Adam Klasfeld @KlasfeldReports Reporter, @CourthouseNews: NYC+Int’l. RTs=What's it to ya? adam[at]adamklasfeld[dot]com PGP Fingerprint: F427 EE3B 6F05 E5D5 785B 775B 2C74 683C 219D 91DC Sep. 04, 2019 2 min read

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.

ICYMI: Here was the 10-page John Doe letter arguing against unsealing of non-parties in the Jeffrey Epstein litigation.

 https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6380648-Maxwell-Doe.html 

"All rise."

Preska: Good morning ladies and gentlemen. Won't you be seated?

We begin.

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.

McCawley says the parties have not yet agreed on anything.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

McCawley: It sounds like there is some disagreement, your honor.

Preska: No kidding.

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.

Pagliuca says: “There are hundreds of other people implicated” in the other documents.

Preska instructs the parties on their written briefings.

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."

In case you missed my write-up of this morning's hearing.


You can follow @KlasfeldReports.



Bookmark

____
Tip: mention @threader_app on a Twitter thread with the keyword “compile” to get a link to it.

Enjoy Threader? Sign up.

Threader is an independent project created by only two developers. The site gets 500,000+ visits a month and our iOS Twitter client was featured as an App of the Day by Apple. Running this space is expensive and time consuming. If you find Threader useful, please consider supporting us to make it a sustainable project.