Haddon. Morgan and Foreman, e c
Haddon. Morgan and Foreman, e c Laura A. Menninger II A I> DO N MORGAN FOREMAN April 6. 2016 Via Email ISO East 10th Avenue Denver. Colorado 80203 Re: Giuffre Maxwell, 15-cv-07433-RWS I appreciate your taking the time to talk to me yesterday. As you know, I represent Ghislaine Maxwell in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in a defamation action brought by Plaintiff :aka Jane Doe #3). During the course of discovery disputes Ms. Sigrid McCawley, counsel for represented to the Hon. Robert W. Sweet that my client is "under investigation" by an unidentified law enforcement agency. She argues, therefore, that she can withhold documents based initially on a supposed "investigative privilege" and then later on a "public interest privilege." I am unaware as to how either of these supposed "privileges" would apply to 10•1114,1imi Regardless, because you are the only person employed by the government who I am aware has knowledge of some of
Summary
Haddon. Morgan and Foreman, e c Laura A. Menninger II A I> DO N MORGAN FOREMAN April 6. 2016 Via Email ISO East 10th Avenue Denver. Colorado 80203 Re: Giuffre Maxwell, 15-cv-07433-RWS I appreciate your taking the time to talk to me yesterday. As you know, I represent Ghislaine Maxwell in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in a defamation action brought by Plaintiff :aka Jane Doe #3). During the course of discovery disputes Ms. Sigrid McCawley, counsel for represented to the Hon. Robert W. Sweet that my client is "under investigation" by an unidentified law enforcement agency. She argues, therefore, that she can withhold documents based initially on a supposed "investigative privilege" and then later on a "public interest privilege." I am unaware as to how either of these supposed "privileges" would apply to 10•1114,1imi Regardless, because you are the only person employed by the government who I am aware has knowledge of some of
Persons Referenced (4)
“... by Plaintiff :aka Jane Doe #3). During the course of discovery disputes Ms. Sigrid McCawley, counsel for represented to the Hon. Robert W. Sweet that my client is "under investigation" by an uni...”
ROBERT W. SWEET“...of discovery disputes Ms. Sigrid McCawley, counsel for represented to the Hon. Robert W. Sweet that my client is "under investigation" by an unidentified law enforcement agency. She argues, therefor...”
Ghislaine MaxwellJeffrey Epstein“... Ms. Maxwell was not named in any non-prosecution agreement with or concerning Jeffrey Epstein. EFTA00211500 Page 2 If I have misunderstood any of those statements, please let me know. Thank you ...”
Tags
Ask AI About This Document
Extracted Text (OCR)
Related Documents (6)
Unsealed Jeffrey Epstein court papers
January 3, 2024 VIA ECF The Honorable Loretta A. Preska District Court Judge United States District Court Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007 Re: Giuffre v. Maxwell, Case No. 15-cv-7433-LAP Dear Judge Preska, Pursuant to the Court’s December 18, 2023, unsealing order, and following conferral with Defendant, Plaintiff files this set of documents ordered unsealed. The filing of these documents ordered unsealed will be done on a rolling basis until c
H3ulgiva
DS9 Document EFTA00590749
[REDACTED - Survivor] Deposition May 2016
Case Document 1090-32 Filed 07/30/20 Page 1 of 89 EXHIBIT Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1090-32 Filed 07/30/20 Page 2 of 89 GIUFFRE VS. MAXWELL Deposition [REDACTED - Survivor] 05/03/2016 _______________________________________________________________________ Agren Blando Court Reporting & Video, Inc. 216 16th Street, Suite 600 Denver Colorado, 80202 303-296-0017 Agren Blando Court Reporting & Video, Inc. Page 3 of 89 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1090-32 Filed 07/30/20 Page 1 IN THE UNI
Dershowitz, 410 F.Supp.3d 564 (2019)
Dershowitz, 410 F.Supp.3d 564 (2019) derives from their inherent power to preserve adversary process's integrity. KeyCite Yellow Flag - Negative Treatment Distinguished by Penrose Hill, Limited v. Mabmy, N.D.Cal., August 18, 2020 410 F.Supp.3d 564 United States District Court, S.D. New York. Plaintiff, v. Alan DERSHOWITZ, Defendant. 19 Civ. 3377 (LAP) 10/16/2019 Synopsis Background: Plaintiff brought action alleging that defendant defamed her by making public statements that she was liar, had committed perjury, and was conspiring with law firm to extort him and others by claiming that she was forced to engage in sexual activity with him. Defendant moved to dismiss and to disqualify law firm Holdings: The District Court, Loretta A. Preska, Senior District Judge, held that: III single publication rule did not apply to bar claim on limitations grounds; (2) plaintiffs allegations were sufficient to defeat defendant's claim to qualified self-defense privilege; and
EFTA01737512
Forum Discussions
This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.