,
15 tweets,
6 min read
Read on Twitter
Good morning again from New York.
Right before Jeffrey Epstein’s death, a large cache of files became public in Giuffre v. Maxwell. Proceedings over what happens to the remainder of sealed files begin today at 9 a.m.
I will cover that hearing live for @CourthouseNews.
Right before Jeffrey Epstein’s death, a large cache of files became public in Giuffre v. Maxwell. Proceedings over what happens to the remainder of sealed files begin today at 9 a.m.
I will cover that hearing live for @CourthouseNews.
@CourthouseNews ICYMI: Here was the 10-page John Doe letter arguing against unsealing of non-parties in the Jeffrey Epstein litigation.
documentcloud.org/documents/6380…
documentcloud.org/documents/6380…
@CourthouseNews "All rise."
Preska: Good morning ladies and gentlemen. Won't you be seated?
We begin.
Preska: Good morning ladies and gentlemen. Won't you be seated?
We begin.
@CourthouseNews Giuffre's attorney Sigrid McCawley says they have proposed an unsealing that would be a review of the docket in a "staggered form."
Preska: It seems you parties should have had a conversation already about what you agree can be unsealed.
Preska: It seems you parties should have had a conversation already about what you agree can be unsealed.
@CourthouseNews McCawley says the parties have not yet agreed on anything.
@CourthouseNews Maxwell's attorney Jeffrey S. Pagliuca is up, and Preska seems frustrated that there has been no agreement in advance about what can go public.
"Did you people not talk about this?" she asked.
"Did you people not talk about this?" she asked.
@CourthouseNews Pagliuca replied that they did talk but simply did not reach an agreement. He proposes dividing the documents into three categories, as to whether they qualify as judicial documents, "non-judicial" documents or negligibly judicial documents.
Preska seems skeptical.
Preska seems skeptical.
@CourthouseNews Pagliuca said that the documents contains "hundreds" if not "thousands" of non-parties.
"There are literally hundreds of pages of investigative reports that mention hundreds of people."
There is also an "address book that has a 1,000 names in it."
"There are literally hundreds of pages of investigative reports that mention hundreds of people."
There is also an "address book that has a 1,000 names in it."
@CourthouseNews Pagliuca proposes the three-category procedure, based on whether the documents qualify as "judicial," in order to sift through whether those non-parties would be implicated.
@CourthouseNews Andrew Celli says that Dershowitz's position is there "should be maximum disclosure at maximum speed."
Preska deadpans: "I don't care."
She's soliciting specific procedures by the parties of how to move ahead, not their broad, off-topic talking points.
Preska deadpans: "I don't care."
She's soliciting specific procedures by the parties of how to move ahead, not their broad, off-topic talking points.
@CourthouseNews McCawley: It sounds like there is some disagreement, your honor.
Preska: No kidding.
Preska: No kidding.
@CourthouseNews Preska, without ruling, appears somewhat swayed by three-category procedure to avoid potentially notifying 1,000 people named in docs that may be designated "non-judicial."
McCawley disputes that 1,000 people would need to be notified.
McCawley disputes that 1,000 people would need to be notified.
@CourthouseNews Pagliuca says: “There are hundreds of other people implicated” in the other documents.
Preska instructs the parties on their written briefings.
Preska instructs the parties on their written briefings.
@CourthouseNews Today's hearings ended with a schedule being set for those written briefings.
Maxwell's attorney Pagliuca argued that it was too fast a schedule, only to be rebuffed by Preska, who said they would act "expeditiously."
Maxwell's attorney Pagliuca argued that it was too fast a schedule, only to be rebuffed by Preska, who said they would act "expeditiously."
@CourthouseNews In case you missed my write-up of this morning's hearing.
