Maxwell Vs Giuffre update
Sept 09 2020
Thread
Letter filed by Alan Dershowitz. Mr. Dershowitz's request to modify the Maxwell protective order (dkt. no. 153) is granted in part and denied in part. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4355835/1113/giuffre-v-maxwell/
Sept 09 2020
Thread
Letter filed by Alan Dershowitz. Mr. Dershowitz's request to modify the Maxwell protective order (dkt. no. 153) is granted in part and denied in part. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4355835/1113/giuffre-v-maxwell/
2/ Ms. Giuffre shall produce to Dershowitz all sealed materials and discovery that mentions Mr. Dershowitz, excluding material produced by or material (or portions of material) discussing a specific nonparty Doe whose privacy interests are the subject of a separate sealed order
3/ Derschowitz has "had several bites of this particular apple"
He wanted blanket access to all sealed material and discovery relating to the Maxwell investigation
This was previously denied by the court for the following reasons:
He wanted blanket access to all sealed material and discovery relating to the Maxwell investigation
This was previously denied by the court for the following reasons:
4/
Derschowitz' request was staggeringly overboard given the constrained facts at issue
It would threaten to Undermine the unsealing process in the current Maxwell case
The parties providing documents and testimony in the current Maxwell case where relied on protective order



5/
The court ordered Maxwell and Derschowitz to confer and try to reach an agreement on discovery materials
Giuffre had no objection in producing to Derschowitz all deponent, subpoena recipients and affiants to the Maxwell case and sealed materials from the Maxwell action
The court ordered Maxwell and Derschowitz to confer and try to reach an agreement on discovery materials
Giuffre had no objection in producing to Derschowitz all deponent, subpoena recipients and affiants to the Maxwell case and sealed materials from the Maxwell action
6/
The court expressed concerns for 2 reasons
It would threaten the unsealing process and
It would infringe on confidentiality
The court expressed concerns for 2 reasons

