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

); the protection of attorney-client privilege, Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 125; "the danger of impairing law enforcement or judicial efficiency," SEC. v. TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d 222, 232 (2d Cir. 2001); and "the privacy interest of those who resist disclosure," id. " Our discussion here focuses specifically on

t be considered a "judicial document" and would enjoy no presumption of public access. 3 Finally, in appropriate o' Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); see also TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d at 229-30. 41 See, e.g., S.D.N.Y. Electronic Case Filing Rules & Instructions, February 1, 2019 Edition, Rule 6.1, http:finysd.us

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

ers, pursuant to Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, either as a matter of right or permissively. See, e.g., Sec. and Exch. Conan it v. TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d 222, 227 n.4 (2d Cir. 2001); Schiller v. City of New York, No. 04 CIV. 7921(KMK)(JC), 2006 WL 2788256, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2006

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

; the protection of attorney-client privilege, Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 125; "the danger of impairing law enforcement or judicial efficiency," SEC. v. TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d 222, 232 (2d Cir. 2001); and "the privacy interest of those who resist disclosure," id. *4 151In this case, the District Court erred

se "publicly available information regarding the [Giuffre v. Maxwell] 6 EFTA00086668 Litigation, includ

d Six of the superseding indictment allege that Maxwell committed perjury during two civil depositions taken in v. Maxwell, a civil defamation case Virginia =filed in 2015. claimed that Maxwell defamed her when Maxwell's attorney-hired press agent denied as "untrue" and "obvious numerous allegations,

ctive orders were easily modified . . . parties would be less forthcoming in giving testimony and less willing to settle their disputes." S.E.C. v. TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d 222, 230 (2d Cir. 2001). In particular, as here, "witnesses might be expected frequently to refuse to testify pursuant to protective o