…subject to continued sealing was inadvertently disclosed. The Court writes now to clarify the unsealing process intended by its December 18 Order. First, the Court reiterates its previous guidance set forth in the transcripts dated January 19, 2021 (dkt. no…
…the July 3, 2019 Opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit directed this Court to perform a “particularized review” of materials previously filed under seal in this matter (the “Sealed Materials”) to determine whether they…
…2 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 885 Filed 05/02/17 Page 3 of 7 Ms. Giuffre’s previous Requests for Production,1 they contain Court-ordered search terms, and they are not protected by any privilege…
…Defendant. Order and Protocol for Unsealing Decided Motions The Court previously ruled that “only motions actually decided by Judge Sweet—along with documents relevant to Judge Sweet’s decisions on those motions—are properly considered judicial documents to which a…
…s safety in her current country, the Parties and the Miami Herald consent to redacting Doe 107’s name and any personally identifying information in the docket entries that the Court previously ordered unsealed. Giuffre’s and the Miami Herald…
…MOTIONS Giuffre v. Maxwell, 15‐cv‐07433 Pursuant to Order of October 28, 2019, Paragraph 1 DOCKET DATE RELATED RESOLVED RESOLVED PREVIOUSLY MOTION …
…27__, 20202021) The Court previously ruled that “only motions actually decided by Judge Sweet—along with documents relevant to Judge Sweet’s decisions on those motions—are properly considered judicial documents to which a presumption of public access attaches.” Order…
…Defendant. Order and Protocol for Unsealing Decided Motions The Court previously ruled that “only motions actually decided by Judge Sweet—along with documents relevant to Judge Sweet’s decisions on those motions—are properly considered judicial documents to which a…
…Preska Counsel may proceed with filing the relevant District Court Judge documents to the public docket, subject to the United States District Court previously-ordered redactions. SO ORDERED. Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street …
…27, 2020) The Court previously ruled that “only motions actually decided by Judge Sweet—along with documents relevant to Judge Sweet’s decisions on those motions—are properly considered judicial documents to which a presumption of public access attaches.” Order…
…A. Ms. Maxwell incorporates by reference the Countervailing Interests she previously briefed and the legal bases therefore. See DE 1057.1 The Second Circuit already determined that Ms. Maxwell’s July 2016 deposition was compelled and that her answers related…
…at 180–82. 1. Undecided Motions1 Plaintiff’s Position: Mindful of the Court’s directive that “the parties’ proposals should accord with the Unsealing Protocol previously issued by this Court, including with respect to identification and notification of any affected…
…1 8.24.16 No objection to unsealing 398-2 8.24.16 Public document. 398-3 8.24.16 No objection to unsealing Previously Partially 398-4 8.24.16 Partially unsealed on remand …
…Plaintiff’s proposed redactions adhered to each of the Court’s prior orders (and were reviewed and approved by the Court previously), Maxwell repeated her assertion that large portions of these materials (including sections of Maxwell’s deposition transcript) should…
…1 Plaintiff’s response concerning the balance of the deposition misconstrues Ms. Maxwell’s objections and misstates the facts and the law of unsealing previously sealed judicial documents. First, plaintiff’s argument that the Second Circuit unsealed two pages of…
…other. As discussed in more detail below, the former group can maintain privacy by narrowly redacting information that would identify those who have not previously been publicly identified 1 As with prior filings, counsel for Intervenors have seen only Ms…
…15 Civ. 7433 (LAP) (“Maxwell”), which have been produced as discovery in Dershowitz. For all the reasons previously set forth by this Court, that must not be permitted. Accordingly, we request that the Court clarify the Dershowitz Protective Order to…
…Attached as Exhibit A is an amended list of the docket entries at issue, which corrects the entry for Dkt. 235-12 that was previously mislabeled as Dkt. 235-13 for Doe 171. Plaintiff also takes no position on Dkt…
…permits a Non-Party to be noticed twice. Re-noticing Doe 1 now would undo much of the Court’s previous work in reviewing and ruling on motions that mentions Doe 1, eviscerating any judicial economy, and would set a…
…such as 12 addresses, should be redacted from previously undisclosed 13 reports, to the extent such information has not already been 14 redacted by the law enforcement agency. 15 As for the names and identifying information of 16 nonparty Does…
Comments