| After
Ghislaine Maxwell Guilty Dershowitz
Additional Depositions Opposed in Redacted
Letter
By Matthew
Russell Lee, Patreon Photo
thread
LightRead - Honduras-Maximum
Maxwell Book
SDNY COURTHOUSE,
Jan 11 – After the death of
Jeffrey Epstein in the MCC
prison, Virginia Giuffre,
Annie Farmer and others pushed
foward with civil litigation
for sex trafficking against
Ghislaine Maxwell and his
estate.
At the end
of 2021 Maxwell was found
guilty on five of six criminal
courts. Inner City Press book
"Maximum Maxwell," here.
On January 4,
civil defendant (and
cross-plaintiff) Alan
Dershowitz sought a pre-motion
conference on his request for
more than 10 depositions,
including of Carolyn who
testified in the Maxwell
trial, and of Epstein's house
manager Juan Alessi.
Dershowitz annexed a sworn
statement Alessi gave in 2015
in Edwards v. Dershowitz.
On January 11,
Giuffre's lawyer opposed the
expanding number of
depositions, saying that Alan
Dershowitz "has already
deposed the Wexners' personal
attorney, John Zeiger, and
Leslie Wexner himself, and
[REDACTED]." Redacted why?
We'll stay on these cases.
This is in
Giuffre v. Dershowitz,
19-cv-3377 (Preska)
Back
on July 23, 2020 SDNY Judge
Loretta Preska read out ruling
unsealing many documents,
while Maxwell's lawyer asked
for a stay to appeal, citing
Maxwell's imprisonment and
July 2021 trial. Inner City
Press live tweeted it, below.
On
November 16, 2021, Judge
Preska held another proceeding
in Giuffre v. Dershowitz,
right during jury selection
voir dire in US v. Ghislaine
Maxwell as fate would have it,
and Inner City Press live
tweeted it:
now in Giuffre v.
Dershowitz civil case, a 2 pm
proceeding, with lawyers
citing Jeffrey Epstein right
out of the gate. Replying
to
Dershowitz'
lawyer: Ms Giuffre at that
time never mentioned any sex
with Mr. Dershowitz. We intend
to seek the deposition of Mrs.
Wexner...
Judge
Loretta A. Preska: It sounded
to me that Mr. Dershowitz
wanted to take some of these
deposition to show that the
deponent never saw Ms. Giuffre
with him. Correct?
Dershowitz'
lawyer: Some of these are
people she would have told, if
it were true.
Judge
Preska: What about the
household folks, and the pilot
[echo of Bill Richardson,
Inner City Press' Burma / UN
story yesterday, here
]
Wexner's
lawyer: Mr. Dershowitz is
trying to use my client as a
prop, for a made for TV
moment.
Now argument is
made that Dershowitz' theory
is that Giuffre accused him in
order to extort Wexler
The push for
sealing, and decisions to
deny, continue. Inner City
Press tweeted Judge Preska's
July 1, 2021 proceeding, here:
Maxwell has
argued that unsealing of
document just leads to online
coverage. Uh, yeah. Judge
Preska: "It's not the job of
the Court to police press
coverage." Hear, hear. Judge
Preska: "Alan Derschowitz'
name should be unsealed, as
his request."
Judge Preska:
Redact the names of the
non-party Does. 397, unseal as
at 135. 398, paragraph 7 shall
remain sealed as it references
a non-party Doe.
Judge Preska:
This document will remain
sealed because it marshals
evidence in a way that could
be prejudicial to Ms.
Maxwell's rights at trial.
Inner City Press will have
more on this.
Judge
Preska: The following shall
remain sealed: Docket Number
641-2, 655, 656, 656-1, 2, 3,
4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9; 700, 701,
701-1, 701-2, 707, 709, 714,
715, 715-1, 715-2, all shall
remain sealed. I ask counsel
to confer and prepare the
others for unsealing.
Judge
Preska: If for example it
said, Doe with purple hair and
three arms, she could be
identified. So it should
remain sealed... We've all
seen things in the public
press. We understand what we
are going. There are Does
we've read about in the
tabloids.
Judge
Preska: Anything else today?
Counsel, nice to see you.
Happy Independence Day.
Adjourned.
This case is
Giuffre v. Maxwell, 15-cv-7433
(Preska)
On February
26, 2021 Giuffre's counsel
Nicole Moss wrote to Judge
Preska complaining of delay by
Dershowitz in producing his
Harvard University email.
Dershowitz, the filing says,
blames this on Harvard seeking
to review all email for
compliance with the Family
Educational Rights and Privacy
Act (FERPA).
On March 25,
Judge Preska held a proceeding
on this, which began on a
delay. Inner City Press waited
and live tweeted it, here:
in Giuffre v.
Dershowitz case, issue is
availability of Harvard U
emails: confidential, further
reviewing them or making
others pay for the review.
Judge
Preska: Why should it be on
plaintiff's head to pay the
costs of Harvard?
A: This is
discover that plaintiff is
seeking from a third party. If
it were up to Professor
Dershowitz he would forego
these emails covered by FERPA.
Judge Preska: Of
course he would.
Dershowitz'
lawyer: Dershowitz has
produced thousands of
documents --
Judge Preska: You
know that's irrelevant.
Dershowitz'
lawyer: It's important
context. And plaintiff says
she only has texts back to Nov
2018. She had a preservation
duty. It's not fair.
Dershowitz's
lawyer: A ruling here that his
emails are not privileged
would have far-reaching
implications. Ms. Giuffre has
an expert, a law professor at
-
Judge Preska: I
know, in Utah -
Dershowitz's
lawyer: So let's get his
emails.
Dershowitz'
lawyer: They framed the
complaint in a way that allows
us to ask for this
information. They accused
Professor Dershowitz of being
a raping, a sex trafficker
with Jeffrey Epstein and
Ghislaine Maxwell. Now they
will reap what they sow [in
discovery]
Then, it was
over.
What was
accomplished? Many of the
fiings are sealed, or
"Selected Parties Only." Watch
this site.
Back on August 17
Judge Preska held a
conference, largely about
protective order and also
possible deposition of Les
Wexner. Inner City Press live
tweeted it:
Judge Preska: I
am well familiar with the
Maxwell case. Isn't the issue
you raise solved by seeking
leave in advance? Given the
problems we've had in Maxwell,
let's avoid extraneous
documents attached to motions.
Judge Preska: Is
there any reason what is
produced in this action should
have to be produced in the
state action?
Christian Kiely
for Dershowitz: We had agreed
to only take one deposition,
not two, for each. But they
made up file a motion to
compel. So, no.
Imran
Ansari (also for Dershowitz) -
we have a New York State
proceeding tomorrow... We
oppose a carte blanche
approach that is unfair to
Professor Dershowitz.
Judge Preska:
What if I consult with the NYS
Justice? Any objection?
No. No.
Judge Preska: Do you have his
number?
Ansari: I'll
email it to your chambers.
Judge Preska: On Mr. Wexner, I
propose that we wait.
A: There is close
to zero % change Mr. Wexner is
going to voluntarily agree to
be deposed.
A:
Professor Dershowitz is
entitled to depose Wexner to
memorialize the denial that
has been put in in a letter an
hour ago. [Inner City Press
tweeted a photographfrom that
letter, here.]
Judge Preska: I
must get to the issue. What
else do you want to talk
about, Counsel?
Nothing from the
defendant.
Judge Preska: I
will look for a protective
order tomorrow. Get on it.
Thanks for being on.
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
|
,
