EFTA00022960.pdf

CageagAg0atifiSEAPIerbdthhiEgti id5i352PiletiViMdbagriad4 1?)f 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK X VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE, Plaintiff, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. X 15-cv-07433-LAP \ Is. 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. Pagliuca Ty Gee HADDON, MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 303.831.7364 EFTA00022960 Cagealflg0at171SEAloetdthfilegi i15§392PilgRiA6/2bagrt&j4 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 unsealing of the Sealed Items contained in: • DE 143 (and related DEs 142, 144, 144-1, 149, 150, 150-1, 151, 152, 153, and 153- 1); • DE 172 (and related DEs 171, 173, 173-1, 189, 190, 190-1, 202, 203, 204-1, 211, 212, 212-1, and 224) and; • DE 199 (and related DEs 200, 200-1, 228,2 29, 229-1, 284, 249, and 249-1). The reasons for her objections are stated in her accompanying memorandum of law. Ms. Maxwell, does not object to the potential unsealing of the Sealed Items contained in DEs 164 and related DEs 165, 165-8, 185-3, 185-11, 185-14, 185-15 or DE 230 and related DEs 235, 235-5, 235-7, 235-11, 235-13 at a future date. However, unsealing of these Sealed Items would be premature at this time because multiple Non-Party Does are referenced in these items, as described in the accompanying memorandum of law, and should be provided Notice and an opportunity to object pursuant to the Protocol. Dated: June 10, 2020. Respectfully submitted, /s/Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Menninger (LM-1374) Jeffrey S. Pagliuca (pro hac vice) Ty Gee (pro hac vice) Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303.831.7364 Fax: 303.832.2628 Imenninger@hmflaw.com Attorneys for Chislaine Maxwell 1 EFTA00022961 Cagealfige64/ 714ADEAcierbdth§idgi id5i552PilaW6M/Zoagriikid g%f 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on June 10, 2020, I electronically served this Ms. Maxwell's Objections to Unsealing Docket Entries 143, 173, and 199 and to Unsealing Docket Entries 164 and 230 at This Time. via ECF on the following: Sigrid S. McCawley Meredith Schultz BOLES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Ste. 1200 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 smccawley@bsfilp.com mschultz@bsfllp.com Bradley J. Edwards Stan J. Pottinger EDWARDS POTTINGER LLC 425 North Andrews Ave., Ste. 2 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 brad @pathtojustice.com StanPottinger@aol.com Christine N. Walz HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 31 West 52nd Street New York, NY 10019 Christine.walz@hklaw.com Paul G. Cassell 383 S. University Street Salt Lake City, UT 84112 cassellp@law.utah.edu Andrew G. Celli David Lebowitz Emery Celli Brinkerhoff & Abady LLP 600 Fifth Avenue at Rockefeller Center 10th Floor New York, NY 10020 acelli@ecbalaw.com dlebowitz@ecbalaw.com Jay M. Wolman Marc J. Randazza RANDAZZA LEGAL GROUP, PLLC 100 Pearl Street, 14th Floor Hartford, CT 06103 jmw@randazza.com mjr@randazza.com Is/ Nicole Simmons Nicole Simmons 2 EFTA00022962 casair.q.e2et43-(EgkirneDiAgtheAillt?Nilielf3 tti§h.V2ea :., 0f1.2f9f 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE, Plaintiff, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. X X 15-cv-07433-LAP Ms. Maxwell's Memorandum Brief In Support Of Her Objections to Unsealing Sealed Materials Laura A. Menninger Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Ty Gee HADDON, MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 303.831.7364 EFTA00022963 casQaP.4.61'43gq..9\fneniAgnieAF05?04tElielPttighg#26'aint4)648i 17 Pursuant to this Court's Order and protocol for Unsealing Decided Motions, Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, through her counsel objects to the unsealing of documents for the reasons stated. I. Overview Docket Entries ("DEN") 143, 164, 172, 199, and 230 ("Sealed Material[s]" or "Sealed Item[s]") have been selected by the Court, with respect to Does 1 and 2, to begin the process of individualized review of these selected Sealed Materials to determine (a) the weight of presumption of public access that should be afforded to an item, (b) the identification and weight of any countervailing interests supporting continued sealing/redaction of the item, and (c) whether the countervailing interests rebut the presumption of public access to the item. Giuffre v. 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 1053, ("the Protocol"), Non-Parties Does I and 2 have been served with the approved Notice and, pursuant to the Protocol, additional Non-Parties will be notified prior to any unsealing of the selected Sealed Materials. Does 1 and 2 did not respond to the Notice. The absence of a response, however, does not end the analysis. Although the Court's Protocol requires consideration of objections from the other Non-Parties yet to be noticed, the Court could (and should) determine, based on the circumstances of the Sealed Materials selected here, that the items are appropriately sealed without the need for additional Non-Party objections. ' Pursuant to paragraph 2.g of the Order "any memorandum in support of a ... Party Objection to unsealing a particular Sealed Item shall be no longer than 6 double-spaced pages in 12 point, Times New Roman Font. Ms. Maxwell has lodged objections to the identified documents in 14 pages in compliance with the Order, i.e., this pledge is one-half of the authorized length. I EFTA00022964 CasgaP.67434.94neDiAgrheAF11?04lEheigg/h.V2ea504eY-Of 17 Applying the three-part analysis set forth by the Court in its March 31, 2020 Order to the selected Sealed Materials in Des 143, 172, and 1992 results in a determination that: (a) the selected Sealed Materials relate solely to five-year-old discovery disputes and therefore, at most, begin with a presumption of public access "somewhat lower than the presumption applied to material introduced at trial, or in connection with dispositive motions such as motions for dismissal or summary judgment." Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 50 (2d Cir. 2019) (citing United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1049-50 (2d Cir. 1995) ("Amodeo II")); (b) any minimum presumption of public access is subject to many countervailing interests supporting continued sealing; and (c) the countervailing interests rebut any minimal presumption of public access. IL DE 143 and Related DEs 142, 144, 144-1-7, 149, 150, 150-1, 151, 152, 153, and 153-1 are afforded the lowest presumption of public access and these Sealed Materials should remain sealed. This series of pleadings concerns Plaintiff's attempt to compel Ms. Maxwell to answer intrusive questions about her sex life.' DE 143 quotes extensively, selectively, and misleadingly from Ms. Maxwell's first seven-hour deposition. DE 144-1-7 contains 7 exhibits: 1, 2, and 4-7 are 2 As discussed in Sections VII at VIII, infra, consideration of DEs 164 and 230 is premature at this time. 'DE 142 is a letter notice; DE 143 is the initial motion; DE 144 is a lawyer declaration referencing the exhibits in DE 144-1-7. The declarations accompanying the various Sealed Materials often identify a Non-Party. The Court may wish to simply redact all of the Non-Party names from the declarations as a means of streamlining review and Notice problems. DE 149 is Defendant's Response, 150 is a lawyer declaration referencing the exhibit in DE 150-1. DE 151 is another letter notice. DE 152 is Plaintiff's Reply. DE 153 is another lawyer declaration referencing the exhibits in DE 153-1-7. The name of Doe 1 appears in DEs 152, p. 6 and 153 p. 2 11 7 and 8. Doe 2 does not appear in any DE 143 related pleading. The f