More Unsealed Documents Due in Jeffrey Epstein Civil Case After Review
Sigrid McCawley, a partner at Boies Schiller Flexner in Fort Lauderdale, is asking for review of the oldest documents first after the two sides failed to agree on how to approach unsealing more court filings.
September 04, 2019 at 12:35 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on New York Law Journal
A federal judge appeared inclined Wednesday to adopt a three-tier document-review system in a settled defamation case filed by an accuser of disgraced Palm Beach billionaire financier Jeffrey Epstein.
An appeals court released an initial tranche last month after ordering the release of previously confidential filings, but other papers remain sealed.
The proposed procedure floated by attorneys for longtime Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell would designate materials as judicial, nonjudicial or an in-between category referred to as negligibly judicial.
U.S. District Judge Loretta A. Preska of the Southern District of New York said the approach would help expedite the process for determining which of the hundreds of sealed filings in the case against Maxwell should be made public and would avoid multiple releases down the road.
"I'm only doing this one time," she said.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on Aug. 9 released filings from the summary judgment record of the case filed by Virginia Giuffre in 2015.
Giuffre, who accused Epstein of holding her as a "sex slave" and trafficking her to other powerful men, said Maxwell aided the late money manager and defamed her with statements disputing the sexual trafficking claims. Maxwell has denied the allegations.
The case settled in 2017, but the appeals court in July ordered the first release and directed the lower court to conduct a "particularized review" of the remaining sealed materials, which include discovery documents and motions in limine. The court cautioned the documents were unvetted and were likely filed for partisan purposes in contentious litigation.
The parties were far apart Wednesday on how to achieve that goal. Sigrid McCawley, a Boies Schiller Flexner partner in Fort Lauderdale who represents Giuffre, suggested releasing the files in "staggered form" starting with older docket entries and working forward.
The disagreement at times seemed to frustrate Preska, who told attorneys, "It seems to me you parties should have had a conversation already" about what should be unsealed.
Jeffrey Pagliuca, who represents Maxwell, assured Preska that the sides had discussed the issue but simply could not reach an agreement. Pagliuca, a partner with Haddon, Morgan and Foreman in Denver, said "hundreds" of people were named in the documents under review, though the parties did not provide any details on their identities.
Pagliuca's approach would include grouping the documents by category and then arguing over redactions and other issues. It would also provide time to notify third parties if they were implicated in documents that qualified for release.
Preska, who emphasized speed and efficiency at the hearing, ordered the first round of expedited briefings to be filed in two weeks.
The hearing played out on one of the many legal battlefields remaining after Epstein's death Aug. 10 by suicide in a Manhattan federal jail while awaiting trial on charges of sex trafficking and conspiracy.
The case against Epstein, 66, was dropped after his death, but federal prosecutors are continuing to investigate Epstein's friends, employees and others within his orbit. Some of Epstein's accusers, are suing to recover damages from the financier's estate, which is legally domiciled in the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Two federal probes are also looking into how such a high-profile defendant could have been allowed to kill himself while in federal lockup after a reported suicide attempt. Epstein's criminal defense attorneys have expressed skepticism about a medical examiner's determination that their client killed himself and asked the judge overseeing the case to launch an independent inquiry.
Read More:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute read'They Got All Bent Out of Shape:' Parkland Lawyers Clash With Each Other
Courts of Appeal Conflicted Over Rule 1.442(c)(3) When Claims for Damages Involve a Husband and Wife
Families Settle Court Battle Over Who Owns Parkland Killer's Name, Likeness
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1The Growing PFAS Morass: Why Insurance Should Cover These Products Liability Claims
- 2Dallas Jury Awards $98.65M in Botham Jean Killing by Dallas Officer
- 3In Talc Bankruptcy, Andy Birchfield Skipped His Deposition. Could He Face Sanctions?
- 4Pharmaceutical Patents: Benefits and Challenges
- 5Where Do Web-Tracking Class Actions Belong? 8th Circuit Weighs the Issue
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250