Epstein Secrets

Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 135 Filed 05/02/16 Page 1 of 37 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK X VIRGINIA L. GUIFFRE, Plaintiff, 15 Civ. 7433 (RWS) - against - OPINION GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. X APpEARANCE S: Counsel for Plaintiffs BOEIS,

C #: DATE FILED: ) (,) 1 EFTA R1 00011977 EFTA01734187 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 135 Filed 05/02/16 Page 2 of 37 Sweet, D.J. Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre ("Giuffre" or "Plaintiff") has moved to compel Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell ("Maxwell" or "Defendant") to produce documents withheld on the grounds

) (,) 1 EFTA R1 00011977 EFTA01734187 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 135 Filed 05/02/16 Page 2 of 37 Sweet, D.J. Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre ("Giuffre" or "Plaintiff") has moved to compel Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell ("Maxwell" or "Defendant") to produce documents withheld on the grounds of privil

ions with Jaffe Are Privileged "An attorney-client relationship is established where there is an explicit undertaking to perform a specific task." Pellegrino v. Oppenheimer a Co., 49 A.D.3d 94, 99, 851 N.Y.S.2d 19 (2008). Defendant has sworn that she hired Jaffe in 2009 to represent her in connection wit

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,

Id. For the "experience-and-logic" approach, courts employ a two-pronged inquiry. Doe, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36605, at *4; Hartford Courant Co. v. Pellegrino, 380 F.3d 83, 92 (2d Cir. 2004). First, courts must consider "whether the place and process have historically been open to the press and general pu

nondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) (existence of confidentiality order alone did not defeat presumption of public access); Hanford Courant Co. v. Pellegrino, 380 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2004) (establishing qualified First Amendment right of access to sealed docket sheets); Sec. Etch. Comm'n v. TheStreetcom, 273

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

s applying the "logic and experience" test have generally found a presumption of openness, based on the common law approach. Hartford Courant Co. v. Pellegrino, 380 F.3d 83, 92 (2d Cir. 2004). WESTLAW © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 22 EFTA00020562 --- PAGE BREAK ---

of the press to enforce it is well settled. See, e.g., Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596, 609 n.25 (1982); Hanford Courant Co. v. Pellegrino, 380 F.3d 83, 91 (2d Cir. 2004). EFTA00017095 --- PAGE BREAK --- filing, on August 28. See Dkt. 152. On August 29, the Government belatedly file

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