gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.999.0.pdf

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 999 Filed 10/30/19 Page 1 of 2 October 30, 2019 By ECF The Honorable Loretta A. Preska United States District Judge Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street, Room 2220 New York, NY 10007-1312 Re: Giuffre v. Maxwell, 15 Civ. 07433 (LAP) Dear Judge Preska: We write on behalf of a non-party, John Doe, regarding the letter filed by Alan Dershowitz on October 24, 2019, in the case of Giuffre v. Dershowitz, 19 Civ. 3377 (LAP). See 19 Civ. 3377 (LAP) Docket Entry (“DE”) 71. By that letter, Dershowitz – the defendant in that case, and an intervenor seeking categorical unsealing of all sealed filings here – requests that this Court order the plaintiff there (and here) Virginia Giuffre to “immediately produce” two documents that he styles as “pre-Answer discovery.” Id. On the following day, October 25, 2019, this Court directed counsel in that case to confer regarding Dershowitz’s request and, if Giuffre disagrees with Dershowitz’s request, to so inform the Court by November 4, 2019. See DE 72. The Court should not permit Dershowitz to engage in an end run around the unsealing process Your Honor is conducting in this matter. Dershowitz seeks the “immediate” production of two non-public documents, including Giuffre’s partially sealed deposition taken in this case. DE 71. This request effectively proposes to by-pass the sealing-review process this Court has initiated here. And Dershowitz does not even attempt to address how his request can be aligned with the sealing-review process in this case. Nor does he articulate why pre-answer access to sealed documents – which he presumably intends to unilaterally unseal and use in potential counterclaims and his answer – would be necessary to satisfy notice-pleading requirements.  Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 999 Filed 10/30/19 Page 2 of 2 October 30, 2019 Page 2 of 2 We respectfully submit that the documents to which Dershowitz requests immediate access be subject to the same unsealing procedure that the Court envisions for the rest of the documents subject to the Court of Appeals’ remand. See Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 2019). Respectfully Submitted, KRIEGER KIM & LEWIN LLP By: _________________________ Nicholas J. Lewin Paul M. Krieger cc (by ECF): Counsel of record (15 Civ. 7433 (LAP)) cc (by email): Counsel of record (19 Civ. 3377 (LAP))