| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
14
Very Strong
|
11 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Adversarial |
12
Very Strong
|
8 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
David Boies
|
Client |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
ALAN DERSHOWITZ
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Sigrid S. McCawley
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Sigrid McCawley
|
Client |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Bradley J. Edwards
|
Client |
3
|
3 | |
|
person
Bradley J. Edwards
|
Legal representative |
2
|
2 | |
|
person
Paul Cassell
|
Client |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-08-03 | Court order | The Court issued an order, pursuant to which the parties submitted disputes for resolution regard... | UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR... | View |
| 2017-05-25 | N/A | Filing of Complaint | United States District Cour... | View |
| 2017-01-01 | N/A | Scheduled trial date for the underlying case (Giuffre v. Maxwell) | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2016-03-04 | N/A | Filing of Document 124-3 (Proposed Protective Order) | United States District Cour... | View |
| 2016-03-04 | Legal filing | A [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER was filed with the court in the case of Virginia L. Giuffre v. Ghis... | United States District Cour... | View |
| 2016-03-04 | N/A | Filing of Document 134-3 (Proposed Protective Order) | Southern District Of New York | View |
| 2016-03-02 | N/A | Document 39-1 filed with the court. | Southern District Of New York | View |
| 2016-02-05 | Legal notice | Plaintiff's Notice of Taking Videotaped Deposition of Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell was issued. | N/A | View |
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.
A court order filed on March 3, 2017, by Judge Robert W. Sweet in the case of Virginia L. Giuffre v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The document sets a schedule for hearing various motions throughout March 2017 and establishes a deadline for objections to deposition designations in April 2017. It also references a related motion to quash in the case of Bradley v. Maxwell.
This document is a legal notice filed by Ghislaine Maxwell's attorneys on December 16, 2016, in the Southern District of Florida regarding a subpoena served on Bradley J. Edwards. Maxwell argues that rulings made by the Southern District of New York on a similar subpoena served on Paul Cassell (another attorney for Virginia Giuffre) should be binding (res judicata) on the Edwards subpoena. The filing includes a table comparing the requests in both subpoenas and the corresponding rulings from the SDNY court, asking the Florida court to issue a consistent order requiring production of certain documents and granting the motion to quash for others.
This document is a formal notice filed on December 16, 2016, in the Southern District of Florida, by attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell. It informs the court and opposing counsel (specifically Bradley J. Edwards' attorney Jack Scarola) that 'Exhibit B' related to a subpoena status notice has been filed under seal. The underlying case referenced is Virginia L. Giuffre v. Ghislaine Maxwell in the Southern District of New York.
This document is a motion filed on December 16, 2016, by Ghislaine Maxwell's attorneys in the Southern District of Florida. The motion requests permission to file 'Exhibit B' under seal, noting that the exhibit is a sealed order from the Southern District of New York in the underlying 'Giuffre v. Maxwell' case. The document lists legal counsel for Maxwell and for Bradley J. Edwards, who is the subject of a subpoena in this miscellaneous action.
This document is a Motion to Seal filed on July 7, 2016, by attorney Jack Scarola on behalf of Bradley J. Edwards in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Edwards seeks to seal exhibits attached to his Motion to Quash a subpoena, specifically referencing confidential depositions of Ghislaine Maxwell and Rinaldo Rizzo, as well as documents related to Alan Dershowitz, which are already under seal in the Southern District of New York. The motion argues that sealing is necessary to comply with protective orders from the underlying case.
This is a court order from the Southern District of Florida filed on July 7, 2016. Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman granted a request by Bradley J. Edwards to seal his reply regarding a Motion to Quash Subpoena (or for a Protective Order) in relation to the underlying civil case of Virginia L. Giuffre v. Ghislaine Maxwell.
This document is a reply filed by Bradley J. Edwards in support of his motion to quash a subpoena served on him by Ghislaine Maxwell in the case of Giuffre v. Maxwell. Edwards argues that the subpoena imposes an undue burden on him as a non-party and opposing counsel, seeking information that is already in Maxwell's possession, privileged, irrelevant, or available from other sources. The brief details the history of related litigation, including the CVRA case and a defamation suit against Alan Dershowitz, to support the argument that the subpoena is harassing and unnecessary.
This document is a motion filed on July 7, 2016, in the Southern District of Florida by attorney Jack Scarola on behalf of Bradley J. Edwards. Edwards requests permission to file a reply exceeding the standard page limit (up to 25 pages) in support of his motion to quash a subpoena served by Ghislaine Maxwell. The motion explains that the extra length is necessary to address allegations made by Maxwell regarding Edwards' prior filings and alleged discovery withholding by his client, Virginia Giuffre.
This document is a proposed court order filed on July 7, 2016, in the Southern District of Florida. It grants a motion by Bradley J. Edwards to file a reply exceeding the standard page limit (up to 25 pages) in support of his motion to quash a subpoena related to the underlying civil case of Virginia L. Giuffre v. Ghislaine Maxwell.
Declaration by Jeffrey S. Pagliuca, attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on June 30, 2016, in the Southern District of Florida. The document lists 18 exhibits (A-R) supporting Maxwell's opposition to Bradley J. Edwards' motion to quash a subpoena. Several exhibits are filed under seal, while others include procedural documents from related cases (Cassell v. Dershowitz, Epstein v. Rothstein, Jane Doe v. US) and communications regarding discovery and subpoenas.
This document is a transcript of a court hearing on April 21, 2016, in the case of Giuffre v. Maxwell. The hearing addresses motions to admit Brad Edwards and Paul Cassell as counsel for the plaintiff, which the defense opposes citing conflicts with other litigation (Florida cases) and their status as potential witnesses. The judge also rules on various discovery disputes, including the production of Giuffre's medical records (limited to 1999-2002), tax returns (15 years ordered), and statements made to law enforcement (to be reviewed in camera).
This document is Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's second amended supplemental response to discovery requests from Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, dated April 29, 2016. It details Giuffre's legal representation history from 2009 to 2016, listing specific attorneys and cases including actions against Jeffrey Epstein, the US Government, and Alan Dershowitz. The document also contains objections to requests for financial records regarding payments from Epstein or media organizations, asserting attorney-client privilege and irrelevance.
This document is a 'Notice of Filing' submitted to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on June 29, 2016. It serves to notify the court and opposing counsel that Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell has filed Exhibits A, G, H, I, and N under seal. These exhibits are attached to a declaration by her attorney, Jeffrey S. Pagliuca, in support of her opposition to Bradley J. Edwards' motion to quash a subpoena.
This document is a motion filed on June 29, 2016, by attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell in the Southern District of Florida. The motion requests permission to file specific exhibits (A, G, H, I, and N) under seal because they were designated as confidential in the underlying case (Giuffre v. Maxwell) in the Southern District of New York. The document includes a certificate of service indicating the motion was served electronically to attorney Jack Scarola representing Bradley J. Edwards.
This document is a Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice filed on June 29, 2016, in the Southern District of Florida. Attorney Denise D. Riley requests that attorney Jeffrey S. Pagliuca of the Colorado firm Haddon, Morgan and Foreman be admitted to represent Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell in matters related to a subpoena issued to Bradley J. Edwards. The document includes contact information for the attorneys involved and a certificate of service to opposing counsel Jack Scarola.
This document is a proposed court order filed on June 29, 2016, in the Southern District of Florida, granting attorney Jeffrey S. Pagliuca permission to appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell. The order relates to a subpoena issued to Bradley J. Edwards in connection with the underlying case of Virginia L. Giuffre v. Ghislaine Maxwell. It also establishes electronic filing notifications for Pagliuca and his legal assistant, Nicole Simmons, at the firm Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C.
This document is a formal certification filed by attorney Jeffrey S. Pagliuca in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on June 29, 2016. It pertains to a subpoena issued to Bradley J. Edwards in relation to the underlying case of Virginia L. Giuffre v. Ghislaine Maxwell. Pagliuca certifies his compliance with local rules and his good standing with the Colorado bar.
This document outlines Ghislaine Maxwell's formal objections and responses to Virginia Giuffre's second request for production of documents in the 2015 civil case. Maxwell's counsel objects to numerous requests on grounds of privilege, relevance, and burden, specifically refusing to produce financial documents (tax returns, bank statements, asset lists) pending a motion for a protective order. The document also addresses requests for Joint Defense Agreements with Jeffrey Epstein and Alan Dershowitz, communications regarding sexual abuse allegations, and funding sources for the TerraMar Project, including any from the Clinton Foundation.
Legal declaration by attorney Bradley J. Edwards filed on June 13, 2016, in support of a motion to quash a subpoena from Ghislaine Maxwell. Edwards details his representation of Virginia Giuffre and the undue burden of reviewing over 200,000 emails for communications with journalists. He explicitly states that Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein share a joint defense agreement and mentions Giuffre's association with the organization 'Victims Refuse Silence, Inc.'
This document is a legal filing by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team objecting to the unsealing of specific docket entries (143, 173, 199, 164, and 230) in the civil case brought by Virginia Giuffre. The defense argues that these documents contain sensitive information regarding non-parties ('Does'), inadmissible hearsay, and prejudicial materials such as flight logs and police reports that were improperly filed to bias the court. The filing emphasizes the need to protect the privacy of non-parties and the integrity of ongoing criminal investigations into Jeffrey Epstein's conduct.
This document is a Memorandum & Order from Judge Loretta Preska dated July 29, 2020, denying Ghislaine Maxwell's request to reconsider the unsealing of her deposition transcripts and those of 'Doe 1'. Maxwell argued that her recent arrest and indictment were new developments requiring secrecy, but the court ruled these risks were already considered ('plowed ground') and that she failed to raise these specific objections in a timely manner after her arrest. The court granted a brief stay until July 31, 2020, to allow Maxwell to appeal, with unsealing scheduled for August 3, 2020, absent further orders.
This document is a legal response filed on June 24, 2020, by Intervenors Julie Brown and the Miami Herald Media Co. arguing against Ghislaine Maxwell's objections to unsealing specific court documents (Dkt. Entries 143, 164, 172, 199, and 230). The Intervenors argue that Maxwell's privacy claims are unsubstantiated and do not outweigh the public interest in disclosure, particularly regarding allegations of sex trafficking and abuse of minors. The filing explicitly mentions that the documents in question include a 'Flight Log Summary Chart' and 'flight logs', police reports, and deposition transcripts, arguing that these should be made public.
Judge Loretta Preska denied Ghislaine Maxwell's request to reconsider the unsealing of her deposition transcripts, ruling that her recent arrest was not a valid new ground for reconsideration as she had failed to raise it during the weeks prior to the court's original decision. The court noted that the potential for criminal charges had already been weighed in the original unsealing order. A short stay was granted until August 3, 2020, to allow Maxwell to appeal to the Court of Appeals before the documents are released.
This document is the cover page for the confidential videotaped deposition of Ghislaine Maxwell, which took place on April 22, 2016. The deposition is part of the civil lawsuit filed by Plaintiff Virginia L. Giuffre against Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case No. 15-cv-07433-RWS).
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity