DOJ-OGR-00020694.jpg

Case 22-1426, Document 57, 02/28/2023, 3475900, Page76 of 208
A-72

2/22/23, 1:25 PM
SDNY CM/ECF NextGen Version 1.6

Government Exhibit 52 because Mr. Rodriguez, a former employee, purportedly removed the document from the property before Employee-1 began working for Mr. Epstein. The parties are FURTHER ORDERED to file any proposed redactions to the motion papers on the public docket on or before November 22, 2021, justifying any requested redactions by reference to the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) (Government Replies due by 11/21/2021.). (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 11/19/21)(jw) (Entered: 11/19/2021)

11/19/2021
477
ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. On October 29, 2021, Defendant filed a motion in limine to exclude evidence related to Accuser-3. Dkt. Nos. 387, 444. The Court twice heard argument related to this motion, including extensive argument at the November 10, 2021 in camera hearing that was sealed pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 412. See generally Nov. 1, 2021 Transcript; Nov. 10, 2021 Transcript. The Court has also considered supplemental briefing from the parties. That briefing has been filed temporarily under seal to permit the parties the opportunity to propose redactions in accordance with Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). In a Memorandum Opinion & Order filed under temporary seal, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the Defendant's motion. The Memorandum Opinion & Order lays out the permissible and impermissible testimony that may be offered by this witness based on Rules 412, 404, 401, and 403. The Court will send the temporarily sealed Memorandum Opinion & Order to the parties. By November 21, 2021, the parties are ORDERED to inform the Court whether either seeks sealing or limited redactions of the Courts Memorandum Opinion & Order and of the supplemental briefing, justifying any such request by reference to Federal Rule of Evidence 412(c)(2) and/or the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 11/19/2021)(jw) (Entered: 11/19/2021)

11/19/2021
478
LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, Lara Pomerantz, and Andrew Rohrbach dated November 19, 2021 re: Courtroom Connect Document filed by USA. (Comey, Maurene) (Entered: 11/19/2021)

11/19/2021
690
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. Before the Court is the Defendant's fourth motion in limine to "exclude evidence related to Accuser-3," to whom the Court refers as Witness-3, on the grounds that the testimony is not direct evidence of the charged conspiracies and is inadmissible under Federal Rules of Evidence 404(b) and 403. Dkt. Nos. 387, 444. The Court has twice heard argument related to this motion, including argument at the November 10, 2021 in camera hearing that was sealed pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 412. See generally Nov. 1, 2021 Transcript; Nov. 10, 2021 Transcript. At the November 1, 2021 hearing, the Court provided a brief explanation of its current position based on the information then before it, but the Court ultimately reserved ruling pending additional briefing. The Court is now in receipt of the parties' additional briefing and accordingly is prepared to resolve the motion.(See Footnote 1 on this Memorandum Opinion & Order). The Government now proffers that the anticipated testimony of Witness-3 will describe how she met the Defendant and her relationship with the Defendant and Mr. Epstein. In particular, Witness-3 is anticipated to testify how Defendant introduced her to Mr. Epstein, how massages progressed to involve sexual activity, and Ms. Maxwell's role in facilitating those massages. Based on all of the information now before the Court, including a substantially more detailed proffer by the Government as to the anticipated testimony, see Gov. Supp. Ltr. at 2-3 (Nov. 5, 2021); see also Dkt. No. 452 at 42-43, the Court concludes that some of the anticipated testimony may serve as direct evidence of the Mann Act counts....[*** See this Memorandum Opinion & Order ***]... The parties may submit any requested edits to the proposed limiting instructions that are consistent with the Court's ruling or indicate that they have

https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?211087015221896-L_1_0-1
72/113
DOJ-OGR-00020694