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

hern District of New York (Robert W. Sweet, Judge) denying their respective motions to unseal filings in a defamation suit. We conclude that the ' The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the captions as set out above. 2 EFTA00092309 District Court failed to conduct the requisite particularized review when ord

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

. r owitz, Michael Cernovich, dba Cernovich Media, Intervenors-Appellants, v. Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant-Appellee: The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the captions as set out above. No. 18-2868-cv, No. 16-3945-cvn No. 17-1625 (CON), No. 17-1722(CON) August Term 2018 Argued:

den" so narrowly, however. See, e.g., Har- per a Virginia Board of Election& 383 U.S. 663, 66647, 86 S.Ct

s granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis for the sole purpose of the filing of this action. 2. Reynolds' habeas corpus petition is DENIED. 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 4. Based on the Court's determination herein, there is no basis for the issuance of a Certificate of Appealability.