Epstein Secrets

Cagean.g0c44/ 71SEAFierbd664164i igl5V2PilaW6M/Joagria44 1?)f 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK X Plaintiff, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. X 15-cv-07433-LAP Ms. Maxwell's Objections to Unsealing Docket Entries 143. 173. and 199 and to Unsealing Docket Entries 164

ia44 1?)f 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK X Plaintiff, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. X 15-cv-07433-LAP Ms. Maxwell's Objections to Unsealing Docket Entries 143. 173. and 199 and to Unsealing Docket Entries 164 and 230 at This Time. Laura A. Menninger Jeffrey S.

RGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 EFTA00075004 CageaUlg0caAIDer0dthhilfii igl5V2Pil&iA6/2bagctacir4 2%f 3 Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, through her counsel and pursuant to this Court's Order and Protocol for Unsealing Decided Motions, DE 1044, as clarified by DE 1053, objects to the

supporting continued sealing/redaction of the item, and (c) whether the countervailing interests rebut the presumption of public access to the item. n. Maxwell, No. 15-CV-07433-LAP, 2020 WL 1547377, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2020); DE 1044.' Based on the Court's clarification of its March 31, 2020 Order, DE

ISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. X 15-cv-07433-LAP Ms. Maxwell's Objections to Unsealing Docket Entries 143. 173

was "`on the technical question of whether a document is physically on file with the court."' Amodeo 1, 44 F.3d at 145 (quoting Pansy v. Borough of Stroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772, 782 (3d Cir. 1994)). In that circuit if a document is filed with a court, it is a judicial document; otherwise it is not. See id. (cit

ase 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 936 Filed 04/06/18 Page 1 of 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Plaintiff, - against - GHISLA1NE MAXWELL, Defendant. : Case No. 15-cv-7433 (RWS) MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSED INTERVENORS JULIE BROWN AND MIAMI HERALD MEDIA COMPANY'S MOTIO

2 of 21 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ii PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1 I. INTERVENORS' COVERAGE OF ALLEGATIONS AGAINST JEFFREY EPSTEIN AND GHISLAINE 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. MIAM

ABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ii PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1 I. INTERVENORS' COVERAGE OF ALLEGATIONS AGAINST JEFFREY EPSTEIN AND GHISLAINE 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

. " or "Plaintiff') against Ghislaine Maxwell ("Ms. Maxwell" or "Defendant") on the grounds that Ms. Maxwell,

. Cir. 1998) ("Intervention to challenge confidentiality orders may take place long after a case has been terminated.") (quoting Pansy v. Borough of Stroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772, 779 (3d Cir. 1994)); see also Wilson v. Am. Motors Corp., 759 F.2d 1568 (11th Cir. 1985) (non-party permitted to intervene after judi

2:32 PM 158 120684 10 CUSTOMER COPY Yid Lt:TO VT02'20'uor CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO FED. R. CRIM. P. 6(e) CONFIDENTIAL DB-SDNY-0051135 SDNY GM 00197319 EFTA01361871

173.50 T( TAL LI SS PAYMENT C ARGE AMOUNT 173.50 -0.00 173.50 12/27/2013 6:08 PM 163 126679 86 CUSTOMER COPY rARTZ TRAI li t...PAYS ft Stroudsburg X XXXXXXXXXXX9492 APPROVAL 60 CITY ITEM AMOUNT ~ :1 COMMUTER $ 173.50 • TO:T AL LESS PAYMENT CHARGE AMOUNT 173.50 -0.00 173.50 12/16/2