. Ms. Giuffre’s “arguments,” such as they are, do not necessitate a
response. In fact, for the reasons given in Ms. Maxwell’s motions to dismiss and
strike, this Court should dismiss Ms. Giuffre from the appeal and strike her brief.
2d Cir. Docs. 63, 87.
16
1. The district court correctly determined that the discovery

documents were not judicial documents presumptively accessible
to the Herald.
The district court properly concluded that the discovery documents were
not “judicial documents” triggering either the common law or First Amendment
presumptive right of access.
As explained by the district court, “the documents sealed in the course of
discovery were neither relied upon by [the] Court in the rendering of an
adjudication, nor ‘necessary to or helpful in resolving [a] motion.’” Sp.A.-28
(quoting Alexander, 2014 WL 4346174, at *2). If anything, the documents came
“within [the] court’s purview solely to ensure their irrelevance.” See Amodeo II, 71
F.3d at 1049; Newsday, 730 F.3d at 167 (concluding a report was not a judicial
document because the court’s “examination of the record leads inexorably to the
conclusion that the substance of the full Report was not significantly relied upon or
at issue in the contempt proceeding”). “As such, the documents are not judicial
documents.” Diversified Grp., Inc. v. Daugerdas, 217 F.R.D. 152, 163 (S.D.N.Y.
2003) (citing United States v. Gangi, No. 97 CR. 1215(DC), 1998 WL 226196, at *2
(S.D.N.Y. May 4, 1998) (“Materials submitted to a court for its consideration of a
discovery motion are actually one step further removed from the trial process than
the discovery materials themselves, materials that the Supreme Court has said are
17
not subject to the public's right of access.”)); see Errant Gene Therapeutics, LLC v.
Sloan-Kettering Inst. for Cancer Research, No. 15-CV-2044(AJN)(RLE), 2017 WL
4641247, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 16, 2017) (“[T]he documents sought by EGT were
not used by the Court to make any rulings on the merits. Because the targeted
documents do not fall within the category of judicial documents, EGT has no
presumptive right of access.”).
In light of the role discovery plays in a civil case, particularly a heated and
hard-fought case such as this one, the district court’s conclusion makes sense.
Discovery, after all, “involves the use of compulsory process to facilitate orderly
preparation for trial, not to educate or titillate the public.” Joy v. North, 692 F.2d 880,
893 (2d Cir. 1982) (emphasis added). That is why “[d]ocuments that play no role
in the performance of Article III functions, such as those passed between the
parties in discovery, lie entirely beyond the presumption’s reach.” Amodeo II, 71
F.3d at 1050. To be sure, the vast majority of pretrial motions—to which discovery
documents may have been appended—remained pending at the time the parties
settled the case. S.A.-125. They never influenced or affected any action by the
district court.
The Herald insists otherwise, saying that “[c]ourts in this Circuit have . . .
consistently reiterated that documents filed with the court are judicial documents
18
entitled to the presumption of access.” Herald Br. at 13. The Herald continues:
“In this Circuit, whether or not a document has been filed is the key question in the
judicial document determination.” Herald Br. at 15.
That is not so. Contrary to the Herald’s argument, filing a document with
the court is necessary but not sufficient to trigger the presumptive right of access.
Amodeo I, 44 F.3d at 145 (“[T]he 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.”). As this Court said in HSBC, “[T]hough filing a document with the court
is not sufficient to render the document a judicial record, it is very much a
prerequisite.” 863 F.3d at 139 (quoting S.E.C. v. Am. Int’l Grp., 712 F.3d 1, 4 (D.C.
Cir. 2013)). Although bright line rules are generally lacking in the context of the
right of access (hence the substantial and broad discretion afforded to district
courts in deciding whether and what to unseal, Nixon, 435 U.S. at 599), two such
bright line rules exist. First, if a document is not filed with a court, it cannot be a
judicial document. Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1050. And second, the filing of a document
with the court does not, from that fact alone, render the document a judicial
document presumptively accessible by the public. Amodeo I, 44 F.3d at 145.
Contrary to the Herald’s incorrect generalization, the “key question” is
whether the document (once filed) is “relevant to the performance of the judicial
19
function and useful in the judicial process.” HSBC, 863 F.3d at 134 (quoting
Amodeo I, 44 F.3d at 145). The district court here did not abuse its discretion in
concluding the discovery documents were irrelevant to the performance of the
judicial function and not useful in the judicial process.
Nor is it sufficient that a document was submitted to the court to, in the
Herald’s words, “influence an adjudication.” Herald Br. at 15. In United States v.
Wolfson, for example, the government filed with the court, and the court kept under
seal, documents the defendant wanted produced pursuant to the Jencks Act, 18
U.S.C. § 3500, and Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). Wolfson, 55 F.3d 58, 59
(2d Cir. 1995). “After conducting its in camera review, the trial court ruled that,
with the exception of one page of the SEC testimony, the government was not
required to disclose any of the material Wolfson had requested.” Id. This Court
affirmed the district court’s conclusion, holding that the materials filed by the
government did not qualify as judicial documents even though, using the Herald’s
framing, the documents were filed by the government to “influence an
adjudication.” Id. at 59–61. Said the Court: “[T]he public has no First Amendment
right of access to documents that the court has ruled need not be produced.” Id. at
61.
20
The Herald’s next argument—in which it faults the district court for
“characterizing the documents as ‘discovery documents’ passed amongst the
parties,” Herald Br. at 18 (citing Sp.A.-28)—cherry picks one statement from the
district court’s careful opinion and takes it entirely out of context. The district
court did not hold, as the Herald would like this Court to think, that the so-called
discovery documents were merely documents passed between the parties. Sp.A.-28.
In fact, just four sentences before, the district court expressly acknowledged that
“[o]ne hundred sixty-seven discovery documents were added to the docket [i.e., filed]
and sealed pursuant to the Protective Order.” Sp.A.-27. The court was merely (and
correctly) stating the law and identifying the origin of the documents at issue—they
were documents produced and exchanged during discovery.
For these reasons, the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding
that the discovery documents were not judicial documents subject to the
presumptive right of public access. But even if it did, for the reasons given below,
infra Part I.B.2, the court reasonably balanced the competing interests and
appropriately declined to unseal the docket.
21
2. The district court reasonably balanced the competing interests

implicated by the Herald’s motion to unseal the summary
judgment documents.
The Miami Herald next takes issue with the district court’s treatment of the
summary judgment documents. But there, too, the Herald’s arguments fall short.
The district court concluded that the summary judgment documents were
“judicial documents,” thereby entitling the Herald to presumptive right of access.
Sp.A.-32. That may be so, but where, as here, “a district court ‘denie[s] the
summary judgment motion, essentially postponing a final determination of
substantive legal rights,’ the public interest in access ‘is not as pressing.’” Amodeo
II, 71 F.3d at 1049 (quoting In re Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 773 F.2d
1325, 1342 n. 3 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (Wright, J., concurring in part and dissenting in
part)). As this Court explained in United States v. Graham, “the presumption of
access to documents that do not serve as the basis for a substantive
determination—such as documents submitted on a motion for summary judgment
which is denied, thus leaving a decision on the merits for another day—is
appreciably weaker.” 257 F.3d 143, 151 (2d Cir. 2001). See also Lugosch, 435 F.3d at
121 (“[W]here 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
22
reason.” (quotation omitted)). In considering the Herald’s less “pressing” and
limited interest in access to the summary judgment documents, the district court
did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to unseal and in honoring Ms.
Maxwell’s justifiable reliance on the protective order.
“Here, the primary countervailing factor is ‘the privacy interests of those
resisting disclosure.’” Sp.A.-35 (quoting Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1050). As recognized
by the district court, this case was replete with “allegations concerning the
intimate, sexual, and private conduct of the parties and of third persons, some
prominent, some private.” Sp.A-5. The significant weight the district court
afforded to this interest was entirely proper. See In re Application of Newsday, 895
F.2d 74, 79 (2d Cir. 1990) (“[T]he common law right of access is qualified by
recognition of the privacy rights of the persons whose intimate relations may
thereby be disclosed.”); Amodeo, 71 F.3d at 1050 (“[T]he privacy interests of
innocent third parties…should weigh heavily in a court’s balancing equation.”).
To be sure, this is a defamation case in which Ms. Giuffre’s counsel candidly
said in open court that she intended to litigate as a sexual-assault case. Ms. Maxwell
strenuously objected to this approach. She urged the court to limit significantly the
introduction of salacious and gratuitous sex evidence that was entirely irrelevant to
the question of defamation and was intended to garner sympathy from and
23
prejudice the jury against Ms. Maxwell. The case was settled before the district
court decided to what extent Ms. Giuffre’s evidentiary presentation should be
limited.
In this context, the Miami Herald cannot demonstrate that the sealed sex
documents historically would have been open to the press and public and that
public access to these documents would “play[] a significant positive role in the
functioning” of the judicial process. See Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 120. No one knows,
because the case was settled. The Herald may desire access to these documents,
but courts have “supervisory power over [their] own records and files” and can act
to ensure that their “files [do not] serve as reservoirs of libelous statements for
press consumption.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598.
There are three other significant considerations in the balance of interests.
The first is the justified reliance on the protective order by Ms. Maxwell and
numerous third parties. Sp.A-39–40. See TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d at 229–31
(recognizing the importance of reliance interests in assessing whether to allow
access to sealed documents (citing Martindell v. Int’l Tel. & Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d
291, 296 (2d Cir. 1979))). In the proceeding below, the court repeatedly reaffirmed
the sanctity and importance of the protective order, and the parties, by their
statements and conduct, “demonstrated reliance on the Protective Order and its
24
provisions.” Sp.A.-39. Said the court of its promise of confidentiality and the
resulting settlement:
It is not necessary to have forty years of judicial experience to know

that reliance on the confidentiality agreement with respect to the
evidence relating to the truth or falsity of the Giuffre allegations was a
significant, if not determinative, factor in the confidential settlement
arrived at.
Sp.A-39. The district court was exactly right.
Ms. Maxwell’s reasonable reliance on the protective order is obvious on the
record. As recounted during the hearing on the motion to unseal, in early 2016
counsel for Ms. Giuffre “was pressing hard for a deposition” date of Ms. Maxwell.
Counsel stipulated to the protective order in part to facilitate taking Ms. Maxwell’s
deposition. S.A.-120–21. When that deposition finally occurred, on the advice of
counsel, Ms. Maxwell declined to answer numerous questions regarding her
consensual adult sexual activity, invoking her constitutional right to privacy. S.A.-
121. In response, Ms. Giuffre filed a motion to compel, telling the court “we have a
protective order in place, and that assures Ms. Maxwell’s right to privacy in
answering those kinds of questions.” S.A.-122. The district court accepted Ms.
Giuffre’s argument and compelled Ms. Maxwell to answer, saying, “the
privacy concerns are alleviated by the protection order in this case drafted by the
defendant.” Id.
25
Numerous third parties (for example Ms. Giuffre’s family members, her
fiancé at the time of Epstein’s alleged conduct, and her then live-in boyfriend)
reasonably relied on the protective order as well. See S.A.-123–25. Many of the
approximately thirty depositions in this case were made possible only because of
the protective order. Id. In fact, the district court had to issue numerous orders
compelling deposition testimony of third parties, which depositions took place only
after everyone agreed on the record that the testimony would be confidential and
sealed pursuant to the protective order. S.A.-124–24. In denying the motion to
unseal, the district court reasonably exercised its discretion to protect the reliance
interests of third parties who, as defense counsel pointed out, “through no fault of
their own, are being questioned about extremely sensitive personal matters and are
doing so under compulsion and with the understanding that they are protected by
this Court’s protective order.” S.A.-124.
The Herald cites Gambale v. Deutsche Bank AG (among other cases) in an
attempt to minimize the reliance interests at stake here. Herald Br. at 24 (citing
Gambale v. Deutsche Bank AG, 377 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 2004)). But Gambale does not
help the Herald’s cause because in that case, as this Court explained, the Bank’s
purported reliance on the protective order was unreasonable. 377 F.3d at 142 n.7.
“[C]ontrary to the Bank’s argument, the Bank could not have reasonably relied on
26
the seal ordered by Magistrate Judge Eaton in his March 20, 2003, order because it
was explicitly temporary.” Id.
The defendants’ reliance on the protective order in Lugosch was equally
unreasonable. The order at issue in Lugosch provided: “This Confidentiality Order
shall not prevent anyone from applying to the Court for relief therefrom.” 435 F.3d
at 126 (emphasis added). This Court relied exclusively on this language to reject
the Lugosch defendants’ argument that they had relied on the confidentiality order
when disclosing sensitive and private information. See id. The reliance, this Court
held, was not justified because of the presence of the language authorizing
nonparties to challenge the parties’ confidentiality designations. See Diversified
Grp., 217 F.R.D. at 160 (explaining that alleged on a protective order was
unreasonable where the order specifically allowed that any party or interested
member of the public could request at any time that a “Confidential” designation
be removed from any document or information).
The protective order here, unlike the orders in Gambale and Lugosch,
contains no language indicating that reliance on it would be unreasonable. And, in
fact, the Herald does not dispute the reasonableness of Ms. Maxwell’s reliance.
Herald Br. at 24–26. Instead, the Herald says Ms. Maxwell’s argument “neglects
that courts in this Circuit have repeatedly ordered the unsealing in cases with
27
protective orders or confidentiality provisions.” Herald Br. at 24. But that’s hardly
of any moment. Documents in civil cases generally aren’t sealed absent a protective
order or confidentiality provision. Saying that courts “have repeatedly ordered the
unsealing in cases with protective orders or confidentiality provisions” is nothing
but a descriptivist non sequitur.
The second consideration in the balance of interests is the timeliness of the
Miami Herald’s request. The Herald admits it was well aware of Epstein, Ms.
Giuffre, and Ms. Maxwell “[f]or over three years” before filing the motion to
unseal. A.-412. Although, as the district court recognized, intervention for the
purpose of challenging confidentiality orders is permissible even years after a case
is closed, Sp.A.-15 (citing cases), the Miami Herald’s delay is still relevant to the
balance of interests. This case involves salacious and uncorroborated allegations of
sex with numerous prominent men that never were adjudicated, that were
irrelevant to the elements of a defamation claim, and that were subject to exclusion
by the pretrial order. The truth of those allegations was never adjudicated by the
court or a jury. That the Herald waited more than one year to take any action bears
directly on whether public access to a particular document “plays a significant
positive role in the functioning” of a judicial proceeding that has long since ended
and in which no adjudication of truth or falsity took place. See Lugosch, 435 F.3d at
28
120. Cf. Sp.A-22 (“It is presumed that the trial itself will make the final
determination of truth or falsity.” (citing Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947))).
Finally, unsealing the docket as requested by the Herald would leave Ms.
Maxwell in a precarious state. Indeed, it would force her into “the unfair position
of choosing between suffering the accusations in silence,” Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at
1052, or denying them publicly, as she did after Ms. Giuffre filed her scandalous
and improper joinder motion in the CVRA litigation. Such a denial might very well
prompt another defamation claim by Ms. Giuffre. The settlement of this case, with
its confidentiality guarantee, was intended to end the back and forth. At long last,
Ms. Maxwell is entitled to closure.
***
In a detailed opinion with an analysis spanning twenty-four pages, the district
court carefully balanced the Herald’s lesser interest in accessing the summary
judgment documents against the numerous countervailing interests, including Ms.
Maxwell’s right to privacy and the justifiable reliance of Ms. Maxwell and third
parties on the confidentiality guaranteed by the protective order. The balance
struck by the court, in its considered judgment, was not an abuse of discretion.
29
3. Assuming this Court concludes that the district court abused its
discretion, a remand is the appropriate remedy.
Assuming this Court concludes that the district court abused its discretion,
the appropriate remedy is to remand the case for further proceedings. As this Court
did in Amodeo I and Amodeo II, it should remand the case for the district court to
balance the competing interests on a document-by-document basis in light of this
Court’s legal conclusions. See Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1053; Amodeo I, 44 F.3d at 148.
In the words of the United States Supreme Court, “the decision as to access is one
best left to the sound discretion of the trial court, a discretion to be exercised in
light of the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case.” Nixon, 435
U.S. at 599.
Conclusion
This Court should affirm the district court’s order denying the motion to
unseal.
January 10, 2019.
30
s/ Adam Mueller
Ty Gee
Adam Mueller
Denver, CO 80203
303.831.7364
Counsel for Defendant-Appellee Ghislaine
Maxwell
Certificate of Compliance with Rule 32(A)

This brief complies with the type-volume limitation of Fed. R. App.
P. 32(a)(7)(B). It contains 6,703 words, excluding the parts of the brief exempted by
Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B)(III).
This brief complies with the typeface requirements of Fed. R. App.

P. 32(a)(5) and the typestyle requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(6). It has been
prepared in a proportionally-spaced typeface using Microsoft Word 2010 in 14 pt.
Equity.
s/ Adam Mueller
31
I certify that on January 10, 2019, I served via CM/ECF a copy of this
Ghislaine Maxwell’s Answer Brief on the following persons:

Christine N. Walz
Sanford L. Bohrer
s/ Nicole Simmons
32

18-2868 - Documents 1

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

18-2868 - Documents 1

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Selected docket entries for case 18−2868

Generated: 08/20/2019 12:23:00

Filed Document Description Page Docket Text

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

ROBERT A. KATZMANN CATHERINE O'HAGAN WOLFE

Date: September 28, 2018 DC Docket #: 15-cv-7433

CHANGE IN CONTACT INFORMATION: An attorney or pro se party who does not

My Appellate Filer Account, https://www.pacer.gov/psco/cgi-bin/cmecf/ea-login.pl. The Court's

Inquiries regarding this case may be directed to 212-857-8638.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

entered in this action on August 27, 2018.

Dated: September 26, 2018

/s/ Christine N. Walz

Attorneys for Intervenors Julie Brown

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Plaintiff, 15 Civ. 7433

Counsel for Intervenors Julie Brown

HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP

Counsel for Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre

BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP

BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP

EDWARDS POTTINGLER LLC

S.J. QUINNEY COLLEGE OF LAW

Counsel for Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell

HADDON, MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C.

Counsel for Intervenor Michael Cernovich

RANDAZZA LEGAL GROUP, PLLC

Counsel for Intervenor Alan Dershowitz

EMERY CELLI BRINCKERHOFF & ABADY, LLP

1 This daytime business address is provided for

Third-party proposed intervenors The Miami Herald

Media Company (the "Miami Herald") and investigative journalist

for the Miami Herald Julie Brown ("Brown") (collectively , the

"Intervenors "), have moved pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 24 to intervene in this defamation action brought by

plaintiff Virginia Giuffre ("Giuffre" or the "Plaintiff")

against defendant Ghislaine Maxwell ("Maxwell" or the

"Defendant") and to unseal all of the documents previously

sealed in this action.

Resolution, clarity and certainty, sometimes delayed,

are hallmarks of the judicial process. The present motions

challenge certain resolutions of this settled and closed action

and raise significant issues, the conduct of the discovery

process, the enforceabili ty of confidential ity agreements and

protective orders, the privacy rights of parties and witnesses,

transparency of the judicial process.

This defamation action from its inception in September

2015 to its settlement in May 2017 has been bitterly contested

and difficult to administer because of the truth or falsity of

the allegations concerning the intimate, sexual, and private

conduct of the parties and of third persons, some prominent,

a reexamination of the effort to provide an appropriate

resolution of the issues presented by the litigation.

Upon this reexamination and the conclusions set forth

below, the motion to intervene is granted, and the motion to

unseal is denied as to the documents produced in the discovery

process and as to the summary judgment judicial documents based

on the difficult balancing of the conflicting principles

In early 2011 Giuffre, in an interview with journalist

Sharon Churcher ("Churcher") which was published in two British

tabloids, described Maxwell's alleged role as someone who

recruited or facilitated the recruitment of young females for

sexual activity with Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), that she,