United States District Court Southern District of New York
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-08-01 | Legal filing | Filing of a Notice of Motion to Withdraw by Christian R. Everdell, Mark S. Cohen, and Cohen & Gre... | New York, New York | View |
| 2021-09-03 | Court order | The court issued an order with which the prosecution allegedly failed to comply, leading to the c... | UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR... | View |
| 2021-04-16 | Legal ruling | The Court’s Opinion and Order (the “April Opinion” or “Apr. Op.”) was dated. | UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR... | View |
| 2020-09-02 | Legal ruling | The district court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order denying Ghislaine Maxwell's motion to mo... | SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK | View |
| 2020-07-08 | Legal filing | The court filed an order granting Jeffrey S. Pagliuca's motion for admission pro hac vice. | SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK | View |
EFTA00031606.pdf
This document is a Court Order from the Southern District of New York dated April 29, 2021, issued by Judge Alison J. Nathan in the case of USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The order addresses an incident on April 24, 2021, where MDC staff seized Maxwell's legal materials. Judge Nathan orders the MDC legal counsel to provide an inventory of seized items to the defense and to file a representation with the Court regarding potential duplication of materials and steps taken to ensure the confidentiality of attorney-client communications.
EFTA00031306.pdf
This document is an email dated July 15, 2020, from a Courtroom Deputy to the Hon. Sarah Netburn at the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The email notifies a redacted recipient about an attached PDF containing an Order filed under seal regarding Grand Jury Subpoena case number 19-mc-00179.
EFTA00031263.pdf
This document is a Memorandum of Law filed by the United States Government opposing Defendant Michael Thomas's motion to compel discovery in the criminal case regarding the falsification of records connected to the death of Jeffrey Epstein. The Government argues that it has already met its discovery obligations under Rule 16, Brady, and Giglio, and that the additional materials Thomas seeks—including OIG drafts, BOP records, and evidence of selective prosecution—are either not in the prosecution team's possession, are privileged, or are irrelevant to a valid legal defense, serving instead only to support an improper jury nullification strategy.
EFTA00031254.pdf
A court order from the Southern District of New York signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on November 28, 2021. The order grants permission for redacted attorneys to bring HP laptops into Courtroom 318 for the trial of United States vs. Ghislaine Maxwell between November 29, 2021, and January 15, 2022.
EFTA00031025.pdf
This document contains the Declaration of Russell Capone, Counsel to the Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, in support of the Federal Bureau of Prisons' motion for summary judgment regarding FOIA requests filed by The New York Times Company concerning Jeffrey Epstein's incarceration and death. The declaration details the prosecutions of correctional officers Tova Noel and Michael Thomas for falsifying records related to Epstein's suicide, and Nicholas Tartaglione for a quadruple homicide, arguing that releasing certain records would interfere with these pending cases. Attached as Exhibit A is the Indictment of Tova Noel and Michael Thomas, and as Exhibit B is the Superseding Indictment of Nicholas Tartaglione.
EFTA00031018.pdf
This document is a supplemental declaration by Russell Capone, Counsel to the Acting US Attorney, filed in response to a FOIA lawsuit by The New York Times. Capone argues that specific BOP records, including staffing rosters, psychology notes, and SHU logs from July and August 2019, must be withheld under Exemption 7(A) to prevent interference with the pending criminal trials of 'Noel' (prison guards) and 'Tartaglione' (Epstein's former cellmate). The declaration emphasizes that premature release of these documents could influence witness testimony and prejudice jury selection, particularly given the 'unfounded' media theories surrounding Epstein's death.
EFTA00030981.pdf
An email chain from October 2020 involving the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) and the Arraignment Unit Clerk. The correspondence concerns the transmission of signed warrant materials and affidavits related to an 'EPSTEIN' matter, specifically referencing case files '20_MAG_11668'. The emails confirm that signed warrants were attached and forwarded.
EFTA00030962.pdf
This document set contains three items: a 2021 court subpoena commanding a redacted individual to testify in the trial of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell; a 2015 letter from The Mar-a-Lago Club's Human Resources Director to a law firm stating that employment records from 1999-2001 are unavailable, though a specific name (redacted) was found on a 2000 termination list; and business cards for an FBI Special Agent and an NYPD/FBI Task Force Detective.
EFTA00030910.pdf
Court order from Judge Alison J. Nathan dated December 3, 2020, in the case of USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The court approves the defendant's proposed redactions for letters dated November 25 and 30 regarding a renewed bail motion, citing the privacy interests of individuals mentioned in the letters. The court denies the request for an in camera conference but allows written submissions with tailored redactions and orders the parties to schedule briefing for the renewed bail motion.
EFTA00030411.pdf
This document is an affidavit filed on December 1, 2020, by Assistant US Attorney Lara Pomerantz in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. It certifies that the prosecution and defense conferred but failed to reach an agreement regarding the defense's request for the MDC Warden (Tellez) to report directly to the Court on Maxwell's conditions of confinement.
EFTA00030306.pdf
This document is a Notice of Deposition filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on March 24, 2020. The plaintiff (name redacted) notifies the defendants that the oral deposition of Ghislaine Maxwell is scheduled for April 29, 2020, at the offices of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP. The document lists the legal counsel representing the plaintiff, Ghislaine Maxwell, and the executors of Jeffrey Epstein's estate.
EFTA00030247.pdf
This document is a letter from the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York to Judge Richard Berman, arguing strongly for the pretrial detention of Jeffrey Epstein. The government contends that Epstein presents an extreme flight risk due to his vast wealth (estimated at over $500 million), private jet, and international ties (residences in Paris and Virgin Islands), and poses a danger to the community as a 'serial sexual predator' with a history of witness manipulation. The letter rejects Epstein's proposed bail package—which included house arrest with private security—as inadequate, citing his ability to flee and the severity of the charges which carry a potential life sentence.
EFTA00029877.pdf
This document is an affidavit filed on July 27, 2020, by Christian R. Everdell, attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell. It certifies that the defense conferred with the prosecution regarding a protective order but remains in dispute over two issues: restrictions on government witnesses regarding discovery materials and the defense's ability to name victims who have already gone public. The document includes redactions of the names of the Assistant U.S. Attorneys involved.
EFTA00029588.pdf
This is a court subpoena issued on August 28, 2021, by the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. It commands a redacted individual to appear in person on November 29, 2021, at 9:00 a.m. to testify in the criminal case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (20 Cr. 330). The document is signed by US Attorney Audrey Strauss and a court official.
EFTA00029354.pdf
This document is a Court Order from Judge Alison J. Nathan dated May 14, 2021, denying Ghislaine Maxwell's request to modify the frequency of flashlight safety checks during the night at the Metropolitan Detention Center. The defense argued the checks occurred every 15 minutes and disrupted sleep, while the Government maintained the checks were necessary for safety due to Maxwell being housed alone and the high-profile nature of the case. The Court ruled the request unsubstantiated but urged the MDC to consider ways to reduce sleep disruption for pre-trial detainees.
EFTA00029100.pdf
This legal filing is a Reply Memorandum by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team, arguing for the suppression of evidence and dismissal of charges based on government misconduct. The defense asserts that prosecutors misled Chief Judge McMahon about the extent of their prior coordination with civil attorneys (Boies Schiller Flexner) to obtain a grand jury subpoena, thereby circumventing a civil protective order. The document details a specific meeting on February 29, 2016, where civil attorneys 'pitched' the prosecution of Maxwell and provided documents, including flight records (though the specific flight data is not listed in this text), which the prosecution later failed to disclose to the judge.
EFTA00029004.pdf
This document is a letter from the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York to Judge Henry Pitman arguing for the detention of Jeffrey Epstein pending trial. The government asserts that Epstein poses an extreme flight risk due to his vast wealth, international ties, and lack of family connections, and presents a danger to the community given the serious nature of the sex trafficking charges and potential for witness obstruction. The letter outlines the evidence against Epstein, his history, and legal arguments supporting pre-trial detention.
EFTA00028974.pdf
This document is a Reply Memorandum filed by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team on March 15, 2021, supporting a motion to dismiss counts 1-4 of the superseding indictment. The defense argues that the indictment lacks specificity regarding names, dates, and details of the allegations, preventing Maxwell from preparing an adequate defense. The filing criticizes the government for using vague categories like 'Minor Victims' and 'multiple minor girls' without clarification and cites legal precedents to argue that the lack of specificity violates due process.
EFTA00028968.pdf
This document is a Reply Memorandum filed on March 15, 2021, by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team in the Southern District of New York. The defense argues that Counts 1 and 3 of the Superseding Indictment are multiplicitous (charging the same crime twice based on identical facts) and requests the Court order the government to elect one count to prosecute and dismiss the other prior to trial to avoid jury prejudice. The filing contends that the government has failed to prove the existence of two distinct conspiracies.
EFTA00028929.pdf
This document is a Reply Memorandum filed by Ghislaine Maxwell in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, requesting the suppression of evidence obtained from a government subpoena to Boies Schiller and dismissal of counts five and six. It includes a Table of Contents, Table of Authorities citing various legal cases and rules, and a Table of Exhibits detailing communications and notes related to the case from 2016 to 2021, many involving AUSAs and individuals like Peter Skinner, Stan Pottinger, Brad Edwards, and Sigrid McCawley. The memorandum argues that the government misled the court and that the evidence should be suppressed due to due process violations.
EFTA00028903.pdf
This document is a Reply Memorandum filed by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team on March 15, 2021, supporting a motion to dismiss counts one through four of her indictment as time-barred. The defense argues that the 2003 Amendment to 18 U.S.C. § 3283, which extended the statute of limitations, cannot be applied retroactively because Congress explicitly rejected a retroactivity provision. Additionally, the defense contends that the Mann Act offenses charged (enticement to travel and transportation of a minor) do not 'necessarily entail' the sexual abuse of a child, and thus the extended statute of limitations under § 3283 does not apply.
EFTA00028850.pdf
This document is a transcript of a court hearing held on April 21, 2016, before Judge Robert W. Sweet in the case of Giuffre v. Maxwell. The proceedings cover motions to admit attorneys Brad Edwards and Paul Cassell pro hac vice, which the defense contested citing potential conflicts from related Florida litigation. The hearing also addresses discovery disputes, including the production of the plaintiff's medical records, tax returns, employment history, and communications with law enforcement. No flight logs or aircraft data are contained in this document.
EFTA00028706.pdf
A court order filed on June 2, 2021, by Judge Alison J. Nathan in the case of USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The order establishes a detailed schedule for pre-trial disclosures, including deadlines for victim identification, witness lists, Jencks Act materials, and motions in limine, spanning from September to November 2021.
EFTA00028549.pdf
A court order from the Southern District of New York dated August 21, 2019, signed by Judge Richard M. Berman. The order schedules a hearing for August 27, 2019, to discuss the nolle prosequi (dismissal) order proposed by the US Attorney following Jeffrey Epstein's death, explicitly noting the public's informational interest and inviting victims to be heard.
EFTA00028260.pdf
A joint letter submitted to Judge Alison J. Nathan by the U.S. Attorney's Office and Defense Counsel in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The document outlines agreed-upon procedures and disagreements regarding the protection of witness identities during the upcoming trial, including the use of pseudonyms, voir dire protocols to screen jurors, specific jury instructions, and the use of physical binders for sealed exhibits to prevent public viewing. It includes a heavily redacted chart meant to map true witness names to their trial pseudonyms.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity