Judge Engelmayer
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Legal representative |
2
|
2 | |
|
person
Rivera
|
Judicial |
2
|
2 | |
|
location
USANYS
|
Judicial oversight |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Assistant United States Attorney
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Judicial oversight |
1
|
1 | |
|
organization
NY Times
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Rivera
|
Defendant judge |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Rivera
|
Defendant and presiding judge |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-08-05 | N/A | Submission of legal letter regarding unsealing of grand jury materials. | New York, NY (SDNY) | View |
| 2025-08-04 | N/A | Submission of Maxwell grand jury transcripts to Judge Engelmayer. | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2020-12-21 | N/A | Court conference where Judge Engelmayer expressed concern over unequal treatment of Rivera vs. Ma... | Court (Virtual or NY) | View |
| 2020-12-21 | N/A | Court conference in United States v. Rivera where Judge Engelmayer criticized the disparity in ac... | Court (Virtual or SDNY) | View |
| 2020-12-21 | N/A | Court conference for United States v. Rivera et al. | Court (likely SDNY) | View |
| 2020-12-21 | N/A | Court conference in United States v. Rivera where Judge Engelmayer criticized the disparity in ja... | Court | View |
| 2020-12-21 | N/A | Court conference in United States v. Rivera where Judge Engelmayer raised the issue of disparity ... | Court | View |
| 2020-12-21 | N/A | Court conference where defense counsel cited MDC's accommodations for Maxwell as 'strikingly diff... | N/A | View |
| 2020-12-21 | N/A | Court conference in United States v. Rivera where defense counsel argued disparate treatment comp... | Court (Virtual or SDNY) | View |
| 2020-12-21 | N/A | Court conference in United States v. Rivera where defense counsel cited Maxwell's accommodations. | Court | View |
| 2020-03-31 | N/A | Bail denied in US v. Conley | S.D.N.Y. | View |
020.pdf
This document is a legal letter dated February 6, 2020, from attorney Mariann Meier Wang to Judge Debra Freeman regarding discovery schedules in three lawsuits (Jane Doe 15, Mary Doe, and Davies) against the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein. The plaintiffs advocate for standard discovery timelines (120 days), while the Defendants (Co-Executors Indyke and Kahn) request longer periods (140-160 days) citing the complexity of managing over twenty pending cases against the Estate. The letter also touches on the status of settlement discussions in the Davies case, noting that the voluntary compensation program has not yet been approved.
EFTA00031941.pdf
This document is an email chain from March 2021 between Assistant United States Attorneys in the Southern District of New York (USANYS). The correspondence concerns a request for a list of all 'Jeffrey Epstein-related FOIA lawsuits' to assist with a 'criminal discovery matter.' The chain confirms the existence of two specific cases: one involving the NY Times before Judge Engelmayer, and one involving Radar Online before Judge Gardephe (Case 17 Civ. 3956).
EFTA00031587.pdf
This document is an email chain from March 2021 between personnel at the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (USANYS). The correspondence concerns a criminal discovery matter where the participants are seeking a list of all Jeffrey Epstein-related Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits handled by the Civil Division. The emails mention Judge Engelmayer as presiding over the 'main matter' related to the inquiry.
EFTA00031576.pdf
Internal US Attorney's Office email chain dated December 21, 2020, discussing a legal challenge in the case U.S. v. Rivera. Judge Engelmayer demanded an explanation from the Bureau of Prisons regarding why Ghislaine Maxwell (at MDC) received significantly better accommodations (91 hours/week laptop access vs. 21 hours) than defendant Justin Rivera (at MCC). The email outlines the disparities and prepares for a required declaration due by December 31.
EFTA00030099.pdf
An email chain from March 2021 involving Assistant United States Attorneys from the Southern District of New York (SDNY). The correspondents are coordinating to compile a list of all Jeffrey Epstein-related FOIA lawsuits handled by the Civil Division for use in a criminal discovery matter. The emails mention consulting civil clerks and a colleague handling a main matter before Judge Engelmayer.
EFTA00030063.pdf
This document is an email chain from late December 2020 discussing disparities in counsel and discovery access for Ghislaine Maxwell (detained at MDC) and Justin Rivera (detained at MCC). Judge Engelmayer requested a declaration from the Bureau of Prisons to explain why Maxwell's accommodations were 'strikingly different and far superior' to Rivera's, citing differences in case complexity, housing situations, and inmate populations at the respective facilities. The emails detail the efforts to draft this declaration and address specific questions and concerns regarding the document's content and timeline.
EFTA00030058.pdf
This document is an email thread among US Attorney's Office (SDNY) staff regarding a court order from Judge Engelmayer in the case of United States v. Justin Rivera. The Judge required the BOP to explain why Ghislaine Maxwell (detained at MDC) received significantly better access to legal counsel and laptops than Rivera (detained at MCC), specifically citing 'terrible optics' and potential disparity based on class/race. The emails detail the drafting of a declaration to explain that the differences are due to Maxwell's protective custody status and the sheer volume of discovery in her case, compared to Rivera's placement in the general population.
EFTA00026928.pdf
An email dated April 14, 2021, from an Assistant United States Attorney regarding the 'Epstein FOIA' case (specifically Times v. BOP, case 20cv833). The sender circulates a draft letter to Judge Engelmayer concerning 'Noel' and next steps in the litigation ahead of a scheduled 10:00 call.
EFTA00021362.pdf
This document is an email chain from March 2021 between Assistant United States Attorneys in the Southern District of New York. They are coordinating to compile a list of all Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits related to Jeffrey Epstein for a criminal discovery matter. The correspondence confirms the existence of two specific cases: one involving the NY Times before Judge Engelmayer, and another involving Radar Online (17 Civ. 3956) before Judge Gardephe.
EFTA00018986.pdf
This document is an email chain dated March 12, 2021, between Assistant United States Attorneys in the Southern District of New York (SDNY). The correspondence concerns a 'criminal discovery matter' for which the attorneys are seeking a comprehensive list of all Jeffrey Epstein-related FOIA lawsuits handled by the Civil Division. The emails mention a 'main matter' pending before Judge Engelmayer and a specific SDNY case believed to be against the FBI.
EFTA00015972.pdf
This document is an internal email chain among SDNY prosecutors dated December 21, 2020. It discusses a legal issue in the case *United States v. Rivera et al.*, where Judge Engelmayer expressed frustration that defendant Justin Rivera (at MCC) received significantly less access to discovery and legal counsel compared to Ghislaine Maxwell (at MDC). The emails detail the stark difference in hours allowed (91 hours/week for Maxwell vs 21 hours/week for Rivera) and mention the seizure of 60 devices and an entire FBI file from a prior Florida investigation in the Maxwell case.
EFTA00015902.pdf
This document is an email chain between US Attorneys regarding a judicial inquiry into why Ghislaine Maxwell (at MDC) received significantly better legal access than Justin Rivera (at MCC). Judge Engelmayer called the disparity 'terrible' optics. The BOP's explanation was that Maxwell's protective custody status (isolation) allowed her exclusive use of equipment, whereas Rivera was in the general population sharing limited resources with ~80 other inmates. The emails track the drafting of a declaration to explain this to the court by the December 31, 2020 deadline.
EFTA00013342.pdf
This document is an email chain within the US Attorney's Office (SDNY) discussing a legal challenge in the case United States v. Rivera. The judge and defense counsel questioned why Ghislaine Maxwell (at MDC) received significantly greater access to laptops (13 hours/day vs 3) and video counsel visits than Justin Rivera (at MCC). The correspondence outlines the Bureau of Prisons' justification, attributing the disparity to Maxwell's protective custody status and massive discovery volume versus Rivera's general population housing.
EFTA00013337.pdf
This document is an internal email chain within the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (USANYS) from December 2020. It discusses a legal issue raised by Judge Engelmayer in the case of *United States v. Rivera*, where the judge criticized the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) for providing significantly better access to counsel and electronic discovery to Ghislaine Maxwell (at MDC) compared to Justin Rivera (at MCC). The emails detail the drafting of a declaration to explain that Maxwell's privileges (such as 13 hours/day of laptop access) are due to her unique protective custody status and the massive volume of discovery in her case, whereas Rivera is in the general population with shared resources.
EFTA00013329.pdf
This document is an internal email chain within the US Attorney's Office (SDNY) regarding a legal issue raised by Judge Engelmayer in the case *United States v. Rivera*. The Judge criticized the disparity between the extensive discovery and counsel access provided to Ghislaine Maxwell at MDC Brooklyn (91 hours/week laptop access) versus the limited access provided to Justin Rivera at MCC New York (21 hours/week). The emails discuss drafting a declaration to explain that these differences are due to Maxwell's unique protective custody status and facility capabilities, rather than preferential treatment based on class or race.
DOJ-OGR-00013170.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. The Judge and attorneys (Menninger and Rohrbach) are discussing the admissibility of testimony and potential violations of witness sequestration (witnesses speaking to each other). The Judge indicates he is unlikely to exclude testimony unless there was a 'knowing and full violation,' preferring to let the issue be handled during cross-examination.
DOJ-OGR-00005801.jpg
This legal document, filed on October 29, 2021, argues against the defendant's claim regarding expert testimony in a sex trafficking case. It cites Judge Engelmayer's reasoning from another case (United States v. Randall) to assert that statistical error rates are an 'unusually poor fit' for evaluating qualitative research on trauma and grooming. The document concludes that the proper way to challenge the expert's (Dr. Rocchio's) findings is through cross-examination before a jury, not by deeming them irrelevant under a Daubert analysis.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity