gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1060.0.pdf

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1060 Filed 06/18/20 Page 1 of 2 Howard M. Cooper E-mail: [email protected] June 18, 2020 Via ECF Honorable Loretta A. Preska United States District Court Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007-1312 Re: Giuffre v. Maxwell, Case No.: 15-cv-07433-LAP Dear Judge Preska: Professor Alan Dershowitz (“Dershowitz”) writes in brief reply to Ghislaine Maxwell’s letter submitted yesterday. ECF No. 1059. Maxwell’s position is the height of impracticality. The evidence Professor Dershowitz seeks from Giuffre v. Maxwell is clearly discoverable given the overlapping allegations in the cases at issue, and she does not and cannot argue otherwise. Indeed, Maxwell ignores that the materials sought are in the custody, possession or control of Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre, whose position is that she will need relief in order to be able to produce any materials the Court deems to be relevant to her lawsuit with Dershowitz. Maxwell likewise ignores that at least until the Court rules otherwise upon a motion related to specific materials, Dershowitz will comply with the existing protective order. Instead, Maxwell apparently seeks to force Dershowitz and this Court to litigate piecemeal each and every individual subpoena for materials from each and every witness in the Maxwell case from whom testimony and documents is sought. Maxwell seeks to force this path while making no showing whatsoever that the discovery materials Dershowitz seeks from Giuffre are (i) not fairly in Giuffre’s hands and discoverable, or (ii) why they would not be discoverable from Maxwell herself. Maxwell incorrectly contends that there have been three unsuccessful prior attempts made by non-parties to gain access to documents in Maxwell. ECF No. 1059 at 1-2. She characterizes each of these attempts as failed and then states that this Court’s decisions somehow are the law of the case. Yet, the very standard she cites in her response provides an exception that clearly applies here. Id. at 2. As this Court knows, the Second Circuit spoke directly to the issues of confidentiality and unsealing of documents in this case and specifically vacated two of the three decisions cited by Maxwell. Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 44 (2d Cir. 2019). The same ruling uprooted the third opinion mentioned by Maxwell (the so-called “Sealed Opinion”), by rendering unreasonable any reliance on the confidentiality designations associated with the protective order. In Brown v. Maxwell, the Second Circuit unsealed the summary judgment motion and ordered particularized review of the remaining materials for the purpose of unsealing. Maxwell, 929 F.3d at 44-45. As this Court well knows, the summary judgment briefing contained many of Todd & Weld LLP • Attorneys at Law • One Federal Street, Boston, MA 02110 • T: 617.720.2626 • F: 617.227.5777 • www.toddweld.com  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1060 Filed 06/18/20 Page 2 of 2 Hon. Loretta A. Preska June 18, 2020 Page 2 of 2 the discovery materials that were protected by the protective order the parties supposedly “relied on” in making the productions. Yet, the Second Circuit ordered these materials released to the public (not just to another party willing to follow the protective order, as Dershowitz proposes here). In doing so, the Court made it clear that any reliance on the confidentiality designations made to discovery was not reasonable. This is hardly “plowed ground.” ECF No. 1059 at 1. For these reasons, Dershowitz respectfully requests that the Court proceed with a pre- motion conference regarding his access to discovery from Giuffre v. Maxwell. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Howard M. Cooper Howard M. Cooper cc: All counsel of record, via ECF Todd & Weld LLP • Attorneys at Law • One Federal Street, Boston, MA 02110 • T: 617.720.2626 • F: 617.227.5777 • www.toddweld.com