The document refers to 'her lawyers at Boies Schiller'.
Boies Schiller conducted depositions on behalf of its client, Giuffre, in the defamation action against Maxwell.
The document states that 'Boies Schiller represented that Giuffre did not oppose the entry of a protective order'.
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.
DOJ-OGR-00003025.jpg
This legal document, filed on April 16, 2021, recounts events from 2016 concerning the civil litigation between Giuffre and Maxwell. It details the process of establishing a protective order for discovery materials, initiated by Maxwell's motion on March 2, 2016, contested by Giuffre's counsel (Boies Schiller), and ultimately entered by Judge Robert W. Sweet on March 18, 2016. The document also asserts that the USAO-SDNY did not open an investigation into Epstein or Maxwell in 2016 and that the government has no record of email communication between AUSA-1 and Boies Schiller attorneys after May 3, 2016.
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.
Entities connected to both Giuffre and Boies Schiller
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein relationship