By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Photo thread
LightRead - Honduras-Maximum Maxwell Book
SDNY COURTHOUSE, May 6– After the death of Jeffrey Epstein in the MCC jail, Virginia Giuffre, Annie Farmer and others pushed forward with civil litigation for sex trafficking against Ghislaine Maxwell and his estate.
At the end of 2021 Maxwell was found guilty on five of six criminal courts. Inner City Press book "Maximum Maxwell," here.
On May 6, 2022 Alan Dershowitz filed a letter about his deposition on Virginia Giuffre, which he says has been "suspended" since April 14: "Dear Judge Preska: Pursuant to Rule 1.A of Your Honor’s Individual Practices, Professor Alan Dershowitz (“Professor Dershowitz”) respectfully requests leave to file under seal a letter to the Court seeking the Court’s intervention with respect to a number of issues arising out of Plaintiff’s April 13 and 14 deposition, which has been suspended. As grounds therefor, Prof. Dershowitz states that his letter quotes from and attaches Plaintiff’s deposition transcript, which Plaintiff has designated confidential under the Agreed Protective Order (ECF No. 227). Prof. Dershowitz challenges this designation in his letter, but until such time as the transcript is de-designated (either by Court order or agreement of the parties), the letter and the transcript must be filed under seal pursuant to the terms of the Protective Order." We'll have more on this.
Back on February 21, Presidents' Day in the US, Netflix filed this in Guiffre v. Dershowitz: "We represent non-parties in this action, who are currently being sued by defendant Alan Dershowitz in a separate action, Dershowitz v. Netflix, et al. (21-cv-21961) (S.D. Fla. 2021) (the “Florida Action”). Our clients are Netflix, Inc., the subscription streaming service, and the journalists and production company that created a Netflix documentary series about Jeffrey Epstein (the “Netflix Nonparties”).1 Through emails among members of the New York Bar Association, we learned of the Court’s recent order, Dkt. No. 401 (“Order”), which compels Mr. Dershowitz to produce discovery that our clients have produced in the Florida Action...We respectfully request this Court schedule another hearing for the Netflix Nonparties to present their objections before Mr. Dershowitz turns over their documents." Full 11 page submission on Patreon here.
On February 22 Judge Preska ordered that it be heard on February 24: "the Court will hear from the parties and from Netflix, which seeks to intervene in this case (see dkt. no. 407), on Thursday February 24 at 10:00 a.m. The Court will hear from the parties and from Harvard regarding the order compelling Mr. Dershowitz to produce additional emails from his Harvard email account (see dkt. no. 401 at 7; dkt. no. 408) on Thursday February 24 at 11:00 a.m."
But on February 24, things were put over for another day so that the parties could conference. Past 9 pm on February 24, Dershowitz filed "During today’s meet and confer, counsel for the Netflix Nonparties, Rachel Strom, clarified that the Netflix Nonparties do not contend that Prof. Dershowitz is prohibited by the Netflix protective order from producing confidential Netflix discovery materials in this case.1 Instead, they contend only that Prof. Dershowitz violated the Netflix protective order by not providing earlier notice of Plaintiff’s document requests seeking Netflix discovery materials. It is difficult to understand why the Netflix Nonparties seek to make an issue about notice." Full letter on Patreon here.
Inner City Press live tweeted the February 25 proceeding, here:
Netflix is arguing to block Dershowitz from disclosing information from "Filthy Rich" series.
Netflix lawyer: It is true we have waived, in a limited way, our journalistic privileges by providing these documents to Prof Dershowitz. But the idea of the privilege is that interviews won't send up in the parties hands, it has a chilling effect.
Netflix lawyer: It's true that we state that our series is an accurate depiction. But we should be able to look into litigious parties without fear that all files will go to that. That is a real burden, under Rule 26.
Netflix lawyer: We'd like Prof Dershowitz to share with us a list of the material he intends to disclose, before we turn it over to Ms. Giuffre's counsel. Judge Preska: The documents are relevant, they are statements on the claims and counterclaims in this case.
Judge Preska: Get everyone to sign on to the Florida protective order. Adjourned.
Then on March 4, Dershowitz complained that Netflix in seeking sanctions in Florida got an order banning him from disclosing: "We learned last night that notwithstanding this Court’s order and the parties’ cooperation last week towards complying with that Order (and notwithstanding Ms. Strom’s stated position that the Netflix protective order did not prohibit production of Netflix’s documents in this case pursuant to a valid order of this Court), at a discovery conference held in the Netflix action yesterday, the Netflix Nonparties sought and received an order prohibiting Prof. Dershowitz from producing their documents in this case pursuant to this Court’s February 25 Order. The order was made from the bench, is not yet reflected on the docket, and a transcript of the hearing is not yet available (although one has been ordered on an expedited basis). We thus do not know the precise language of the Order or fully appreciate the context in which it was made." Full letter here.
On March 23 Judge Preska convened the parties, and Inner City Press again covered it. An agreement was reached on the information to be turned over, and deposition of Virginia Giuffre was discussed.
The deal was reached to drop the Florida action, and to not pursue the protected material as long as it was destroyed and Dershowitz never saw it. Judge Preska called the deal very adult. At the end it was said "there is no privilege as to the as-broadcast show." Deep. Watch this site.
On January 4, civil defendant (and cross-plaintiff) Alan Dershowitz sought a pre-motion conference on his request for more than 10 depositions, including of Carolyn who testified in the Maxwell trial, and of Epstein's house manager Juan Alessi. Dershowitz annexed a sworn statement Alessi gave in 2015 in Edwards v. Dershowitz.
On January 11, Giuffre's lawyer opposed the expanding number of depositions, saying that Alan Dershowitz "has already deposed the Wexners' personal attorney, John Zeiger, and Leslie Wexner himself, and [REDACTED]." Redacted why?
On January 20, Cooper & Kirk for plaintiff Giuffe wrote to Judge Preska to say defendant Dershowitz' request for admission are improper: "Defendant speculates that Plaintiff should be able to identify 'Carolyn' from the details Carolyn provided in her testimony but this assumes the accuracy of Carolyn's testimony." Full letter here. Carolyn Adriano's interview supports Giuffre's case against Prince Andrew; Dershowitz is citing it for another purpose. We'll stay on these cases.
This is in Giuffre v. Dershowitz, 19-cv-3377 (Preska)
Back on July 23, 2020 SDNY Judge Loretta Preska read out ruling unsealing many documents, while Maxwell's lawyer asked for a stay to appeal, citing Maxwell's imprisonment and July 2021 trial. Inner City Press live tweeted it, below.
On November 16, 2021, Judge Preska held another proceeding in Giuffre v. Dershowitz, right during jury selection voir dire in US v. Ghislaine Maxwell as fate would have it, and Inner City Press live tweeted it:
now in Giuffre v. Dershowitz civil case, a 2 pm proceeding, with lawyers citing Jeffrey Epstein right out of the gate. Replying to
Dershowitz' lawyer: Ms Giuffre at that time never mentioned any sex with Mr. Dershowitz. We intend to seek the deposition of Mrs. Wexner...
Judge Loretta A. Preska: It sounded to me that Mr. Dershowitz wanted to take some of these deposition to show that the deponent never saw Ms. Giuffre with him. Correct?
Dershowitz' lawyer: Some of these are people she would have told, if it were true.
Judge Preska: What about the household folks, and the pilot [echo of Bill Richardson, Inner City Press' Burma / UN story yesterday, here ]
Wexner's lawyer: Mr. Dershowitz is trying to use my client as a prop, for a made for TV moment.
Now argument is made that Dershowitz' theory is that Giuffre accused him in order to extort Wexler
The push for sealing, and decisions to deny, continue. Inner City Press tweeted Judge Preska's July 1, 2021 proceeding, here:
Maxwell has argued that unsealing of document just leads to online coverage. Uh, yeah. Judge Preska: "It's not the job of the Court to police press coverage." Hear, hear. Judge Preska: "Alan Derschowitz' name should be unsealed, as his request."
Judge Preska: Redact the names of the non-party Does. 397, unseal as at 135. 398, paragraph 7 shall remain sealed as it references a non-party Doe.
Judge Preska: This document will remain sealed because it marshals evidence in a way that could be prejudicial to Ms. Maxwell's rights at trial. Inner City Press will have more on this.
Judge Preska: The following shall remain sealed: Docket Number 641-2, 655, 656, 656-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9; 700, 701, 701-1, 701-2, 707, 709, 714, 715, 715-1, 715-2, all shall remain sealed. I ask counsel to confer and prepare the others for unsealing.
Judge Preska: If for example it said, Doe with purple hair and three arms, she could be identified. So it should remain sealed... We've all seen things in the public press. We understand what we are going. There are Does we've read about in the tabloids.
Judge Preska: Anything else today? Counsel, nice to see you. Happy Independence Day. Adjourned.
This case is Giuffre v. Maxwell, 15-cv-7433 (Preska)
On February 26, 2021 Giuffre's counsel Nicole Moss wrote to Judge Preska complaining of delay by Dershowitz in producing his Harvard University email. Dershowitz, the filing says, blames this on Harvard seeking to review all email for compliance with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).
On March 25, Judge Preska held a proceeding on this, which began on a delay. Inner City Press waited and live tweeted it, here:
in Giuffre v. Dershowitz case, issue is availability of Harvard U emails: confidential, further reviewing them or making others pay for the review.
Judge Preska: Why should it be on plaintiff's head to pay the costs of Harvard?
A: This is discover that plaintiff is seeking from a third party. If it were up to Professor Dershowitz he would forego these emails covered by FERPA.
Judge Preska: Of course he would.
Dershowitz' lawyer: Dershowitz has produced thousands of documents --
Judge Preska: You know that's irrelevant.
Dershowitz' lawyer: It's important context. And plaintiff says she only has texts back to Nov 2018. She had a preservation duty. It's not fair.
Dershowitz's lawyer: A ruling here that his emails are not privileged would have far-reaching implications. Ms. Giuffre has an expert, a law professor at -
Judge Preska: I know, in Utah -
Dershowitz's lawyer: So let's get his emails.
Dershowitz' lawyer: They framed the complaint in a way that allows us to ask for this information. They accused Professor Dershowitz of being a raping, a sex trafficker with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Now they will reap what they sow [in discovery]
Then, it was over.
What was accomplished? Many of the fiings are sealed, or "Selected Parties Only." Watch this site.
Back on August 17 Judge Preska held a conference, largely about protective order and also possible deposition of Les Wexner. Inner City Press live tweeted it:
Judge Preska: I am well familiar with the Maxwell case. Isn't the issue you raise solved by seeking leave in advance? Given the problems we've had in Maxwell, let's avoid extraneous documents attached to motions.
Judge Preska: Is there any reason what is produced in this action should have to be produced in the state action?
Christian Kiely for Dershowitz: We had agreed to only take one deposition, not two, for each. But they made up file a motion to compel. So, no.
Imran Ansari (also for Dershowitz) - we have a New York State proceeding tomorrow... We oppose a carte blanche approach that is unfair to Professor Dershowitz.
Judge Preska: What if I consult with the NYS Justice? Any objection?
No. No. Judge Preska: Do you have his number?
Ansari: I'll email it to your chambers. Judge Preska: On Mr. Wexner, I propose that we wait.
A: There is close to zero % change Mr. Wexner is going to voluntarily agree to be deposed.
A: Professor Dershowitz is entitled to depose Wexner to memorialize the denial that has been put in in a letter an hour ago. [Inner City Press tweeted a photographfrom that letter, here.]
Judge Preska: I must get to the issue. What else do you want to talk about, Counsel?
Nothing from the defendant.
Judge Preska: I will look for a protective order tomorrow. Get on it. Thanks for being on.
Judge Schofield said she does not see lumping in the complaint, and that does not think that the motion or motions Ghislaine Maxwell was suggesting she would make would be worth the time.
Maxwell's lawyer Laura Menninger of Denver's Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C. was urged to submitted a letter or answer in a week's time. Menninger pushed forward, saying that given the case's link to New Mexico and that Farmer is not a resident of New York, the shorter of the statute of limitation might apply.
Judge Schofield repeated that the defendants, also for executors of Epstein's estate Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Khan, should file in a week's time. Inner City Press will continue to follow and report on this case. It is Farmer v. Indyke, et al, 19-cv-10475 (Schofield).
***
Your support means a lot. As little as $5 a month helps keep us going and grants you access to exclusive bonus material on our Patreon page. Click here to become a patron.
Feedback: Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
SDNY Press Room 480, front cubicle
500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA
