DOJ-OGR-00020670.jpg

Case 22-1426, Document “Taaa | 3475900, Paged2 of 208 | A-48_ 2/22/23, 1:25 PM SDNY CM/ECF NextGen Version 1.6 07/02/2021 les) — io LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated July 2, 2021 re: Cosby Opinion (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 07/02/2021) LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated July 2, 2021 re: Cover Letter Attaching Unsealed Exhibits for the Memorandum in Support of the Defendant's Motion Under the Due Process Clause to Suppress all Evidence Obtained from the Government's Subpoena to Boies Schiller and to Dismiss Counts Five and Six (Dkt. No. 134) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit D, # 2 Exhibit E, #3 Exhibit F, # 4 Exhibit G)(Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 07/02/2021) 07/02/2021 les) _— i 07/02/2021 los) _— INO ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell re: Defense counsel, including David Markus, are ORDERED to respond to the Governments July 1, 2021 letter motion, Dkt. No. 309, by July 9, 2021 (Defense Counsel Responses due by 7/9/2021) (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 7/2/21)Gw) (Entered: 07/02/2021) LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Bobbi C. Sternheim dated 07/09/2021 re: Counsel of Record reply to Court Order Dkt 312 (Sternheim, Bobbi) (Entered: 07/09/2021) LETTER addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from David Oscar Markus dated 7/9/21 re: The Governments request should be denied because (1) undersigned counsel does not currently represent Ms. Maxwell, and (2) the Op-Ed did not violate the local rules. (jw) (Entered: 07/12/2021) 07/09/2021 les) _— les) 07/12/2021 es) faa ms 07/30/2021 les) a al ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. The Government has moved for an order requiring David Markus to comply with Local Criminal Rule 23.1 following an op-ed that he authored opining on the merits of this pending case. Dkt. No. 309. Mr. Markus is therefore ORDERED to comply with Local Criminal Rule 23.1. The Government does not ask the Court to discipline Mr. Markus based on his op-ed and the Court declines to consider whether it violated Rule 23.1 given the potential lack of clarity with respect to whether Mr. Markus was bound by the rule. The Court emphasizes that the rule provides illustrative examples of statements that "presumptively involve a substantial likelihood that their public dissemination will interfere with a fair trial or otherwise prejudice the due administration of justice within the meaning of the rule." S.D.N.Y. Local Criminal Rule 23(d). Going forward, Mr. Markus and all lawyers associated with the pending case are now clearly on notice that their conduct falls under the purview of Local Criminal Rule 23.1. Indeed, the above concerns do not apply only to Mr. Markus. This Court has previously noted that counsel[,] agents for the parties and counsel for potential witnesses must take care to protect the Defendant's right to a fair trial by an impartial jury. Dkt. No. 28. This Court is cognizant that criminal matters heading toward trial are especially sensitive to extrajudicial statements. All those associated with this case must act to ensure the case is tried solely in court or else they risk being deemed responsible for any trial delay or for undermining the integrity of the upcoming trial. See $.D.N.Y. Local Criminal Rule 23.1(h). In addition to the impact it could have on this matter, failure to comply could also result in attorney discipline. Id. Rule 23.1(i). (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 7/30/21)Gw) Modified on 7/30/2021 Gw). (Entered: 07/30/2021) 07/30/2021 NOTICE OF MAILING as to Ghislaine Maxwell: Copy of Order dated 7/30/21 (dkt.315) was emailed to Mr. Markus on Friday, September 30. (jbo) (Entered: 08/03/2021) 08/05/2021 316 | INTERNET CITATION NOTE as to Ghislaine Maxwell: Material from decision with Internet citation re: 315 Order. (sjo) (Entered: 08/05/2021) 08/13/2021 317 | OPINION & ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. For the reasons above and in this Courts April 16, 2021 Opinion & Order, the Court DENIES Maxwell's motion to obtain relief specified in her supplemental pre-trial motions relating to the $2 indictment. This https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?211087015221896-L_1_0-1 48/113 DOJ-OGR-00020670