Giuffre v. Maxwell

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided December 18, 2023·No. 1:15-cv-07433·Unknown

Opinion

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1315 Filed 12/18/23 Page 1 of 51

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK VIRGINIA GIUFFRE, Plaintiff, 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP) -against- ORDER GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant.

LORETTA A. PRESKA, Senior United States District Judge: The Court reiterates here its previous recitation of the applicable law and descriptions of the unsealing process set out in the transcripts dated January 19, 2021 (dkt. no. 1196), July 1, 2021 (dkt. no. 1220), April 19, 2022 (dkt. no. 1254), and November 18, 2022 (dkt. no. 1283). The following are the Court’s findings as to the Does designated following its particularized review of the documents noted: Relevant .

This material should be unsealed in full. First, “[t]he burden of demonstrating that a document submitted to a court should be sealed rests on the party seeking such action.” DiRussa v. Dean Witter Reynolds Inc., 121 F.3d 818, 826 (2d Cir. 1997). No one has raised any objection to unsealing, and thus no “particular and specific demonstration of fact showing that disclosure would result in an injury” has been made that is sufficient to “overcome the presumption of access.” Lytle 235-13, 249-13, | v. JPMorgan Chase, 810 F. Supp. 2d 616, 630 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). Second, this individual gave a J. DOE 003 | 280-1, 321-1, | media interview about his or her work for Epstein to the Daily Mail in 2011, weighing against 423-4 continued sealing. United States v. Avenatti, No. (S1) 19 CR. 373 (PGG), 2020 WL 70952, at *6 (S.D.N-Y. Jan. 6, 2020) (“In considering whether sealing is appropriate, an important consideration is, of course, whether the information sought to be kept confidential is already public.”); 4/19/22 Hearing Tr. at 7:11-16 (unsealing documents relating to Doe who gave media interviews and was identified in the press); see https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1365733/How-Prince- Andrew-shared-room-Epsteins-Caribbean-hideaway-busty-blonde-claimed-brain-surgeon.html.

This material should be unsealed in full. First, no interests that outweigh the presumption of access have been identified with specificity. DiRussa, 121 F.3d at 826; Lytle, 810 F. Supp. 2d at 630. 235-13, 249-13, ae . . □ 1 004 | 280-1. 321-1. Second, this individual gave a media interview about his or her work for Epstein to the Daily Mail 43-4. «| 2 2011, weighing against continued sealing. Avenatti, 2020 WL 70952, at *6; 4/19/22 Hearing Tr. at 7:11-16; see □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ shared-room-Epsteins-Caribbean-hideaway-busty-blonde-claimed-brain-surgeon.html.

Relevant .

This material should be unsealed in full. First, this mdividual did not raise any objection to unsealing, and thus did not meet his or her burden of identifying interests that outweigh the presumption of access with specificity. DiRussa, 121 F.3d at 826; Lytle, 810 F. Supp. 2d at 630. Second, this individual testified publicly at Maxwell’s criminal trial, weighing against continued 315, 316-7, sealing. Avenatti, 2020 WL 70952, at *6; 11/18/22 Hearing Tr. at 6:19-25 (unsealing documents J. DOE 005 340-4, 368, relating to Doe whose name came up publicly at Maxwell criminal trial). Although this individual 369-3 testified under his or her first name only, he or she publicly waived any right to anonymity after the criminal trial, as Judge Nathan found, and gave an interview using his or her first and last names. See United States v. Maxwell, 20-cr-330, Dkt. nos. 589, 593, 662; https://www.dailymail.co-uk/news/article- 10380333/Key-witness-Ghislaine-Maxwells-trial- waives-anonymity-makes-sensational-new-claim.html.

203, 211, 235-4, | This material should be unsealed in full. Furst, this individual did not raise any objection to 235-13, 249-4, | unsealing, and thus did not meet his or her burden of identifying interests that outweigh the I. DOE 006 249-14, 280-1, | presumption of access with specificity. DiRussa, 121 F.3d at 826; Lytle, 810 F. Supp. 2d at 630. 321-1, 380, Second, portions of this individual’s deposition were released by the Second Circuit, meaning his 381-4, 423-1, | or her name and association with this case is already public. Avenatti, 2020 WL 70952, at *6; 510-4 7/1/21 Hearing Tr. at 6-7 (ruling that materials released by the Second Circuit should be unsealed).

This material should be unsealed in full. First, this mdividual did not raise any objection to 338, 338-1, unsealing, and thus did not meet his or her burden of identifying interests that outweigh the 338-9, 369-12, | presumption of access with specificity. DiRussa, 121 F.3d at 826; Lytle, 810 F. Supp. 2d at 630. DOE 007 397, 398, 398-5, | Second, portions of this individual’s deposition were released by the Second Circuit, meaning his 468, 469, 469-2, | or her name and association with this case is already public. Avenatti, 2020 WL 70952, at *6; 479, 514-5, 7/1/21 Hearing Tr. at 6-7 (ruling that materials released by the Second Circuit should be unsealed). 660-1 This individual’s name and relationship to Epstein were also publicly discussed at Maxwell’s criminal trial.

This material should be unsealed in full. First, no interests that outweigh the presumption of access have been identified with specificity. DiRussa, 121 F.3d at 826; Lytle, 810 F. Supp. 2d at 630. 144-6, 173-6, | Second, this individual gave a media interview about his or her interactions with Epstein to Vanity J. DOE 008 | 249-13, 369-1, | Fair in 2020, weighing against continued sealing. Avenatti, 2020 WL 70952, at *6; 4/19/22 407-9, 423-4 | Hearing Tr. at 7:11-16 (unsealing documents relating to Doe who gave media interviews and was identified in the press); see https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/12/confessions-of-a- clintonworld-exile.

122-4, 173-6, 180-1, 180-3, 235-13, 280-1, 321-1, 321-2, 321-3, 321-4, 338, 338-3, 346-4, 369-1, . oe ae . 384-1. 388 This material should be unsealed in full. First, this individual did not raise any objection to 389-8 392. 307. unsealing, and thus did not meet his or her burden of identifying interests that outweigh the 398-1 466. presumption of access with specificity. DiRussa, 121 F.3d at 826; Lytle, 810 F. Supp. 2d at 630. J. DOE 009 , Second, documents relating to this individual, including emails on which the individual is copied 467-1, 467-2, - 481. 482. 48-1. and a substantive declaration by the individual, were released by the Second Circuit, meaning his 482-3 4189- 4 > | or her name and association with this case Is already public. Avenattt, 2020 WL 70952, at *6; 637. 638. 638-1. 7/1/21 Hearing Tr. at 6-7 (ruling that materials released by the Second Circuit should be unsealed). 638-2, 638-3, 638-4, 638-5, 653, 654, 654-1, 660-3, 697, 698, 698-1, 698-2, 754

173-6, 180-3, . oe ae . 346-4. 369-1 This material should be unsealed in full. First, this individual did not raise any objection to DOEOI0| 38 AL 430-7, unsealing, and thus did not meet his or her burden of identifying interests that outweigh the 638-1. 698-1. presumption of access with specificity. DiRussa, 121 F.3d at 826; Lytle, 810 F. Supp. 2d at 630. 698-2 ° Second, the sealed material as to this individual is not salacious.

173-6, 249-13, | This material should be unsealed in full. First, no interests that outweigh the presumption of access 280-1, 321-1, | have been identified with specificity. DiRussa, 121 F.3d at 826; Lytle, 810 F. Supp. 2d at 630. J. DOE 011 340-3, 340-4, | Second, this individual’s association with Epstein has been reported in the media already, and his 363-7, 369-1, | or her name came up at Maxwell’s public criminal trial. Avenatti, 2020 WL 70952, at *6; 11/18/22 423-4 Hearing Tr. at 6:19-25.

This material should be unsealed in full.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Giuffre v. Maxwell, (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

Giuffre v. Maxwell (Giuffre v. Maxwell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Magee v. United States
121 F.3d 1 (First Circuit, 1997)
Lytle v. JPMORGAN CHASE
810 F. Supp. 2d 616 (S.D. New York, 2011)
DiRussa v. Dean Witter Reynolds Inc.
121 F.3d 818 (Second Circuit, 1997)