In Other Media-eg New Statesman, AJE, FP, Georgia, NYT,  Azerbaijan, CSM Click here to contact us     .

By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon
BBC - Decrypt - LightRead - Honduras - Source

SDNY COURTHOUSE, June 18 –  After the death of Jeffrey Epstein in the MCC prison, Annie Farmer is pursuing her civil lawsuit for sex trafficking against his "madame" Ghislaine Maxwell and his estate.
 
  On June 10, Maxwell filed that "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, 229-1, 284, 249, and 249-1)." Photo here.

  It is reminiscent of UN Sec-Gen Antonio Guterres covering up UN child rapes - except the UN's rapes are in DR Congo, CAR and Haiti.

 Now on June 18, Alan Dershowitz has filed this, "in brief reply to Ghislaine Maxwell’s letter submitted yesterday. ECF No. 1059. Maxwell’s position is the height of impracticality. The evidence Professor Dershowitz seeks from Giuffre v. Maxwell is clearly discoverable given the overlapping allegations in the cases at issue, and she does not and cannot argue otherwise. Indeed, Maxwell ignores that the materials sought are in the custody, possession or control of Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre, whose position is that she will need relief in order to be able to produce any materials the Court deems to be relevant to her lawsuit with Dershowitz. Maxwell likewise ignores that at least until the Court rules otherwise upon a motion related to specific materials, Dershowitz will comply with the existing protective order. Instead, Maxwell apparently seeks to force Dershowitz and this Court to litigate piecemeal each and every individual subpoena for materials from each and every witness in the Maxwell case from whom testimony and documents is sought. Maxwell seeks to force this path while making no showing whatsoever that the discovery materials Dershowitz seeks from Giuffre are (i) not fairly in Giuffre’s hands and discoverable, or (ii) why they would not be discoverable from Maxwell herself. Maxwell incorrectly contends that there have been three unsuccessful prior attempts made by non-parties to gain access to documents in Maxwell. ECF No. 1059 at 1-2.

She characterizes each of these attempts as failed and then states that this Court’s decisions somehow are the law of the case. Yet, the very standard she cites in her response provides an exception that clearly applies here. Id. at 2. As this Court knows, the Second Circuit spoke directly to the issues of confidentiality and unsealing of documents in this case and specifically vacated two of the three decisions cited by Maxwell. Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 44 (2d Cir. 2019). The same ruling uprooted the third opinion mentioned by Maxwell (the so-called “Sealed Opinion”), by rendering unreasonable any reliance on the confidentiality designations associated with the protective order. In Brown v. Maxwell, the Second Circuit unsealed the summary judgment motion and ordered particularized review of the remaining materials for the purpose of unsealing. Maxwell, 929 F.3d at 44-45.

As this Court well knows, the summary judgment briefing contained many of the discovery materials that were protected by the protective order the parties supposedly “relied on” in making the productions. Yet, the Second Circuit ordered these materials released to the public (not just to another party willing to follow the protective order, as Dershowitz proposes here). In doing so, the Court made it clear that any reliance on the confidentiality designations made to discovery was not reasonable. This is hardly “plowed ground.” ECF No. 1059 at 1. For these reasons, Dershowitz respectfully requests that the Court proceed with a premotion conference regarding his access to discovery from Giuffre v. Maxwell. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Howard M. Cooper Howard M. Cooper

  Back on April 16 U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge Lorna G. Schofield held a conference on Ghislaine Maxwell's letter responding Farmer's complaint, including that it involved "lumping" of issues. See below.

   Jeffrey Epstein's estate and executors Indyke and Kahn are being sued by Jane Doe 15 and others. On May 22 U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Magistrate Judge Debra C. Freeman held back to back conferences at 10 am and 11 am. Inner City Press covered both. 

Epstein lawyer: "The only reason the victims' compensation program has not started is that the Virgin Islands Attorney General froze out accounts... Now the estate has reached an agreement with the Attorney General, to be finalized next week."

Judge Freeman advised parties to reduce or pause legal spending, says if they later go forward, be ready for virtual depositions. She refers to a colleague judge's model protocol for virtual depositions, emphasizing she is not endorsing any provider. Inner City Press will have more on that. At 11 am Judge Freeman heard other cases against Jeffrey Epstein's estate and executors, including by Annie Farmer, Teresa Helm, Juliette Bryant and "Jane Doe 1000."

She asked about any possible settlement. Plaintiff's lawyer says there is no assurance the offered program will be meaningful. So they want to move forward. 

Plaintiffs' lawyer: We are having to fight to get discovery from Epstein estate. I had hoped we wouldn't have to fight this way now they he [Jeffrey Epstein] is no longer asserting his 5th Amendment privileges, now that he is no longer with us. But here we are.  Epstein estate lawyer says McCauley is on email chain showing that most victims are on board with the program, and that the program is no longer in limbo. Judge Freeman: We discussed this morning at 10, Ms McCauley was not on unless she did not announce herself.  McCauley: I wasn't aware of any 10 am proceeding.  

Epstein estate lawyer: Maria Farmer stayed her action, to conserve resources. Boies Schiller has been the biggest culprit in driving up the Estate's costs.  Plaintiff's lawyer: We have not received enough information to make decisions. Discovery has moved very slowly. That's my concern with a hiatus.  Defense lawyer: For Juliette Bryant, there were documents; for other plaintiffs, not so many. But the pandemic has made it hard to collect documents. Judge Freeman: How so, exactly? Defense lawyer: People don't want to travel. Or can't.

  Now Ghislaine Maxwell's lawyer Laura A. Menninger from Colorado speaks, says Maxwell is only charged with battery in New Mexico in 1996. Says the program would moot out this whole lawsuit.  Ghislaine Maxwell's lawyer does not refer to victims but "accusers." Says "it has been 24 years since the allegation supposed happened." McCauley: We have no idea when the SDNY investigation will be complete. So discovery should not be stayed. 

Judge Freeman: Because of COVID-19, there are no grand juries meeting, so there might not be indictments for a while. The same has arisen in the Joshua Schulte / CIA leaks case, which Inner City Press also covers. These cases include 19-cv-10475-LGS-DCF Farmer v. Indyke et al  19-cv-10653-PAE-DCF Jane Doe 15 v. Indyke et al and 20-cr-00147-VSB-1 USA v. De La Cruz Rodriguez et al 

   Judge Schofield said she does not see lumping in the complaint, and that does not think that the motion or motions Ghislaine Maxwell was suggesting she would make would be worth the time.    

Maxwell's lawyer Laura Menninger of Denver's Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C. was urged to submitted a letter or answer in a week's time.   Menninger pushed forward, saying that given the case's link to New Mexico and that Farmer is not a resident of New York, the shorter of the statute of limitation might apply. 

 Judge Schofield repeated that the defendants, also for executors of Epstein's estate Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Khan, should file in a week's time. Inner City Press will continue to follow and report on this case. It is Farmer v. Indyke, et al, 19-cv-10475 (Schofield). 

***

Your support means a lot. As little as $5 a month helps keep us going and grants you access to exclusive bonus material on our Patreon page. Click here to become a patron.

Feedback: Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
SDNY Press Room 480, front cubicle
500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA

Mail: Box 20047, Dag Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017

Reporter's mobile (and weekends): 718-716-3540

Other, earlier Inner City Press are listed here, and some are available in the ProQuest service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.

 Copyright 2006-2020 Inner City Press, Inc. To request reprint or other permission, e-contact Editorial [at] innercitypress.com for