EFTA00023661

Ca_4ate.24h24/43134.01FrietibtOrtlefifitin0a0le28013,8111$2eafiabef146f 22

Ca_4ate.24h24/43134.01FrietibtOrtlefifitin0a0le28013,8111$2eafiabef146f 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK X Plaintiff, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. X 15-cv-07433-LAP Ms. Maxwell's Reply In Support Of Iler Objections to tnsealinu Sealed Materials Laura A. Menninger Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Ty Gee HADDON, MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue EFTA00074964 Ca_QatIgt24743tictoWneDbtOrfiefiVIMOXIle?BOWERKVaffizte12401 22 Introduction This Court asked the parties to brief three issues: "(a) the weight of presumption of public access that should be afforded to an item, (b) the identification and weight of any countervailing interests supporting continued sealing/redaction of the item, and (c) whether the countervailing interests rebut the presumption of public access to the item." DE 1044 at 1. Plaintiff and the Miami Herald's responses improperly afford the highest level of presumption to discovery dispute documents, deny that any co

Nos. 20-2413 &

Nos. 20-2413 & 20-3061 United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant- Appellant. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PlaintificAppellee, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant-Appellant. On Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York No. 15-CV-7433 (LAP) The Honorable Loretta A. Preska, U.S. District Judge On Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York No. 20-CR-330 (AJN) The Honorable Alison J. Nathan, U.S. District Judge Ghislaine Maxwell's Response to Opposition to Motion to Consolidate EFTA00079364 The government and insist this case and the criminal case are unrelated. But that's not so. The criminal case alleges that Ms. Maxwell committed perjury in the civil case. Two of the six counts are expressly based on the civil case. Moreover, the discovery in the criminal case includes 90,000 pages of material produced by attorneys, all of which comes f

Maxwell Disputes

Case 18-2868, Document 284, 08/09/2019, 2628244, Page1 of 38 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------X Plaintiff, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. -------------------------------------------------- ............................................. VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE, 15-cv-07433-RWS Defendant’s Reply to Plaintiff’s Statement of Contested Facts and Plaintiff’s “Undisputed Facts” Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 56.1 Laura A. M

Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 88 Filed 04/08/16 Page 1 of 7

Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 92 Filed 04/11/16 Page 1 of 22

Cagean.g0c44/ 71SEAFierbd664164i igl5V2PilaW6M/Joagria44

Cagean.g0c44/ 71SEAFierbd664164i igl5V2PilaW6M/Joagria44 1?)f 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK X Plaintiff, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. X 15-cv-07433-LAP Ms. Maxwell's Objections to Unsealing Docket Entries 143. 173. and 199 and to Unsealing Docket Entries 164 and 230 at This Time. Laura A. Menninger Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Ty Gee HADDON, MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 EFTA00075004 CageaUlg0caAIDer0dthhilfii igl5V2Pil&iA6/2bagctacir4 2%f 3 Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, through her counsel and pursuant to this Court's Order and Protocol for Unsealing Decided Motions, DE 1044, as clarified by DE 1053, objects to the unsealing of the Sealed Items contained in: • DE 143 (and related DEs 142, 144, 144-1, 149, 150, 150-1, 151, 152, 153, and 153- 1); • DE 172 (and related DEs 171, 173, 173-1, 189, 190, 190-1, 202, 203, 204-1, 211, 212, 212-1, and 224) and; • DE 199 (and related DEs 200, 200-1, 228,2 29,