Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
efta-efta00025059DOJ Data Set 8Correspondence

EFTA00025059

Date
Unknown
Source
DOJ Data Set 8
Reference
efta-efta00025059
Pages
0
Persons
0
Integrity
Loading PDF viewer...

Summary

Ask AI About This Document

0Share
PostReddit

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
From: Nicole Simmons To: 'Nathan NYSD Chambers' < Cc: Jeff Pa liuca Laura Mennin Subject: [EXTERNAL] U.S. v. Maxwell, Case No. 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) [Ms. Maxwell's Response to Government's Omnibus Motions in Limine] Date: The, 26 Oct 2021 03:49:44 +0000 Attachments: 2021.10.25_Maxwell's_Respons_to_Government's_Omnibus_Motions_in_Limine.zip Inline-Images: image00 1 jpg Dear Judge Nathan: At the request of Jeffrey Pagliuca, please see attached Ms. Maxwell's Response to the Government's Omnibus Motions in Limine and supporting documents. Regards, Nicole Simmons Nicole Simmons Haddon, Morgan and Foreman. P C. Denver, Colorado www.hmflaw.com EFTA00025059

Technical Artifacts (1)

View in Artifacts Browser

Email addresses, URLs, phone numbers, and other technical indicators extracted from this document.

Domainwww.hmflaw.com

Related Documents (6)

DOJ Data Set 8CorrespondenceUnknown

EFTA00021875

0p
DOJ Data Set 8CorrespondenceUnknown

EFTA00016944

0p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Ca_4ate.24h24/43134.01FrietibtOrtlefifitin0a0le28013,8111$2eafiabef146f 22

Ca_4ate.24h24/43134.01FrietibtOrtlefifitin0a0le28013,8111$2eafiabef146f 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK X Plaintiff, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. X 15-cv-07433-LAP Ms. Maxwell's Reply In Support Of Iler Objections to tnsealinu Sealed Materials Laura A. Menninger Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Ty Gee HADDON, MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue EFTA00074964 Ca_QatIgt24743tictoWneDbtOrfiefiVIMOXIle?BOWERKVaffizte12401 22 Introduction This Court asked the parties to brief three issues: "(a) the weight of presumption of public access that should be afforded to an item, (b) the identification and weight of any countervailing interests supporting continued sealing/redaction of the item, and (c) whether the countervailing interests rebut the presumption of public access to the item." DE 1044 at 1. Plaintiff and the Miami Herald's responses improperly afford the highest level of presumption to discovery dispute documents, deny that any co

40p
Court UnsealedAug 9, 2019

Maxwell Disputes

Case 18-2868, Document 284, 08/09/2019, 2628244, Page1 of 38 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------X Plaintiff, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. -------------------------------------------------- ............................................. VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE, 15-cv-07433-RWS Defendant’s Reply to Plaintiff’s Statement of Contested Facts and Plaintiff’s “Undisputed Facts” Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 56.1 Laura A. M

38p
DOJ Data Set 8CorrespondenceUnknown

EFTA00024232

0p
DOJ Data Set 8CorrespondenceUnknown

EFTA00010184

0p

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.