Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
efta-efta00592730DOJ Data Set 9Other

Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 91 Filed 04/11/16 Page 1 of 3

Date
Unknown
Source
DOJ Data Set 9
Reference
efta-efta00592730
Pages
3
Persons
0
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

Ask AI About This Document

0Share
PostReddit

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 91 Filed 04/11/16 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK X Plaintiff, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. X 15-cv-07433-RWS Motion To Exceed Page Limits For Reply In Support Of Defendant's Motion To Compel Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, through counsel, hereby requests that the Court permit the filing of a reply memorandum in excess of the 10 pages permitted pursuant to this Court's Practice Standard 2D. As grounds, she further avers as follows: Defendant was forced to bring her Motion to Compel as to each and every one of Plaintiff's interrogatory responses and each and every one of her responses to the Request for Production. The issues raised in the Motion to Compel are at once novel (Plaintiff asserts, for example, a "public interest privilege" which is unavailable to individual, non-governmental litigants) and mundane (Plaintiff completely refused to answer interrogatories, even though they comply with the Federal and Local Rules). Because of the breadth of the issues raised, Defendant's obligations in fully and fairly responding to Plaintiffs intransigence and creative litigation tactics could not be amply be set forth in 10 pages. 1 EFTA00592730 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 91 Filed 04/11/16 Page 2 of 3 Further, Plaintiff "incorporated by reference" her response to Defendant's Motion for a Protective Order for purposes of attempting to explain her refusal to respond to proper interrogatories, thus causing her "response" to well-exceed 25 pages. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests the Court's indulgence in permitting an 18 page reply memoranda which is necessary to fully and fairly set forth rebuttal to Plaintiff's Response to the Motion to Compel. Dated: April 11, 2016 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Laura A. Menninger Laura A. Menninger (LM-1374) Jeffrey S. Pagliuca HADDON, MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: Fax: Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell 2 EFTA00592731 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 91 Filed 04/11/16 Page 3 of 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on April 11, 2016, I electronically served this DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITS via ECF on the following: Sigrid S. McCawley BOTES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Ste. 1200 Ft. Lauderdale. FL 33301 Is/ Nicole Simmons Nicole Simmons 3 EFTA00592732

Technical Artifacts (2)

View in Artifacts Browser

Email addresses, URLs, phone numbers, and other technical indicators extracted from this document.

Case #1:15-CV-07433-RWS
Wire Refreference

Related Documents (6)

DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

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

40p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

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,

20p
Court UnsealedAug 9, 2019

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

38p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

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

7p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

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

22p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

From: '

From: ' To:' Cc: Subject: FW: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (MN) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2020 21:55:08 +0000 Attachment Inline-Images: image001.jpg FYI From: Nicole Simmons < Sent: Monday, August 24, 2020 11:57 AM To: Cc: < ; Laura Menninger ; Ann Lundberg Subject: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) [Proposed Redaction to Request and Reply to Modify Protective Order (Under Seal)] Dear Judge Nathan, At the request of Jeffrey S. Pagliuca, please see attached Ms. Maxwell's Proposed Redactions to her Request and Reply in Support of Modifying the Protective Order filed under. Regards, Nicole Nicole Simmons Haddon, Morgan and Foreman P.C. PH FX DIRECT: EFTA00040705

1p

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.