20-3061_Documents.pdf
9.34 MB
Extraction Summary
15
People
6
Organizations
7
Locations
5
Events
2
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court record / appellate case file
File Size:
9.34 MB
Summary
This document is the complete appellate record for case 20-3061, an interlocutory appeal by Ghislaine Maxwell against the United States. Maxwell appealed a District Court order denying her motion to modify a protective order, seeking permission to share confidential criminal discovery materials under seal with the judge in a related civil case (Giuffre v. Maxwell) to challenge the government's acquisition of evidence. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, ruling that the protective order decision was not a final judgment or an appealable collateral order, and denied Maxwell's motion to consolidate the criminal appeal with the civil appeal.
People (15)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant-Appellant |
Appealing a District Court order regarding a protective order in her criminal case.
|
| Alison J. Nathan | U.S. District Judge |
Presiding judge in the SDNY criminal case who issued the protective order and denied the motion to modify it.
|
| Loretta A. Preska | U.S. District Judge |
Presiding judge in the related civil case (Giuffre v. Maxwell) handling unsealing of documents.
|
| Jeffrey Epstein | Co-conspirator |
Deceased financier named as co-conspirator in the indictment.
|
| Virginia L. Giuffre | Plaintiff |
Plaintiff in the related civil defamation case.
|
| Audrey Strauss | Acting United States Attorney |
Representing the United States in the appeal.
|
| Maurene Ryan Comey | Assistant US Attorney |
Prosecutor representing the US Government.
|
| Alison Gainfort Moe | Assistant US Attorney |
Prosecutor representing the US Government.
|
| Lara Elizabeth Pomerantz | Assistant US Attorney |
Prosecutor representing the US Government.
|
| Laura A. Menninger | Defense Attorney |
Representing Ghislaine Maxwell.
|
| Jeffrey S. Pagliuca | Defense Attorney |
Representing Ghislaine Maxwell.
|
| Christian R. Everdell | Defense Attorney |
Representing Ghislaine Maxwell.
|
| Mark Stewart Cohen | Defense Attorney |
Representing Ghislaine Maxwell.
|
| Adam Mueller | Defense Attorney |
Representing Ghislaine Maxwell on appeal.
|
| Ty Gee | Defense Attorney |
Representing Ghislaine Maxwell on appeal.
|
Timeline (5 events)
July 8, 2020
Superseding Indictment S1 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) filed
SDNY
October 19, 2020
Second Circuit Court of Appeals dismisses Maxwell's appeal for lack of jurisdiction
Second Circuit Court of Appeals
Locations (7)
Relationships (2)
Indictment states they had a 'personal and professional relationship,' Maxwell was 'among his closest associates,' and was in an 'intimate relationship' between 1994-1997.
Giuffre is the plaintiff in a civil defamation suit against Maxwell; Indictment alleges Maxwell committed perjury in depositions for that civil case.
Key Quotes (5)
"Maxwell assisted, facilitated, and contributed to Jeffrey Epstein's abuse of minor girls by, among other things, helping Epstein to recruit, groom, and ultimately abuse victims known to MAXWELL and Epstein to be under the age of 18."Source
20-3061_Documents.pdf
Quote #1
"First, the Court finds that the Government has met its burden of showing good cause with regard to restricting the ability of Ms. Maxwell to publicly reference alleged victims and witnesses other than those who have publicly identified themselves in this litigation."Source
20-3061_Documents.pdf
Quote #2
"The defendant’s demand that she and her counsel be permitted to name any individuals who have ever publicly identified themselves as a victim of either Epstein or the defendant in any 'public fora,' and at any time, without limitation, is extraordinarily broad, unnecessary, and inappropriate, and should be denied."Source
20-3061_Documents.pdf
Quote #3
"The Government labors under many restrictions including Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Privacy Act of 1974... all of which the Court expects the Government to scrupulously follow."Source
20-3061_Documents.pdf
Quote #4
"Maxwell’s motion to consolidate is a transparent attempt to circumvent Judge Nathan’s Order without litigating the merits of this appeal."Source
20-3061_Documents.pdf
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (5,163 characters)
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse
40 Foley Square
New York, NY 10007
DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON
CHIEF JUDGE
CATHERINE O'HAGAN WOLFE
CLERK OF COURT
Date: September 10, 2020
Docket #: 20-3061
Short Title: United States of America v. Maxwell
DC Docket #: 1:20-cr-330-1
DC Court: SDNY (NEW YORK
CITY)
DC Judge: Nathan
DOCKETING NOTICE
An appeal in the above-referenced case has been docketed under number: 20-3061. This number
must appear on all documents related to this case that are filed in this Court. Appellate counsel of
record either represented the appellant before the district court, filed the notice of appeal, or
acted as counsel for appellee in the district court. For pro se parties the docket sheet with the
caption page, and an Acknowledgment and Notice of Appearance Form are enclosed. In
counseled cases the docket sheet is available on PACER. Counsel must access the
Acknowledgment and Notice of Appearance Form from this Court's website
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov.
The form must be completed and returned within 14 days of the date of this notice. The form
requires the following information:
YOUR CORRECT CONTACT INFORMATION: Review the party information on the docket
sheet and note any incorrect information in writing on the Acknowledgment and Notice of
Appearance Form.
The Court will contact one counsel per party or group of collectively represented parties when
serving notice or issuing our order. Counsel must designate on the Acknowledgment and Notice
of Appearance a lead attorney to accept all notices from this Court who, in turn will, be
responsible for notifying any associated counsel.
CHANGE IN CONTACT INFORMATION: An attorney or pro se party who does not
immediately notify the Court when contact information changes will not receive notices,
documents and orders filed in the case.
Case 20-3061, Document 1-1, 09/09/2020, 2927741, Page1 of 2
An attorney and any pro se party who is permitted to file documents electronically in CM/ECF
must notify the Court of a change to the user's mailing address, business address, telephone
number, or e-mail. To update contact information, a Filing User must access PACER's Manage
My Appellate Filer Account, https://www.pacer.gov/psco/cgi-bin/cmecf/ea-login.pl. The Court's
records will be updated within 1 business day of a user entering the change in PACER.
A pro se party who is not permitted to file documents electronically must notify the Court of a
change in mailing address or telephone number by filing a letter with the Clerk of Court.
CAPTION: In an appeal, the Court uses the district court caption pursuant to FRAP 12(a), 32(a).
For a petition for review or original proceeding the Court uses a caption pursuant to FRAP 15(a)
or 21(a), respectively. Please review the caption carefully and promptly advise this Court of any
improper or inaccurate designations in writing on the Acknowledgment and Notice of
Appearance form. If a party has been terminated from the case the caption may reflect that
change only if the district court judge ordered that the caption be amended.
APPELLATE DESIGNATIONS: Please review whether petitioner is listed correctly on the party
listing page of the docket sheet and in the caption. If there is an error, please note on the
Acknowledgment and Notice of Appearance Form. Timely submission of the Acknowledgment
and Notice of Appearance Form will constitute compliance with the requirement to file a
Representation Statement required by FRAP 12(b).
For additional information consult the Court's instructions posted on the website.
Inquiries regarding this case may be directed to 212-857-8503.
Case 20-3061, Document 1-1, 09/09/2020, 2927741, Page2 of 2
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 55 Filed 09/04/20 Page 1 of 9 Case 20-3061, Document 1-2, 09/09/2020, 2927741, Page1 of 19
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------X
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
V.
S.D.N.Y. - APPEALS
GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
Defendant.
20-CR-330 (AJN)
---------------X
NOTICE OF APPEAL
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant in the above-captioned
case, hereby appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from the
district court's September 2, 2020, Memorandum Opinion and Order denying her motion to
modify the protective order. Pichler v. UNITE, 585 F.3d 741, 746 n.6 (3d Cir. 2009) ("We have
jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine to review the denial of the motion to modify the
Protective Order and the denial of the motion to reconsider."); Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity
Servs., Inc., 832 F.2d 739, 742 (2d Cir. 1987) (denial of motion to modify protective order is
immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine) ( citing Cohen v. Beneficial Industn'al
Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-47 (1949)); see also Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 44 (2d Cir.
2019) (appeal by intervenors challenging denial of motions to modify protective order and
unseal).
Dated: September 3, 2020.
1
[... TEXT CONTINUES THROUGH ALL PAGES INCLUDING INDICTMENT, BRIEFS, AND ORDERS ...]
Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse
40 Foley Square
New York, NY 10007
DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON
CHIEF JUDGE
CATHERINE O'HAGAN WOLFE
CLERK OF COURT
Date: September 10, 2020
Docket #: 20-3061
Short Title: United States of America v. Maxwell
DC Docket #: 1:20-cr-330-1
DC Court: SDNY (NEW YORK
CITY)
DC Judge: Nathan
DOCKETING NOTICE
An appeal in the above-referenced case has been docketed under number: 20-3061. This number
must appear on all documents related to this case that are filed in this Court. Appellate counsel of
record either represented the appellant before the district court, filed the notice of appeal, or
acted as counsel for appellee in the district court. For pro se parties the docket sheet with the
caption page, and an Acknowledgment and Notice of Appearance Form are enclosed. In
counseled cases the docket sheet is available on PACER. Counsel must access the
Acknowledgment and Notice of Appearance Form from this Court's website
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov.
The form must be completed and returned within 14 days of the date of this notice. The form
requires the following information:
YOUR CORRECT CONTACT INFORMATION: Review the party information on the docket
sheet and note any incorrect information in writing on the Acknowledgment and Notice of
Appearance Form.
The Court will contact one counsel per party or group of collectively represented parties when
serving notice or issuing our order. Counsel must designate on the Acknowledgment and Notice
of Appearance a lead attorney to accept all notices from this Court who, in turn will, be
responsible for notifying any associated counsel.
CHANGE IN CONTACT INFORMATION: An attorney or pro se party who does not
immediately notify the Court when contact information changes will not receive notices,
documents and orders filed in the case.
Case 20-3061, Document 1-1, 09/09/2020, 2927741, Page1 of 2
An attorney and any pro se party who is permitted to file documents electronically in CM/ECF
must notify the Court of a change to the user's mailing address, business address, telephone
number, or e-mail. To update contact information, a Filing User must access PACER's Manage
My Appellate Filer Account, https://www.pacer.gov/psco/cgi-bin/cmecf/ea-login.pl. The Court's
records will be updated within 1 business day of a user entering the change in PACER.
A pro se party who is not permitted to file documents electronically must notify the Court of a
change in mailing address or telephone number by filing a letter with the Clerk of Court.
CAPTION: In an appeal, the Court uses the district court caption pursuant to FRAP 12(a), 32(a).
For a petition for review or original proceeding the Court uses a caption pursuant to FRAP 15(a)
or 21(a), respectively. Please review the caption carefully and promptly advise this Court of any
improper or inaccurate designations in writing on the Acknowledgment and Notice of
Appearance form. If a party has been terminated from the case the caption may reflect that
change only if the district court judge ordered that the caption be amended.
APPELLATE DESIGNATIONS: Please review whether petitioner is listed correctly on the party
listing page of the docket sheet and in the caption. If there is an error, please note on the
Acknowledgment and Notice of Appearance Form. Timely submission of the Acknowledgment
and Notice of Appearance Form will constitute compliance with the requirement to file a
Representation Statement required by FRAP 12(b).
For additional information consult the Court's instructions posted on the website.
Inquiries regarding this case may be directed to 212-857-8503.
Case 20-3061, Document 1-1, 09/09/2020, 2927741, Page2 of 2
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 55 Filed 09/04/20 Page 1 of 9 Case 20-3061, Document 1-2, 09/09/2020, 2927741, Page1 of 19
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------X
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
V.
S.D.N.Y. - APPEALS
GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
Defendant.
20-CR-330 (AJN)
---------------X
NOTICE OF APPEAL
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant in the above-captioned
case, hereby appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from the
district court's September 2, 2020, Memorandum Opinion and Order denying her motion to
modify the protective order. Pichler v. UNITE, 585 F.3d 741, 746 n.6 (3d Cir. 2009) ("We have
jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine to review the denial of the motion to modify the
Protective Order and the denial of the motion to reconsider."); Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity
Servs., Inc., 832 F.2d 739, 742 (2d Cir. 1987) (denial of motion to modify protective order is
immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine) ( citing Cohen v. Beneficial Industn'al
Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-47 (1949)); see also Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 44 (2d Cir.
2019) (appeal by intervenors challenging denial of motions to modify protective order and
unseal).
Dated: September 3, 2020.
1
[... TEXT CONTINUES THROUGH ALL PAGES INCLUDING INDICTMENT, BRIEFS, AND ORDERS ...]
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document