Epstein Secrets

08 V. VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant-Appellee: On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ARGUED: MARCH 6, 2019 DECIDED: JULY 3, 2019 Before: r —ABRANES, POOLER, and DRONEY, Circuit Judges. Intervenors-Appellants Alan Dersh

); the protection of attorney-client privilege, Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 125; "the danger of impairing law enforcement or judicial efficiency," SEC. v. TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d 222, 232 (2d Cir. 2001); and "the privacy interest of those who resist disclosure," id. " Our discussion here focuses specifically on

t be considered a "judicial document" and would enjoy no presumption of public access. 3 Finally, in appropriate o' Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); see also TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d at 229-30. 41 See, e.g., S.D.N.Y. Electronic Case Filing Rules & Instructions, February 1, 2019 Edition, Rule 6.1, http:finysd.us

ed to the court, the filing "shall be accompanied by a Motion to Seal pursuant to Section 6.2 of the Electronic Case Filing Rules & Instructions for the Southern District of New York." (Id. ¶ 10.) The docket sheet in v. Maxwell reveals that such motions were frequently made and routinely granted. As a result, a vast

ther Judge made the requisite fmdings in his decisions granting the various motions to seal publicly-filed documents that were made in See, e.g., TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d 222, 231 (2d Cir. 2001) ("While Martindell established a general and IS SDNY_GM_00000889 CONFIDENTIAL EFTA_00114973 EFTA01263260

edlessly defamatory as to warrant inference of express malice. Cases that cite this headnote On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Robert W. Sweet, Judge). Attorneys and Law Firms Sanford L. Bohrer (Christine N. Walz, Madelaine J. Harrington, New York, NY, on th

; the protection of attorney-client privilege, Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 125; "the danger of impairing law enforcement or judicial efficiency," SEC. v. TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d 222, 232 (2d Cir. 2001); and "the privacy interest of those who resist disclosure," id. *4 151In this case, the District Court erred

ein and Maxwell!' Then, after Maxwell's two depositions, David Boies himself apparently approached the government in the summer of 2016, asking "if the Southern District would consider charging Maxwell with perjury." Brown, supra n.2. Said Mr. Boies: "We were saying to anyone who would listen: We've got clients who

ctive orders were easily modified . . . parties would be less forthcoming in giving testimony and less willing to settle their disputes." S.E.C. v. TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d 222, 230 (2d Cir. 2001). In particular, as here, "witnesses might be expected frequently to refuse to testify pursuant to protective o