UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK X UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. X 20-CR-330 (AJN) NOTICE OF APPEAL PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant in the above-captioned case, hereby appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from the district court's September 2, 2020, Memorandum Opinion and Order denying her motion to modify the protective order. Pichler v. UNITE, 585 F.3d 741, 746 n.6 (3d Cir. 2009) ("We have jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine to review the denial of the motion to modify the Protective Order and the denial of the motion to reconsider."); Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity Servs., Inc., 832 F.2d 739, 742 (2d Cir. 1987) (denial of motion to modify protective order is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine) (citing Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-47 (1949)); see also Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41
Summary
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK X UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. X 20-CR-330 (AJN) NOTICE OF APPEAL PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant in the above-captioned case, hereby appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from the district court's September 2, 2020, Memorandum Opinion and Order denying her motion to modify the protective order. Pichler v. UNITE, 585 F.3d 741, 746 n.6 (3d Cir. 2009) ("We have jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine to review the denial of the motion to modify the Protective Order and the denial of the motion to reconsider."); Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity Servs., Inc., 832 F.2d 739, 742 (2d Cir. 1987) (denial of motion to modify protective order is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine) (citing Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-47 (1949)); see also Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41
Persons Referenced (3)
“...Respectfully submitted, s/ Laura A. Menninger Laura A. Menninger (LM-I374) Jeffrey S. Pagliuca (pro hac vice) HADDON, MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C. Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwe...”
Nicole Simmons“...Section 17 of the CM/ ECF Rules and served all parties of record by email. /s/ Nicole Simmons 3 EFTA00087359”
Ghislaine MaxwellTags
Ask AI About This Document
Extracted Text (OCR)
Related Documents (6)
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
Cagean.g0c44/ 71SEAFierbd664164i igl5V2PilaW6M/Joagria44
Cagean.g0c44/ 71SEAFierbd664164i igl5V2PilaW6M/Joagria44 1?)f 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK X Plaintiff, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. X 15-cv-07433-LAP Ms. Maxwell's Objections to Unsealing Docket Entries 143. 173. and 199 and to Unsealing Docket Entries 164 and 230 at This Time. Laura A. Menninger Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Ty Gee HADDON, MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 EFTA00075004 CageaUlg0caAIDer0dthhilfii igl5V2Pil&iA6/2bagctacir4 2%f 3 Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, through her counsel and pursuant to this Court's Order and Protocol for Unsealing Decided Motions, DE 1044, as clarified by DE 1053, objects to the unsealing of the Sealed Items contained in: • DE 143 (and related DEs 142, 144, 144-1, 149, 150, 150-1, 151, 152, 153, and 153- 1); • DE 172 (and related DEs 171, 173, 173-1, 189, 190, 190-1, 202, 203, 204-1, 211, 212, 212-1, and 224) and; • DE 199 (and related DEs 200, 200-1, 228,2 29,
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
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 88 Filed 04/08/16 Page 1 of 7
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 92 Filed 04/11/16 Page 1 of 22
From: '
From: ' To:' Cc: Subject: FW: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (MN) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2020 21:55:08 +0000 Attachment Inline-Images: image001.jpg FYI From: Nicole Simmons < Sent: Monday, August 24, 2020 11:57 AM To: Cc: < ; Laura Menninger ; Ann Lundberg Subject: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) [Proposed Redaction to Request and Reply to Modify Protective Order (Under Seal)] Dear Judge Nathan, At the request of Jeffrey S. Pagliuca, please see attached Ms. Maxwell's Proposed Redactions to her Request and Reply in Support of Modifying the Protective Order filed under. Regards, Nicole Nicole Simmons Haddon, Morgan and Foreman P.C. PH FX DIRECT: EFTA00040705
Forum Discussions
This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.