…Reality: Courts routinely seal records concerning underage victims – well beyond replacing their names with initials – and victims do not forego their rights to privacy merely because they have played a role in a civil or criminal case against perpetrators. As…
…2021 (“January 6 Order”), see DE 233. 1 This appears to be yet another attempt by the Dershowitz parties to evade this Court’s carefully constructed privacy protections, by requesting (i) access to non-party information from Giuffre v. Maxwell…
…this Court entered a Protective Order (DE 62) for the privacy of the parties and deponents. 1 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 928 Filed 10/19/17 Page 2 of 11 2 Case 1:15-cv-07433…
…the first instance, constitute judicial records and, if so, whether and to what extent such records may be unsealed without infringing upon the privacy and reputational rights of persons not before this Court. See Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d…
…task. As the Court’s opinion recognizes in connection with the remaining sealed materials, the district court is better positioned to communicate with the parties and any nonparties whose privacy interests might be affected by unsealing. On that score, it…
…task. As the Court’s opinion recognizes in connection with the remaining sealed materials, the district court is better positioned to communicate with the parties and any nonparties whose privacy interests might be affected by unsealing. On that score, it…
…Non-Parties List: Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre and Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell (collectively, the “Original Parties”) each have submitted under seal a list of non-parties whose privacy, reputational or other interests may be implicated by the unsealing of the Sealed Materials…
…and Ms. Maxwell’s privacy interests. Further complicating the review are the numerous and varied legal grounds for sealing and redacting non-judicial and judicial documents. Two general grounds exist. A document may be sealed if it is a non…
…into the Court’s balancing of considerations – as it is ultimately the responsibility of this Court, and not the parties or even non-parties, to protect non-party privacy interests. I. Mr. Dershowitz’s Proposed Disclosure of Confidential Maxwell Materials …
…of any Sealed Materials. The solicitation and receipt of objections from Non-Parties who wish to participate is intended merely to aid the Court in balancing privacy and other interests against the public’s right of access. The Court will…
…she does not wish to further address those objections. See Dkt. 1230 at 2. Each of the listed Does has counsel who have ably asserted their own respective privacy rights. Ms. Maxwell therefore leaves it to this Court to conduct…
…have failed to meet the burden to demonstrate that any of these documents should remain sealed. Generalized Privacy Concerns Do Not Warrant Sealing This Court has already held that generalized concerns about embarrassment are insufficient to support sealing judicial documents…
…no. 1321 at 2.) Second, even so, the privacy interests at stake outweigh any presumption of public access to the Document. The public does not have an absolute right to access and inspect court documents; rather, courts may exercise their…
…(2) objected to the unsealing of their names out of respect for their “privacy,” and (3) requested excerpts for their “review.” They also provided Doe 1’s current address—the same Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP…
…party witnesses. Release of such confidential information outside of the litigation could expose the parties to ‘annoyance, embarrassment, [and] oppression and result in significant injury to one or more of the parties’ business or privacy interests.” - Defendant, Ghislaine Maxwell, March…
…Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 47 n.13 (2d Cir. 2019) (noting that it is the “privacy interest of those who resist disclose” that serve as a countervailing interest) (quoting S.E.C. v. TheStreet.Com, 273 F…
…undue burden (“Privacy Interests”). CI-4 - Preserving the fundamental rights of suspects or others under criminal investigation – including due process right to a fair trial and impartial jury unimpaired by excessive publicity, release of potentially inadmissible evidence for the Criminal…
…On March 18, 2016, this Court entered a Protective Order (DE 62) for the privacy of the parties and deponents. Non-Party Jane Doe 43 was a fact witness and deponent in the Giuffre v. Maxwell case. She provided both…
…Protocol, is that the “solicitation and receipt of objections from Non-Parties who wish to participate is intended merely to aid the Court in balancing privacy and other interests against the public’s right of access.” (Protocol at 5.) Accordingly…
…1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1285 Filed 12/05/22 Page 2 of 6 information necessary to evaluate her privacy interests at stake.) See also Appendix (Summary Chart).1 While Doe 171 strenuously maintains her right to remain anonymous…
Comments