Epstein Secrets

HISLAINE MAXWELL 2 II. THE OVERBROAD SEALING ORDER AND PRIOR ATTEMPTS TO UNSEAL 3 III. THE ORDER DENYING THE MOTIONS TO UNSEAL 6 ARGUMENT 6 I. MIAMI HERALD MEDIA HAS THE RIGHT TO INTERVENE AS A NEWS ORGANIZATION 7 II. THE PRESUMPTION OF OPENNESS UNDER THE COMMON LAW AND FIRST AMENDMENT APPLY TO THE

and unseal all of the documents in the above-captioned action that have been filed under seal or redacted. These judicial documents are germane to the Miami Herald's ongoing coverage of dozens of underage minors who were victims of Jeffrey Epstein, the South Florida financier who pleaded guilty in 2008 to solicit

rotected by the Protective Order outweighs any public interest in their publication." (Id., at 9.) Messrs. Dershowitz and Cemovich both appealed to the Second Circuit. (ECF Nos. 500 and 915.) TheaAppeals are currently pending. On May 24, 2016, Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a settlement agreement. Now, the

ore a seal is imposed."). At oral argument, neither the parties to the appeals nor the panel itself suggested the district court's opinion denying the Miami Herald's unseal motion misstated the right-to-access law. To the contrary the Opinion correctly summarized the law, and properly identified the leading case

hat the district court (or Ms. Maxwell or Ms. M) unjustifiably delayed public access to the summary judgment papers. This is incorrect. In Lugosch the Second Circuit was understandably impatient with the district court's delay in acting on two newspapers' motion to intervene to unseal the summary judgment filing

edaction of the item, and (c) whether the countervailing interests rebut the presumption of public access to the item." DE 1044 at 1. Plaintiff and the Miami Herald's responses improperly afford the highest level of presumption to discovery dispute documents, deny that any countervailing interests exist, and prote

rivacy interests of non- parties ... represents a legitimate basis for sealing judicial documents"). B. Effect of Previous Unsealing of Documents by Second Circuit Plaintiff claims that if a document is already public in another context, then it should be unsealed. She cites no law for this proposition, which

F.2d 110, 116 (2d Cir. 1987) (recognizing "defendants' fair trial rights" as an "appropriate" basis for sealing material). Lest there be any doubt, the Miami Herald's response to Ms. Maxwell's emergency motion to stay settles the matter. In opposing Ms. Maxwell's request, the Herald said: "The documents at issue

Case 20-2413. Document 40. 08'20/2020. 2913550, Pagel of 74 20-2413 United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Plaintlff-Appelke, —against— GHISLA1NE MAXWELL, Defendant-Appellant, SHARON CHURCHER, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Respondents, JULIE BROWN, MIAMI HERALD M

two prostitution charges,” immunized from prosecution Epstein’s co-conspirators, and concealed from Epstein’s victims the terms of the NPA. Following the Miami Herald’s report, and after receiving a Congressional request to investigate, OPR. initiated an investigation into the allegations that prosecutors in the USAO

o dozens of victims who were abused in Florida. 2 While beyond the scope of a bail hearing, as discussed further below, it is well-established in the Second Circuit that absent an express provision to the contrary in the agreement, one District is not bound by the terms of an agreement entered into between a defe

aled — including a detailed criminal complaint — so that “no one . . . could know the full scope of Epstein’s crimes and who else was involved.” Jd. The Miami Herald’s reporting has also had serious political ramifications. As the Miami Herald has reported, “[t]he U.S. attorney in Miami, Alexander Acosta, was person

1-92 (3d Dep’t 1993) “a common-law presumption” favors public access to court records); /n re Application of National Broad. Co., 635 F.2d 945, 949 (2d Cir. 1980) (“[T]he common law right to inspect and copy judicial records is beyond dispute.”) (citation omitted). 13 4811-3721-9459v.3 3930033-000039 HO

seal the Summary Judgment Judicial Documents is Denied...444 VII. Conclusion...447 Third-party proposed intervenors The Miami Herald Media Company (the "Miami Herald") and investigative journalist for the Miami Herald Julie Brown ("Brown") (collectively, the "Intervenors"), have moved pursuant to Federal Rule of

ep't of Justice, 312 F.3d 100, 106 (2d Cir. 2002), vacated and remanded, 541 U.S. 970, 124 S.Ct. 1874, 158 L.Ed.2d 464 (2004), aff'd, 380 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2004) (per curiam) (witnesses and third parties "possess strong privacy interests, because being identified as part of a law enforcement investigati