Epstein Secrets

cuit AUGUST TERM 2018 No. 18-2868-cv JULIE BROWN, MIAMI HERALD COMPANY, Intervenors-Appellants, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant-Appellee, v. VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE, Plaintiff-Appellee. No. 16-3945-cv(L) No. 17-1625 (CON) No. 17-1722(CON) ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ, MICHAEL CERNOVICH, DBA CERNOVICH MEDIA

UST TERM 2018 No. 18-2868-cv JULIE BROWN, MIAMI HERALD COMPANY, Intervenors-Appellants, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant-Appellee, v. VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE, Plaintiff-Appellee. No. 16-3945-cv(L) No. 17-1625 (CON) No. 17-1722(CON) ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ, MICHAEL CERNOVICH, DBA CERNOVICH MEDIA, Interven

otion as moot. 5 The stricken allegations, however, quickly found their way into the press, and several media outlets published articles repeating Giuffre's accusations. In response to the allegations, on January 3, 2015, Maxwell's publicist issued a press statement declaring that Giuffre's allegation

v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant-Appellee, v. VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE, Plaintiff-Appellee. No. 16-3945-cv(L) No. 17-

ist issued a press statement declaring that Giuffre's allegations "against Ghislaine Maxwell are untrue" and that her "claims are obvious lies. "6 B. Giuffre Sues Maxwell On September 21, 2015, Giuffre filed the underlying action against Maxwell in the Southern District of New York. Giuffre alleged that

g order is narrowly tailored to achieve that aim."13 " Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, 814 F.3d 132, 139 (2d Cir. 2016). 12 Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 121 (2d Cir. 2006). We observe that our holding in Lugosch relies on the general principle that parties ma

ann LLP, 814 F.3d 132, 139 (2d Cir. 2016). 12 Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 121 (2d Cir. 2006). We observe that our holding in Lugosch relies on the general principle that parties may "be assumed to have supported their papers with admissible evidence and non- frivolous arguments."

5439090 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 10, 2015) 7 In re Terrorist Attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, 454 F. Supp. 2d 220 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) 15 Landmark Commcins, Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U.S. 829 (1978) 10 Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) passim Mitchell v. Fishbein, 227 F.R.D. 239 (S.D.N.Y.

iminal case against Mr. Epstein, which include the now-settled above-captioned action. Here, the underlying claim is a defamation action brought by Virginia Giuffre ("Ms. " or "Plaintiff') against Ghislaine Maxwell ("Ms. Maxwell" or "Defendant") on the grounds that Ms. Maxwell, in coordination with Mr. Epstein

claim is a defamation action brought by Virginia Giuffre ("Ms. " or "Plaintiff') against Ghislaine Maxwe

ng to seal judicial records to ensure that the courts do not sacrifice the public's right of access to the desires of the litigations. See generally Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) (First Amendment and common law right to judicial documents); In re Omnicom Grp., Inc. Sec.

tlement). Neither of the Parties have presented the "specific, on-the-record findings" that establish a compelling reason for sealing or redaction. Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 126. Quite the opposite — the Court initially granted at least 35 letter motions to seal documents, the vast majority with de minimis

emaining documents, the majority of which are those submitted in opposition or support to discovery motions, also qualify.' Citing the broad rule in Lugosch, the court in Alexander Interactive, Inc. v. Adorama, Inc., No. 12 CIV. 6608 PKC JCF, 2014 WL 4346174, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 2, 2014), stated that

hislaine Maxwell's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 540 to 543, inclusive); • (b) All currently sealed documents filed in support of Plaintiff Virginia L. Giuffre's opposition to Defendant's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 586 to 586-3, inclusive); • (c) All currently sealed documents in support of Defen

1 (2d Cir. 2019); Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 15 Civ. 7433 (RWS) (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 2, 2016), ECF No. 496 (Opinion Granting Dershowitz Motion to Intervene); Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 15 Civ. 7433 (RWS) (S.D.N.Y. May 3, 2017), ECF No. 892 (Opinion Granting Cemovich Motion to Intervene). Intervention may be permitt

ES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Virginia L. Giuffre, Plaintiff, v. Ghislaine Maxwell,

the press and general public and whether public access plays a significant positive role in the functioning of the particular process in question." Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 120. The second, applied only when the court considers documents in proceedings covered by the First Amendment, asks whether the docume

0 Instead, the District Court made generalized statements about the record as a whole.30 This too was legal error. 19 Id. at 124. 20 See. e.g., Giuffre, 325 F. Supp. 3d at 445 (summarily concluding that all "[t]he Summary Judgment Judicial Documents openly refer to and discuss these allegations [o

lobe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court for Norfolk Cly., 457 U.S. 596, 606, 102 S.Ct. 2613, 73 L.Ed.2d 248 (1982)). 49 Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 572-73, 100 S.Q. 2814, 65 L.Ed.2d 973 (1980) (plurality opinion) (internal quotation marks omitted). At the same time, the media do

narrowly tailored to achieve that aim."I3 12 Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 121 (2d Cir. 2006). We observe that our holding in Lugosch relies on the general principle that parties may "be assumed to have supported their papers with admissible evidence and non-frivolous arguments."

" Id. at 122. Insofar as a district court has, through striking a filing, specifically found that assumption inapplicable, the categorical rule in Lugosch may not apply. See notes 42-43 and accompanying text, post. 13 Id. at 124. Examples of such countervailing values may include, depending on the c

casgamge26143R-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 MAXWE

COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Virginia L. Giuffre, Plaintiff, v. Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant.

ontinued sealing of documents in this case. See New York v. Actavis, PLC, No. 14 CIV. 7473, 2014 WL 5353774, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 21, 2014) (citing Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 124) (decisions to seal must be supported by "specific, on-the-record findings that sealing is necessary to preserve higher values and

access to a document has been historically available (the "experience" prong) and would be valuable to the process in question (the "logic" prong). Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2006). The weight of the common law presumption turns on "the role of the material at iss

idence in the judiciary depends on openness of court records and proceedings. On this point, Chief Justice Burger's words in Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia are particularly apt: People in an open society do not demand infallibility from their institutions, but it is difficult for them to accept what th

008) (finding that where classified information presented at trial, if disclosed, would jeopardize national security weighed against public access); Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) (existence of confidentiality order alone did not defeat presumption of public access); Hanf

rovides the public and the press a constitutional right of access to all trials, criminal or civil." Id. at 468 (citing Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 580, 100 S.Ct. 2814, 65 L.Ed.2d 973 (1980) ) (internal citation omitted). This right applies specifically to "related proceedings an

ts, with the exceptions discussed below. To begin with, the Court's reasoning is guided by the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Under this test, the Court must: (i) determine whether the documents in question are "judic

est to file Exhibit 11 entirely under seal. While portions of that transcript have been redacted, other portions are part of the public record. See Giuffre v. Maxwell, Case No. 15-cv-7433, Dkt. No. 1212-1. In light of this, the Court sees no basis to file the transcript entirely under seal rather than b