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

By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Photo thread
LightRead - Honduras-Maximum Maxwell Book

SDNY COURTHOUSE, Nov 28 – After the death of Jeffrey Epstein in the MCC jail, Virginia Giuffre, Annie Farmer and others pushed forward 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 July 18, 2022 Giuffre's counsel wrote to Judge Preska asking to push the trial back from the Fall of 2022 to March 2023. Why? "First and foremost" - then an entire paragraph redacted.

On July 21, Judge Preska held a proceeding that quickly went sealed. Until it did, Inner City Press live tweeted it here and below.

On November 18, Judge Preska ruled on sealing or unsealing a number of documents, based on this list. Inner City Press live tweeted it here
 and below.

On November 21, Judge Preska docketed an order granting a stay request by "Doe 171" of release of documents to December 5 to allow appeal and stay request to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Order on Patreon here.

On November 28, Judge Preska granted a stay until December 5 to another Doe, 107: "ORDER: Doe 107 submitted an ex parte request seeking a stay, pending appeal, of the release of documents relating to her. Doe 107's request for a stay of the release of documents relating to her is granted until December 5, 2022 to allow her to seek a further stay from the Court of Appeals. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Loretta A. Preska on 11/28/2022)." Doe 107 Order on Patreon here.

From November 18: OK - now in Giuffre v. Ghislaine Maxwell, a ruling on sealing documents including names is being read out by Judge Preska:

Judge: The Court has received filings by Does, seeking to keep the information [and they names] sealed. Now that Ms. Maxwell's criminal trial is concluded, she takes no position on the non-party Does...

 Judge: Guiffre supports the redaction of Doe 28's name.  Just because *some* information has been been in previous court cases does not mean the Does have lost a privacy interest [citing a 2019 Judge Kaplan case]. So in some cases I will preserve sealing

 Judge: Only July 19, 2022, Ms. Taylor sued Harper Collins for defamation. In her complaint, Ms. Taylor republishes certainly allegedly defamatory statements. She was employed by Ms. Maxwell.

 Judge: With respect to Doe 183, it's a 56 page excerpt of Ms Maxwell's deposition, Doe 183 is referred to three times.  A stay is granted until Monday, November 28 to allow Doe 183 to seek a further stay from the Court of Appeals.

 Judge: With respect to Doe 28, the motion to seal is granted - a victim who continues to experience trauma. Doe 144 objects to disclosure that it may harm his reputation, Tom Pritzker

Judge:  The motion to unseal Document 363-7 is denied, it was filed by Alan Dershowitz in an attempt to intervene in this case, it was not consider and is not a judicial document. Denied.

Judge: As to Doe 12, the motion to unseal is deal, they are a classic outsider, who played no role in Judge Sweet's decision. Doe 12 was not mentioned at Maxwell's criminal trial.

Giuffre's counsel: What about Doe 107?

Judge: Unsealed. Unlike other information, this is not salacious.

Giuffre's counsel: What about Doe 147?

Judge: Ms. Ransome testified as Ms. Maxwell's sentencing. She published a book, called Silent No More, and an op-ed.

 Judge: That document is unsealed. But remember, on some, the stay. We are adjourned. Happy Thanksgiving.

Document Judge worked off, on Patreon here

Earlier, on July 21, 2022: OK - now will live tweet below a hearing in Giuffre v. Alan Dershowitz,

Judge Preska: Good morning! Sorry to start late, I had a sentencing. I suggest we do the protective order things at the end, and we'll seal it. Have you spoken about the impeachment issue? Counsel: We were unable to reach agreement.

Counsel: Impeachment is not limited to initial disclosures but applies equally to pre-trial disclosures. By and large, impeachment material was produced.

Howard Cooper: I had laptop problems... This is a first for me, to have a line in a confidential letter cited

After a long silence: Judge Preska: Sorry to delay you again, I had to get a report on [voluntarily redacted]. I say the tax returns have to be produced. If they are used at trial, you must confer.

Counsel: You ordered the returns produced to show loss of income

 Dershowitz' lawyer: Mr. Dershowitz has offered to waive the loss of income claim. So how is there a compelling need for these return? Ms. Giuffre was allowed to amend her complaint to avoid discovery.

Charles Cooper: Ms. Moss is on the way to Perth for Ms. Giuffre's deposition.

Judge Preska: I stick to my ruling that the tax returns be produced. The rest of this proceeding will be closed and sealed.

#CourtroomConfidential

On November 8, 2022 with the SDNY Courthouse mostly empty for Elections Day, the Giuffre v. Dershowitz case was, by filing, "dismissed with prejudice and without costs or award of fees to either party." Filing on Patreon here.

There were three agreed statements, which Inner City Press is publishing in full here:

FROM ALL PARTIES: Virginia Giuffre, David Boies and Alan Dershowitz have today dismissed with prejudice all pending litigation. The resolution of the litigation is accompanied by the following statements. The resolution does not involve the payment of any money by anyone or anything else. 

FROM VIRGINIA GIUFFRE: I have long believed that I was trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein to Alan Dershowitz. However, I was very young at the time, it was a very stressful and traumatic environment, and Mr. Dershowitz has from the beginning consistently denied these allegations. I now recognize I may have made a mistake in identifying Mr. Dershowitz. This litigation has been very stressful and burdensome for me and my family, and we believe it is time to bring it to an end and move on with our lives. 

FROM DAVID BOIES: I agree with Mr. Dershowitz and Ms. Giuffre that the time has come to end this litigation and move on. I know that Alan Dershowitz has suffered greatly from the allegation of sexual abuse made against him—an allegation that he has consistently, and vehemently, denied. I also know that this litigation has imposed, and continues to impose, a significant burden on Ms. Giuffre. I appreciate Mr. Dershowitz’s recognition that I was not engaged in an extortion plot or in suborning perjury. I accept each of their statements in the spirit in which they are made, and I wish each of them well. 

FROM ALAN DERSHOWITZ: "As I have said from the beginning, I never had sex with Ms. Giuffre. I have nevertheless come to believe that at the time she accused me she believed what she said. Ms. Giuffre is to be commended for her courage in now stating publicly that she may have been mistaken about me. She has suffered much at the hands of Jeffrey Epstein, and I commend her work combatting the evil of sex trafficking. I also now believe that my allegations that David Boies engaged in an extortion plot and in suborning perjury were mistaken."

Back on February 21, Presidents' Day in the US, Netflix filed this in Guiffre v. Dershowitz: "We represent non-parties in this action, who are currently being sued by defendant Alan  Dershowitz in a separate action, Dershowitz v. Netflix, et al. (21-cv-21961) (S.D. Fla. 2021) (the  “Florida Action”). Our clients are Netflix, Inc., the subscription streaming service, and the  journalists and production company that created a Netflix documentary series about Jeffrey  Epstein (the “Netflix Nonparties”).1  Through emails among members of the New York Bar  Association, we learned of the Court’s recent order, Dkt. No. 401 (“Order”), which compels Mr.  Dershowitz to produce discovery that our clients have produced in the Florida Action...We respectfully request this Court schedule another  hearing for the Netflix Nonparties to present their objections before Mr. Dershowitz turns over  their documents." Full 11 page submission on Patreon here.

  On February 22 Judge Preska ordered that it be heard on February 24: "the Court will hear from the parties and from Netflix, which seeks to intervene in this case (see dkt. no. 407), on Thursday February 24 at 10:00 a.m. The Court will hear from the parties and from Harvard regarding the order compelling Mr. Dershowitz to produce additional emails from his Harvard email account (see dkt. no. 401 at 7; dkt. no. 408) on Thursday February 24 at 11:00 a.m."

  But on February 24, things were put over for another day so that the parties could conference. Past 9 pm on February 24, Dershowitz filed "During today’s meet and confer, counsel for the Netflix Nonparties, Rachel Strom, clarified  that the Netflix Nonparties do not contend that Prof. Dershowitz is prohibited by the Netflix  protective order from producing confidential Netflix discovery materials in this case.1  Instead,  they contend only that Prof. Dershowitz violated the Netflix protective order by not providing  earlier notice of Plaintiff’s document requests seeking Netflix discovery materials.  It is difficult to understand why the Netflix Nonparties seek to make an issue about notice." Full letter on Patreon here.

  Inner City Press live tweeted the February 25 proceeding, here:

Netflix is arguing to block Dershowitz from disclosing information from "Filthy Rich" series.

Netflix lawyer: It is true we have waived, in a limited way, our journalistic privileges by providing these documents to Prof Dershowitz. But the idea of the privilege is that interviews won't send up in the parties hands, it has a chilling effect.

 Netflix lawyer: It's true that we state that our series is an accurate depiction. But we should be able to look into litigious parties without fear that all files will go to that. That is a real burden, under Rule 26.

Netflix lawyer: We'd like Prof Dershowitz to share with us a list of the material he intends to disclose, before we turn it over to Ms. Giuffre's counsel. Judge Preska: The documents are relevant, they are statements on the claims and counterclaims in this case.

 Judge Preska: Get everyone to sign on to the Florida protective order.  Adjourned.

Then on March 4, Dershowitz complained that Netflix in seeking sanctions in Florida got an order banning him from disclosing: "We learned last night that notwithstanding this Court’s order and the parties’ cooperation  last week towards complying with that Order (and notwithstanding Ms. Strom’s stated position  that the Netflix protective order did not prohibit production of Netflix’s documents in this case  pursuant to a valid order of this Court), at a discovery conference held in the Netflix action  yesterday, the Netflix Nonparties sought and received an order prohibiting Prof. Dershowitz  from producing their documents in this case pursuant to this Court’s February 25 Order.  The order was made from the bench, is not yet reflected on the docket, and a transcript of the hearing is not yet available (although one has been ordered on an expedited basis). We thus do  not know the precise language of the Order or fully appreciate the context in which it was made." Full letter here.

 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.

The case is Giuffre v. Maxwell, 15-cv-7433 (Preska)

***

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