gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1284.0.pdf

MBIMGUIC Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1284 Filed 12/02/22 Page 1 of 17 1 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 2 ------------------------------x 3 VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE, 4 Plaintiff, 5 v. 15 CV 7433 (LAP) 6 GHISLAINE MAXWELL, 7 Defendant. Conference (via Microsoft Teams) 8 ------------------------------x New York, N.Y. 9 November 18, 2022 12:30 p.m. 10 Before: 11 HON. LORETTA A. PRESKA, 12 District Judge 13 14 APPEARANCES 15 BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP Attorneys for Plaintiff 16 BY: SIGRID S. McCAWLEY 17 HOLLAND & KNIGHT Attorneys for Intervenors Julie Brown and Miami Herald 18 Media Company BY: CHRISTINE N. WALZ 19 ZEIGER TIGGES & LITTLE LLP 20 Attorneys for Doe 183 BY: MARION H. LITTLE, JR. 21 22 23 24 25 SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300  MBIMGUIC Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1284 Filed 12/02/22 Page 2 of 17 2 1 THE COURT: As we all know, this is Giuffre against 2 Maxwell. Today the Court announces its rulings on the 3 unsealing of documents associated with nonparty Does 12, 28, 4 97, 107, 144, 147, 171, and 183. 5 The Court sought the parties' views as to how to 6 streamline the unsealing process, and the revised protocol we 7 have now settled upon generally works as follows. Rather than 8 reviewing objections by document, the Court will undertake a 9 particularized review of each document grouped by objector. 10 This review will proceed in two phases. 11 First, the parties brief and the Court will review the 12 documents associated with the nonparty objectors. And then the 13 parties will brief and the Court will review the documents 14 associated with the remaining nonparties who have not filed 15 objections. 16 We are now still in the first phase. As I mentioned, 17 upon consideration today are the objections of the second set 18 of aid of the 16 nonparty objectors: Does 12, 28, 97, 107, 19 144, 147, and 171 and 183. The Court will announce its general 20 findings relevant to this round of unsealing and march through 21 the documents. 22 As for the Court's general findings, to determine 23 whether materials should be unsealed, the Court's mandate is to 24 undertake a particularized review of each document and to (1) 25 evaluate the weight of the presumption of public access to the SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300  MBIMGUIC Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1284 Filed 12/02/22 Page 3 of 17 3 1 materials; (2) identify and evaluate the weight of any 2 countervailing interests; and (3) determine whether the 3 countervailing interests rebut the presumption. 4 The presumption of public access attaches to judicial 5 documents, those documents filed in connection with a decided 6 motion or papers that are relevant to the Court's exercise of 7 its inherent supervisory powers. 8 The documents at issue here were submitted in 9 connection with discovery motions decided by Judge Sweet. The 10 Court concludes that if they are judicial documents, with an 11 exception or two, which I will note, to which the presumption 12 of public access attaches. The motions at issue today are 13 largely discovery motions and related papers which presumption 14 of public access is somewhat less weighty than for a 15 dispositive motion. It's nevertheless important to the 16 public's interest in monitoring federal courts' exercise of 17 their Article III powers. 18 With this presumption of public access in mind, the 19 Court turns to their countervailing interests at stake. The 20 Court has considered the arguments advanced by Ms. Giuffre in 21 her briefing and the submissions from the intervenors. 22 Perhaps, most importantly, for our purposes today, we 23 have also received submissions from nonparty Does 12, 28, 97, 24 107, 144, 147, 171 and 183 who have asserted various privacy 25 interests which they contend weigh against unsealing. These SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300  MBIMGUIC Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1284 Filed 12/02/22 Page 4 of 17 4 1 objecting Does have been afforded the opportunity to respond to 2 the written positions of the parties and the herald and some, 3 but not all of them, have availed themselves of that 4 opportunity. 5 As to the parties, in the earlier rounds of unsealing, 6 Ms. Maxwell objected to unsealing on the basis that doing so 7 would imperil her right to a fair trial in what was then her 8 pending criminal trial. She also advanced various privacy 9 interests. Now that Ms. Maxwell's criminal trial has 10 concluded, she takes no position one way or the other on the 11 unsealing. 12 Ms. Giuffre generally supports the full unsealing of 13 42 of the documents in question relating to the nonparty Does 14 presently under consideration, given the presumption of public 15 access. 16 Public access to judicial documents and the fact that 17 much of the information that was sealed in this matter has 18 since become public in the course of Ms. Maxwell's criminal 19 trial. 20 About six documents concerning Doe number 28, 21 Ms. Giuffre supports the unsealing except for the redaction of 22 Doe 28's name. Plaintiff takes no position as to approximately 23 26 of the documents. 24 As for the names and identifying information of the 25 objecting nonparty Does, much of the purportedly sensitive SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300  MBIMGUIC Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1284 Filed 12/02/22 Page 5 of 17 5 1 information has already been made public in the course of 2 Ms. Maxwell's criminal trial or otherwise in the media. 3 However, just because "some information relating to 4 the documents in question already has been discussed on the 5 public record or reported in the media does not mean that the 6 concerned third parties have lost any remaining privacy 7 interests in their contents." United States v. Gatto, 2019 WL 8 4194569 at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 3, 2019) (Kaplan, J.). 9 As I will explain, there are certain details contained 10 within certain documents as to certain of the Does that are not 11 public and as to which the objecting Does have set forth a 12 sufficient interest to preserve sealing or redactions, despite 13 the presumption of public access to these documents. 14 I will now go through the documents and, needless to 15 say, these findings are a result of the Court's particularized 16 review of each document it has considered. 17 As with the earlier rounds of unsealing, the Court 18 will proceed in the order of the documents listed on the chart 19 that the parties have very helpfully provided listing their 20 respective positions for each document. The chart is Exhibit A 21 to Ms. Giuffre's response in support of unsealing. The docket 22 number of that document is 1247-1. 23 Here we go. 24 With respect to docket entry 144-6, the motion to 25 unseal is granted. Emmy Tayler argues that her name and SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300  MBIMGUIC Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1284 Filed 12/02/22 Page 6 of 17 6 1 identity should be sealed because she was a victim of serious 2 abuse by Jeffrey Epstein. The Court is generally inclined to 3 protect the identities of victims of sexual abuse, even in the 4 face of a presumption of public access. 5 However, on July 19, 2022, Ms. Tayler filed a federal 6 lawsuit against Julie Brown, the reporter, and Harper Collins 7 alleging that Ms. Brown's book, Perversion of Justice, contains 8 allegedly defamatory statements about Ms. Tayler and her 9 alleged association with Jeffrey Epstein. In her complaint 10 Ms. Tayler republishes certain allegedly defamatory statements 11 made in the book, and she states that "from 1997 to 2001, she 12 was employed in London and then New York as an assistant to 13 Ghislaine Maxwell." Numerous other public sources, including 14 unsealed portions of Ms. Maxwell's criminal trial transcript, 15 similarly refer to Ms. Tayler. Accordingly, this document will 16 be unsealed. 17 Document number 150-1, with respect to Doe 171, the 18 unsealing is granted for the same reasons as mentioned above. 19 With respect to Doe 183, the motion to unseal is 20 granted. This document is a 56-page excerpt of Ms. Maxwell's 21 deposition, and Doe 183 is referred to three times. That Doe's 22 relationship with Jeffrey Epstein has been the subject of 23 intense media coverage and Doe 183's name has appeared in 24 numerous places in unsealing portions of Ms. Maxwell's criminal 25 trial transcript. In the Court's view, there is no reason to SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300  MBIMGUIC Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1284 Filed 12/02/22 Page 7 of 17 7 1 redact Doe 183's name from the document. However, Doe 183 has 2 asked the Court to stay unsealing to allow appellate rights to 3 be pursued. Accordingly, the unsealing of all of these 4 documents with respect to Doe 183 is stayed until Monday, 5 November 28, in order to allow Doe number 183 to seek a further 6 stay from the Court of Appeals. 7 Document 153-1. With respect to Doe 171, the 8 unsealing motion is granted for the same reasons. 9 Docket entry 172, with respect to Doe 171, motion to 10 unseal is granted. With respect to Doe 28, the motion is 11 denied. On the consent of the plaintiff and in light of Doe 12 28's status as a victim of sexual assault who continues to 13 experience trauma as a result of these events, Doe 28's name 14 shall remain sealed. 15 Document 173-5, same with respect to Doe 171. Same 16 with respect to Doe 28. 17 With respect to Doe 144, the motion to unseal is 18 granted. Doe 144, Tom Pritzker, objects to the unsealing of 19 this document on the ground that it may wrongfully harm his 20 privacy and reputation. The document merely shows that a 21 witness did not recall meeting a, quote, Tom Pritzker, name 22 misspelled, but very similar. There is no basis for keeping 23 this document under seal. 24 With respect to 183, same answer as above. 25 Document 173-6, same as to all of the Does: 171, 28, SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300  MBIMGUIC Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1284 Filed 12/02/22 Page 8 of 17 8 1 144, and 183. 2 Document 185-3, same as to Doe 171. 3 Document 185-11, with respect to Doe 97, motion to 4 unseal is denied. This is a situation of apparently mistaken 5 identity. Same response as above on Doe 144. 6 Document 185-15, same responses as above to Does 183 7 and 171. 8 Document 203, same as above on Does 28 and 171, 211, 9 224, same responses as above on Does 28 and 171. 10 Document 228, same as above on Doe 171. 11 Document 232-7, same as above on Doe number 144. 12 Document 235-4, same responses as above as to Does 97, 13 107, 144, and 171. 14 Document 235-12, same as above for Does 107 and 171. 15 Document 247-2, same as above with respect to Doe 16 number 144. 17 Document 249-4, same as above for Doe 171 and 28. 18 Document 249-13, same as above with respect to Does 19 144, 97, 183, 171, 28, and 107. 20 Document 272-5, same as above with respect to Doe 171. 21 Document 280-1, same as above with respect to Does 28, 22 97, 107, 144, and 171, and 183. 23 Document 315, same as above with respect to Doe number 24 183. 25 Document 316-7, same as above with respect to Doe 183. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300  MBIMGUIC Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1284 Filed 12/02/22 Page 9 of 17 9 1 Document 320, same as above with respect to Doe 171. 2 Document 321-1, this is identical to document 280-1 3 and the same rulings apply. 4 Document 321-5, same as above with respect to Does 28, 5 97, 107, 144, and 183. 6 Document 321-6, same as above with respect to Does 28, 7 144, 171, and 183. 8 Documents 338, 338-3, 338-6, 338-7, same as above with 9 respect to Doe number 28. 10 Document 339, same as above with respect to Does 28, 11 171, and 183. 12 Document 340-3, same as above with respect to Does 28, 13 171, 183. 14 Document 340-4, same as above, Doe 183. 15 Document 350, same as above with respect to Doe 28. 16 Document 363-7, same as above with respect to Does 28, 17 97, 107, 144, 171, and 183. 18 Actually, I take that back. Let me do document 363-7 19 again. 20 This is a deposition excerpt from a Florida state 21 litigation attached by Mr. Dershowitz to his motion to 22 intervene in this case. The document played no apparent role 23 in the Court's decision on the motion. Thus, any presumption 24 of public access to this document is barely cognizable and, 25 accordingly, the objections of the Does to this document being SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300  MBIMGUIC Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1284 Filed 12/02/22 Page 10 of 17 10 1 unsealed are sustained. So the motion to unseal 363-7 is 2 denied. 3 With respect to document 368, same as above regarding 4 Doe 183. 5 With respect to document 369-1, same as above with 6 respect to Does 128, 144, 171, and 183. 7 With respect to document 369-5, same as above with 8 respect to Does 28 and 171. 9 With respect to document 369-10, same as above with 10 respect to Doe 183. 11 Document 407-4, same as above with respect to Doe 171. 12 Same thing with respect to document 407-9, same as above as to 13 Doe 171. 14 Document 407-10, same as above with respect to Doe 15 183. 16 Document number 423-4, same as above with respect to 17 Does 28, 97, 107, 144, 171, and 183. Except to the extent that 18 this document contains personal information, such as addresses 19 and that sort of thing, that personal information should be 20 redacted. 21 With respect to document 435, same as above with 22 respect to Doe 144. 23 Document 450-1, same as above with respect to Doe 97, 24 28, and 171. 25 With respect to document 482-1, same as above with SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300  MBIMGUIC Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1284 Filed 12/02/22 Page 11 of 17 11 1 respect to Doe 28. 2 Document 510-3, same as above as to Doe 144. 3 Document 514-3, same as above with respect to Doe 144. 4 Document 515, same as above with respect to Doe 183. 5 Documents 591, 576, 640, 641, 641-2, 655, 656, and 6 656-1, 656-2, 656-3, 656-4, 656-5, 656-6, and 656-7, same as 7 above on all these documents with respect to Doe 147s. 8 Continuing on, document 656-8, 656-9, and 700, same as 9 above with respect to Doe 147. 10 Document 701-1, same as above with respect to Does -- 11 there is no same as above as to Doe 12. As to Doe 12, the 12 motion to unseal is denied. Doe 12 is a classic outsider, 13 peripheral to the events at issue. Doe 12 is neither a victim 14 nor associated with Epstein or Maxwell. Any reference to Doe 15 12 played no apparent role in Judge Sweet's ruling on the 16 discovery motion to which this document was attached. And Doe 17 12 was not mentioned, so far as the Court is aware, at 18 Ms. Maxwell's criminal trial. With respect to document 701-1, 19 the motion to unseal with respect to Doe 12 is denied. 20 With respect to Does 144 and 147, the motion to unseal 21 is granted, as per the same reasons as above. 22 With respect to documents 701-2, 707, 708, 714, 715, 23 715-2, and 947, same result as above with respect to Doe 147. 24 Document 947-1, same as above with respect to Does 12 25 and 147. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300  MBIMGUIC Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1284 Filed 12/02/22 Page 12 of 17 12 1 Counsel, I think I've gotten my way through this. If 2 you discover any mistakes or inconsistencies, let me know, but 3 I'll ask counsel to confer in the manner you have in the past 4 and prepare the documents for unsealing and posting on the 5 docket sheet. 6 I'll just remind you that with respect to Doe 183, the 7 unsealing is stayed until Monday, November 28, to allow that 8 Doe to seek a further stay from the Court of Appeals. 9 Any questions, concerns, or mistakes I made, counsel? 10 MS. McCAWLEY: Judge, I tried to pay very close 11 attention, but I think I missed one, and that was Doe 107. I'm 12 unclear as to whether that is sealed or unsealed as to Doe 107. 13 THE COURT: Where do you see Doe 107 appearing first, 14 Ms. McCawley, please? 15 MS. McCAWLEY: I think the first appearance of Doe 16 107, if I'm doing this correct, is in 249-13. 17 THE COURT: 107. With respect to Doe 107, the motion 18 to unseal is granted. Doe 107 objects essentially on the 19 grounds that unsealing would connect that Doe with this case 20 and would unnecessarily invade Doe 107's privacy. But 21 generalized concerns of adverse publicity do not outweigh the 22 presumption of public access, and the information contained in 23 these excerpts is not particularly salacious, as opposed to the 24 some of the other information we have all seen. Accordingly, 25 the Court concludes that the presumption of public access SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300  MBIMGUIC Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1284 Filed 12/02/22 Page 13 of 17 13 1 overcomes any generalized interest that Doe 107 might have. 2 Thank you for catching me on that, Ms. McCawley. 3 MS. McCAWLEY: I have one more. 4 THE COURT: Yes, ma'am. 5 MS. McCAWLEY: I think I heard you correct. This 6 shows up for the first time, Judge, in docket entry 591 and 7 it's Doe 147. I believe you said that remained sealed. But I 8 just want to confirm that. 9 THE COURT: That, I think, is not correct with respect 10 to Doe 147. The motion to unseal has been granted for the 11 reason that I stated with respect to document 144-6. 12 MS. McCAWLEY: OK. Thank you, your Honor. 13 THE COURT: That was the first document we did. 14 Does that appear consistent to you? 15 MS. McCAWLEY: Let me see. The first document we 16 did -- 17 THE COURT: I'm sorry. You are right. 147. Hold on. 18 I was mistaken. 19 MS. McCAWLEY: 147 first shows up at docket entry 591, 20 so the very back that you were just doing. 21 THE COURT: I am having trouble finding my note on 22 that one. I'm sorry, Ms. McCawley, to hold these people up. 23 MS. McCAWLEY: That's totally fine. That individual 24 is in a number of entries. 25 THE COURT: Let me just add this. I am looking at SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300  MBIMGUIC Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1284 Filed 12/02/22 Page 14 of 17 14 1 another note here. To the extent that there is personal 2 contact information in any of these excerpts, needless to say, 3 that should remain sealed. 4 While I'm looking through these notes, I will thank 5 counsel yet again for organizing the chart in such a helpful 6 manner. 7 MS. McCAWLEY: Thank you, your Honor. 8 THE COURT: Thank you for catching me on that. 9 With respect to Doe number 147 -- I'm looking, first, 10 at document 591, which is a letter to the Court regarding 11 reopening discovery. The motion to unseal is granted. This 12 letter generally identifies Ms. Ransome as an individual with 13 information relevant to the case and thus whose deposition 14 should be taken. 15 Ms. Ransome, apparently a victim of sexual trauma and 16 abuse by Mr. Epstein, testified publicly at Ms. Maxwell's 17 sentencing on June 28, 2022 about the details of her abuse. 18 She said at the hands of Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell. 19 Ms. Ransome also published a book about her experiences called 20 silenced no more and recently published an op-ed in the 21 Washington Post on July 18, 2022, further describing her 22 background and experiences. Thus, because this information is 23 already public and because Ms. Ransome has put herself out into 24 the public forum relating to these issues and because the 25 presumption of public access attaches to the document, document SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300  MBIMGUIC Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1284 Filed 12/02/22 Page 15 of 17 15 1 number 591 should be unsealed. 2 With respect to the other documents mentioning Doe 3 147, they shall be unsealed as well. 4 I think some of those documents also had some personal 5 contact information. Of course that should be excluded from 6 the production. 7 One more. I'm looking at document 641-2. That should 8 be unsealed, except page 204, line 14 through page 206, line 25 9 shall remain sealed because it contains sensitive medical 10 information. I'm sorry. Did I interrupt someone? 11 MS. McCAWLEY: That was me interrupting you. I 12 apologize, your Honor. 13 The only other issue, question I have, just so I'm 14 clear, at the beginning of this you asked me if everybody was 15 on and I didn't realize. I didn't see whether -- there are 16 some phone numbers, but I'm unclear if Ms. Menninger is on. 17 Could you give us time to confer with her on the timing of when 18 we have a trial coming up. Also, the holidays. We probably 19 need to -- December 8 is what we are looking at for our portion 20 of it. I would need to confer with her to see how quickly her 21 staff can help, and we can divide it up. 22 THE COURT: Yes, ma'am. Just let me know what works 23 for you people. 24 MS. McCAWLEY: Thank you so much. 25 THE COURT: Good afternoon, counsel. Thank you for SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300  MBIMGUIC Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1284 Filed 12/02/22 Page 16 of 17 16 1 being on. 2 MR. LITTLE: Your Honor, if I may, as to Doe 183, I do 3 not believe the Court ruled as to excerpt 185-15 or excerpt 4 249-13. 5 THE COURT: I am going to have go look for those. 6 Is there any reason why the ruling should not be same? 7 MR. LITTLE: As to 249-13, I believe it would be the 8 same, your Honor. However, as to 185-15, I believe it might be 9 different. 10 THE COURT: Let me look. 185-15. 11 MS. McCAWLEY: It would be toward the beginning, your 12 Honor, of your list. 13 THE COURT: Yes, ma'am. I have it right in front of 14 me. 15 With respect to that, I take it, counsel, that your 16 argument, I think I recall it as being that this document has 17 really minimal presumption of public access because it's just 18 notes. 19 MR. LITTLE: That is correct, your Honor. 20 THE COURT: In that case, I stand corrected. Thank 21 you for bringing that to my attention. 22 With respect to document 185-15, these are notes of a 23 teleconference, so obviously they played no part in Judge 24 Sweet's decision on the motion and, thus, the presumption of 25 public access does not attach. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300  MBIMGUIC Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1284 Filed 12/02/22 Page 17 of 17 17 1 Accordingly, the motion to unseal 185-15 is denied 2 both as to 183, Doe 183 and 171. 3 Thank you, counsel, for your assistance. 4 MR. LITTLE: Thank you, your Honor. 5 THE COURT: Anything else, ladies and gentlemen? 6 MS. WALZ: Your Honor, after counsel have had an 7 opportunity to confer, will you let us know when the unsealing 8 is expected? 9 THE COURT: Yes, ma'am. I am sure counsel will be 10 happy to let you know. 11 MS. WALZ: Thank you. 12 THE COURT: Happy Thanksgiving. 13 MS. McCAWLEY: Thank you, Judge. 14 THE COURT: Thank you. 15 Thank you, Ms. Phillips. 16 (Adjourned) 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300