Epstein Secrets

ow precise. complete statement of relief sought: Order to Show Cause and March 13 Order should be reconsidered and vacated MOVING PARTY: Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell OPhintiff DDefendant ['Appellant/Petitioner nAppeUee/Respondent MOVING ATTORNEY: Ty Gee [name of attorney, with fm. Haddon, Morgan and Foreman

Case 18-2868, Document 141, 03/15/2019, 2519388, Page2 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-

ment 141, 03/15/2019, 2519388, Page4 of 27 has the ability to balance the public's interest in access to the discovery in court filings against Ms. Maxwell's and the non-parties' compelling interests. This is an extraordinary case. Ms. for more than a decade has actively pursued publicity and money fo

access to the discovery in court filings against Ms. Maxwell's and the non-parties' compelling interests. Thi

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

.D.N.Y. 2012) 11, 12 In re EPDM Antitrust Litt., 255 F.R.D. 308 (D. Conn. 2009) 12 Gambale v. Deutsche Bank AG, 377 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 2004) v. Maxwell, No. 15 Civ. 7433, 2017 WL 1787934 (S.D.N.Y. May 3, 2017) 10, 11 10 Intl Equity Investments, Inc. v. Opportunity Equity Partners Ltd, No. 2010 W

THERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Plaintiff, —against— GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. 15 Civ. 7433 (RWS) MEMORANDUM OF L

THERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Plaintiff, —against— GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. 15 Civ. 7433 (RWS) MEMORAN

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

ver, Colorado 80203 ni 303.831.7364 rx 303.832.2628 www.hmtlaw.com tgeefghmflaw.com Re: Reconsideration of the Court's July 23 Ruling Giuffre v. Ghislaine Maxwell, No. 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP) Dear Judge Preska: As counsel for Ms. Maxwell we write to request that the Court vindicate its Protective Order and punish

.com Re: Reconsideration of the Court's July 23 Ruling Giuffre v. Ghislaine Maxwell, No. 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP) Dear Judge Preska: As counsel for Ms. Maxwell we write to request that the Court vindicate its Protective Order and punish its violation. Ms. Maxwell's two deposition transcripts were designated

eration of the Court's July 23 Ruling Giuffre v. Ghislaine Maxwell, No. 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP) Dear Judge Presk

v. 7433 (LAP) Dear Judge Preska: As counsel for Ms. Maxwell we write to request that the Court vindicate its

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

ining the Maxwell materials from Boies Schiller, the Maxwell Protective Order explicitly provides that (1) di

43R-ficsarnecobalrgefiFiW044136§fgheatmbefilth 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Virginia L. Giuffre, Plaintiff, v. Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS INTERVENORS' JULIE BROWN AND MIAMI HERALD MEDIA CO.'S RESPONSE TO MAXWELL'S OBJECTIONS TO UNSEALING Sanfor

F NEW YORK Virginia L. Giuffre, Plaintiff, v. Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS

rotocol for Unsealing Decided Motions, Intervenors Julie Brown and Miami Herald Media Co. ("Miami Herald") respectfully submit this response to Ms. Maxwell's Memorandum Brief in Support of Her Objections to Unsealing Sealed Materials (Dkt. 1057) ("the Objections")} ARGUMENT Ms. Maxwell's objections to

mi Herald") respectfully submit this response to Ms. Maxwell's Memorandum Brief in Support of Her Objections t

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