Giuffre
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
13
Very Strong
|
19 | |
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
11
Very Strong
|
28 | |
|
person
the defendant
|
Legal representative |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Legal representative |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Adversarial |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Boies Schiller
|
Client |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Adversarial |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Boies Schiller
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Dershowitz
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
defendant
|
Unspecified |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Adversarial |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Victim perpetrator |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
the defendant
|
Accuser accused |
6
|
1 | |
|
location
court
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
defendant
|
Perpetrator victim |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
Boies Schiller
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Alleged victim abuser |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Alleged victim perpetrator |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
["BSF attorneys"]
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
Boies Schiller
|
Client |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
defendant
|
Acquaintance |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Boies Schiller
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Production of documents in Giuffre v. Maxwell civil litigation | Civil Court | View |
| N/A | Legal appeal | An appeal by Ms. Maxwell addressing an order by Judge Preska unsealing certain deposition materia... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal decision | Judge Preska's decision unsealing the deposition material in Giuffre v. Maxwell. | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| N/A | Legal motion | Giuffre moved to compel Maxwell to answer additional questions she had previously declined to ans... | district court | View |
| N/A | Deposition | Maxwell gave testimony in a deposition in a civil suit. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal case | Giuffre v. Maxwell | this Court | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | An appeal is currently pending in the case of Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 20-2413. | 2d Cir. | View |
| N/A | Recruitment | The defendant recruited Giuffre to Epstein's Palm Beach property under the guise of hiring her as... | Palm Beach | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Civil suit of Giuffre v. Maxwell. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Lawsuit | A lawsuit between Giuffre and Maxwell, cited as Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal discovery | A bitter, hard-fought, and wide-ranging discovery process spanning over a year, which included do... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A district court entered a stipulated Protective Order to handle the confidential nature of the d... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal settlement | The case between Giuffre and Maxwell settled before trial. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal case | A defamation case where Giuffre alleged she was a victim of a scheme and that Epstein and the def... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Maxwell's motion to consolidate the appeal in her criminal case with the appeal in the Giuffre v.... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Judge Preska's order unsealing civil litigation materials in the Giuffre v. Maxwell case. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Appeal of Judge Preska's unsealing order in the civil case Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 20-2413. | This Court | View |
| N/A | Motion to compel | Giuffre moved to compel Maxwell to answer additional intimate and personal questions that she had... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal case | A lawsuit between Giuffre and Maxwell, which involved a bitter, hard-fought, and wide-ranging dis... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Discovery process in the Giuffre v. Maxwell case, which included large document productions, resp... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal case | Appeal of Judge Preska's order unsealing civil deposition material in the case Giuffre v. Maxwell... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Court order | A Protective Order was entered in the case of Giuffre v. Maxwell, prohibiting the sharing of conf... | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2020-11-25 | Legal ruling | A ruling in the case Giuffre v. Maxwell, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 221599, at *16 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 25, ... | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2020-09-09 | Legal ruling | A ruling in the case Giuffre v. Dershowitz, 2020 WL 5439623, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 9, 2020) is ci... | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2019-04-09 | Legal proceeding | A memorandum decision and order on the Government's application to modify a protective order in G... | UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR... | View |
012.pdf
A court order from December 23, 2019, in the case of Maria Farmer v. Indyke and Kahn. Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald ordered the striking of a specific allegation from the plaintiff's complaint which stated that Maria Farmer observed Alan Dershowitz at 'the mansion' going upstairs at the same time as young girls. The judge ruled the allegation immaterial to the specific case at hand and noted that the veracity of such claims was better suited for the separate 'Giuffre v. Dershowitz' litigation.
030.pdf
This document is a Civil Docket Report for Case No. 0:16-mc-61262-JG, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on June 13, 2016. The case involves Plaintiff Bradley J. Edwards filing a motion to quash a subpoena against Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell. The docket records various motions, including requests to seal exhibits and appear Pro Hac Vice, culminating in an order on December 22, 2016, to transfer the motion to the Southern District of New York to be handled as part of the case Giuffre v. Maxwell (1:15-cv-07433-RWS). The case was terminated in the Florida court on December 23, 2016.
EFTA00038941.pdf
This document is a 'Relativity Searches' report dated November 18, 2021, listing document control numbers relevant to four redacted search targets. The results include references to Epstein's 'black book', lists of girls' names, masseuses, phone records, bill logs, and interview transcripts from 2007 and 2018. It serves as an index of evidence rather than a primary source of the evidence itself.
DOJ-OGR-00015073.jpg
This document is page 2 of a Court Order filed on July 31, 2025, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. Judge Paul A. Engelmayer orders the identification of specific information in grand jury transcripts and authorizes the Government to publicly file a redacted letter responding to the order. The document also references the civil litigation case Giuffre v. Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00001825.jpg
This document is page 2 of a court order filed on November 9, 2020, dismissing Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Maxwell sought to appeal a lower court's denial of her request to modify a protective order and attempted to consolidate this with the 'Giuffre v. Maxwell' civil case. The court outlines legal precedents regarding the 'final judgment rule' and 'collateral order exception' to justify the dismissal.
DOJ-OGR-00001721.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the Government to Judge Alison J. Nathan in a criminal case, dated August 13, 2020. The Government argues that the defendant's request for more detailed charges is premature and should be handled through a formal motion for a bill of particulars after discovery is complete. The filing also expresses significant concern over the defense counsel's recent actions in a related civil case, suggesting they may have violated a protective order by publicly referencing sealed discovery materials.
DOJ-OGR-00000861.jpg
This document is a docket summary from the legal case against Ghislaine Maxwell, detailing court filings and orders from late February to mid-March 2021. Key events include Maxwell's third motion for bond, subsequent responses and replies, and a motion for a time extension which was granted. The document culminates in a detailed order from Judge Alison J. Nathan on March 18, 2021, addressing disputes over the redaction and sealing of pretrial motions and exhibits, setting deadlines for the parties to confer and propose joint redactions.
DOJ-OGR-00000769.jpg
This legal document argues for the release of grand jury transcripts with narrowly tailored redactions to protect the identities of victims like Ms. Farmer, citing their strong privacy interests as established in previous cases. However, it argues against redacting the names of third parties who have not been charged or alleged to be involved in the crimes of Epstein and Maxwell, suggesting such an effort "smacks of a cover up" and requires independent court scrutiny.
DOJ-OGR-00000762.jpg
This legal document is a letter from the U.S. Government to Judges Berman and Engelmayer, filed on August 5, 2025. The Government responds to a court order demanding information about the potential unsealing of grand jury materials from the Epstein and Maxwell cases. The Government acknowledges the public's strong right of access to trial exhibits, noting that exhibits from the Maxwell trial were already made public, but requests an extension until August 8, 2025, to provide its final position on unsealing the grand jury exhibits.
DOJ-OGR-00000726.jpg
Fordham law professor Bruce A. Green writes to Judge Richard M. Berman to correct a misunderstanding from an August 27, 2019, hearing in the case *United States v. Epstein*. Green clarifies that, contrary to the court's apparent understanding, he has never served as counsel for Epstein or his estate. He explains that his only involvement in a related matter was serving as an expert witness for Professor Dershowitz in a separate defamation case, a role that concluded in June 2019 and did not involve representation or advocacy.
DOJ-OGR-00020669.jpg
This document is a page from a court docket (SDNY) covering proceedings between June 25, 2021, and July 1, 2021, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. Key events include Judge Alison J. Nathan denying Maxwell's motion to suppress evidence obtained from a law firm involved in her previous civil litigation (Giuffre v. Maxwell) and ordering the unsealing of related documents. The judge also granted a request to limit updates on Maxwell's confinement conditions only to material changes.
DOJ-OGR-00020668.jpg
This document is a page from the SDNY court docket for the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 22-1426) covering June 2021. It details the denial of Maxwell's bail appeal by the Second Circuit, her complaints regarding sleep deprivation at the MDC, and the denial of her motions to suppress evidence. It also orders the unsealing of documents related to the civil case Giuffre v. Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00020511.jpg
This document is a court docket sheet from March 2021 detailing proceedings in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. Key events include the denial of Maxwell's third motion for bail on March 22, 2021, and various orders regarding the redaction and sealing of documents, specifically referencing Exhibit 11 and transcripts from the civil case 'Giuffre v. Maxwell'. The docket also records a subpoena request directed at a law firm representing alleged victims, with the court requiring notice be given to those victims.
DOJ-OGR-00020412.jpg
This document is a court docket log from Case 22-1426, detailing filings and orders from late March 2021 in the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell. Key events include the filing of a superseding indictment by the U.S. government, multiple letters and orders concerning redactions in court documents, motions related to subpoenas, and the payment of appeal fees. The log shows active litigation between Maxwell's defense team, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, and the prosecution, all under the supervision of Judge Alison J. Nathan.
DOJ-OGR-00020410.jpg
This document is a court docket summary from Case 22-1426, detailing legal filings and orders in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell between March 9 and March 24, 2021. Key events include Judge Alison J. Nathan's denial of Maxwell's third motion for bail and several orders concerning the redaction and sealing of court documents. The docket also describes an order related to Maxwell's attempt to subpoena a law firm representing her alleged victims, outlining the legal procedure for such an action.
DOJ-OGR-00002420.jpg
This document is page 11 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) dated February 4, 2021. It outlines Counts Five and Six of the indictment against Ghislaine Maxwell, citing specific testimony from April and July 2016 depositions alleged to be perjury regarding her knowledge of Jeffrey Epstein's recruitment of underage girls and the presence of sex toys at his Palm Beach home. The text also notes a potential violation of a protective order by Giuffre's lawyers in sharing confidential deposition contents with the government.
DOJ-OGR-00002412.jpg
This document is a Table of Authorities from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on February 4, 2021. It lists numerous legal cases, a federal statute (18 U.S.C. § 1623), and various Federal Rules of Civil and Criminal Procedure that are cited as legal precedent within the associated court document. The cases listed involve parties such as Giuffre, Dershowitz, Maxwell, and the United States government.
DOJ-OGR-00002358(2).jpg
This legal document describes the aftermath of a 2017 defamation case settlement between Giuffre and Maxwell, noting Maxwell's unsuccessful attempts to have confidential information returned by the law firm Boies Schiller. It then alleges that in August 2020, Maxwell discovered the government had improperly obtained a file related to the case through an ex parte proceeding, violating a Protective Order that required notice to all parties.
DOJ-OGR-00002356.jpg
This legal document, filed on February 4, 2021, discusses Ghislaine Maxwell's depositions from April and July 2016. It outlines the terms of a Protective Order for confidential materials and describes a motion by Virginia Giuffre's lawyers (Boies Schiller) to compel Maxwell to answer questions, with assurances that her answers would remain confidential. A footnote alleges that Giuffre's side had previously leaked confidential information to the media and the government.
DOJ-OGR-00002356(3).jpg
This legal document, part of case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN filed on February 4, 2021, discusses the terms of a Protective Order concerning confidential materials. It describes how Maxwell relied on this order to testify in her April and July 2016 depositions and a subsequent motion by Giuffre to compel her to answer further questions. The document includes assurances from the law firm Boies Schiller that any answers would remain confidential under the order.
DOJ-OGR-00002356(1).jpg
This document, a legal filing from February 2021, discusses the handling of confidential material under a Protective Order and details events surrounding Maxwell's April and July 2016 depositions. It notes Maxwell's agreement to testify without invoking self-incrimination privilege and Giuffre's subsequent motion to compel further answers. A footnote also highlights concerns about the misuse and leaking of confidential information by the plaintiff and her lawyers to the media, other claimants, and the government.
DOJ-OGR-00002355(3).jpg
This legal document describes the contentious discovery phase of a lawsuit between Giuffre and Maxwell. It notes that Giuffre's law firm, Boies Schiller, attempted to turn the suit into a 'proxy prosecution of Epstein' and sought to add a 'law enforcement' exception to a court-mandated Protective Order, which Maxwell rejected. The case ultimately settled before trial, rendering certain provisions of the Protective Order moot.
DOJ-OGR-00002355(2).jpg
This legal document describes the contentious discovery phase of a lawsuit between Giuffre and Maxwell. It highlights that Giuffre's law firm, Boies Schiller, attempted to use the lawsuit as a 'proxy prosecution of Epstein' and sought to include a 'law enforcement' exception in the protective order to share information with the government, a proposal Maxwell rejected. The document emphasizes the vast and sensitive nature of the information exchanged, citing a related case to describe the discovery as 'hard-fought' and 'extensive'.
DOJ-OGR-00002353.jpg
This legal document is a motion filed on February 4, 2021, on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell to suppress evidence and dismiss two perjury counts against her. The motion argues that the government unlawfully obtained evidence from her civil depositions in the 'Giuffre v. Maxwell' case via a grand jury subpoena, thereby violating a Protective Order from that civil case which prohibited sharing discovery materials with law enforcement.
DOJ-OGR-00002353(3).jpg
This legal document is a motion filed on February 4, 2021, on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell to suppress evidence and dismiss two perjury counts. The motion argues that the government unlawfully obtained evidence from Maxwell's civil depositions in a separate defamation case (Giuffre v. Maxwell) via a grand jury subpoena, thereby violating a Protective Order that prohibited sharing that material with law enforcement.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity