Epstein Secrets

.S.C. § 1595 3, 4 Other Authorities Fed. R. Civ. P. 24 2, 9, 10 CONFIDENTIAL - FILED UNDER SEAL EFTA00805391 Third-Party Proposed Intervenors Jeffrey Epstein and Lesley Groff (the "Intervenors") respectfully submit this Memorandum of Law in support of their motion to intervene in v. Maxwell, No. 15 Civ.

tective Order") for the reasons set forth below. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Intervenors are two of the defendants in an action captioned Jane Doe 43 v. Epstein, et al, No. 17 Civ. 616 (JGK), currently pending before Judge John G. Koeltl (the "Jane Doe Matter"). Jane Doe 43 ("Plaintiff" or "Jane Doe") filed

EFTA00805391 Third-Party Proposed Intervenors Jeffrey Epstein and Lesley Groff (the "Intervenors") res

are based primarily on the alleged misconduct of Mr. Epstein. Indeed, shortly after Jane Doe filed her suit ag

ng confidential materials to non-parties, it is not reasonable for a party to rely on an assumption that it will never be modified."). The court in Gambale came to a similar conclusion—holding that parties cannot rely on protective orders that arc on their face temporary. See Gambale, 377 F.3d at 142 n

2 of 27 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant, v. SHARON CHURCHER, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Respondents, JULIE BROWN, MIAMI HERALD MEDIA COMPANY, Intervenors-Appellants No. 18-2868 Appellee Maxwell's Motion to Reconsider and Vacate th

AXWELL, Defendant, v. SHARON CHURCHER, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Respondents, JULIE BROWN, MIAMI HERALD MEDIA

SLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant, v. SHARON CHURCHER, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Respondents, JULIE BROWN, MIAMI HERALD

sistance to discovery on grounds of privacy, confidentiality, secrecy, sensitivity and embarrassment. Even if Lugosch could overrule Martindell and Gambale with respect to the strong presumption against access when there is reasonable reliance on a protective order, the Lugosch 5In Lugosch, this Court

ficant facts since briefing closed on the first round of review of sealed materials. After many months of relentless negative media coverage of Mr. Epstein and allegations that Ms. Maxwell was involved in his criminal activities, the government secured an indictment against her. On July 2, one day after

months of relentless negative media coverage of Mr. Epstein and allegations that Ms. Maxwell was involved in

a July 29, 2020 Page 2 courts have recognized, temporary stays of unseal orders are appropriate so that "[t]he genie is [not] out of the bottle," Gambale v. Deutsche Bank AG, 377 F.3d 133, 144 (2d Cir. 2004), before the interested parties have an opportunity to seek review of the orders. See, e.g., Un

irst, courts in this Circuit have routinely ordered unsealing of documents in cases with protective orders or confidentiality provisions. See, e.g., Gambale v. Deutsche Bank AG, 377 F.3d 133, 143 (2d Cir. 2004) (unsealing judicial document despite party's claim that it had settled claim to "avoid public

and powerful. Framing allegations of sexual abuse as "private" protects perpetrators at the expense of victims. The Miami Herald's coverage of Mr. Epstein's and his associates' alleged crimes has nothing to do with consensual sexual preferences and everything to do with the abuse of young girls, whethe

pense of victims. The Miami Herald's coverage of Mr. Epstein's and his associates' alleged crimes has nothing