Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 4K views

    Summary Order: Present: J A. C, R S. P, R R

    Uploaded by

    Law&Crime
    A secret, years old and potentially damaging deposition from alleged sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell must be released to the public, a federal appeals court ruled.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Summary Order: Present: J A. C, R S. P, R R

    Uploaded by

    Law&Crime
    4K views5 pages
    A secret, years old and potentially damaging deposition from alleged sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell must be released to the public, a federal appeals court ruled.

    Original Title

    Maxwell-10-19-2020

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    A secret, years old and potentially damaging deposition from alleged sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell must be released to the public, a federal appeals court ruled.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    4K views5 pages

    Summary Order: Present: J A. C, R S. P, R R

    Uploaded by

    Law&Crime
    A secret, years old and potentially damaging deposition from alleged sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell must be released to the public, a federal appeals court ruled.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 5

    Case 20-2413, Document 140-1, 10/19/2020, 2955244, Page1 of 3

    20-2413-cv
    Giuffre v. Maxwell

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

    SUMMARY ORDER
    Rulings by summary order do not have precedential effect. Citation to a summary order filed
    on or after January 1, 2007, is permitted and is governed by Federal Rule of Appellate
    Procedure 32.1 and this Court’s Local Rule 32.1.1. When citing a summary order in a
    document filed with this Court, a party must cite either the Federal Appendix or an
    electronic database (with the notation “summary order”). A party citing a summary order
    must serve a copy of it on any party not represented by counsel.

    At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at
    the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
    on the 19th day of October, two thousand twenty.

    PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES,


    ROSEMARY S. POOLER,
    REENA RAGGI,
    Circuit Judges.

    VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE,

    Plaintiff-Appellee, 20-2413-cv

    v.

    GHISLAINE MAXWELL,

    Defendant-Appellant,

    SHARON CHURCHER, JEFFREY EPSTEIN,

    Respondents,

    JULIE BROWN, MIAMI HERALD MEDIA COMPANY,


    MICHAEL CERNOVICH, DBA CERNOVICH MEDIA,

    Intervenors.

    1
    Case 20-2413, Document 140-1, 10/19/2020, 2955244, Page2 of 3

    FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE: DAVID BOIES (Sigrid S. McCawley, on the


    brief) Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, Armonk,
    NY.

    FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT: ADAM MUELLER (Ty Gee, on the brief)


    Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C.,
    Denver, CO.

    FOR INTERVENORS: CHRISTINE N. WALZ (Sanford L. Bohrer,


    on the brief) Holland & Knight LLP, New
    York, NY, for Intervenors Julie Brown and
    Miami Herald Media Company.

    Appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
    York (Loretta A. Preska, Judge).

    UPON DUE CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,


    ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the order of the District Court be and hereby is
    AFFIRMED.

    Defendant-Appellant Ghislaine Maxwell appeals from a July 23, 2020 order unsealing certain
    litigation materials, including, and related to, Maxwell’s April 2016 deposition transcript. She argues
    that the District Court abused its discretion in ordering the unsealing of the deposition materials.
    Specifically, she argues that there is a lower presumption of access to the deposition materials at
    issue in this case than to the summary judgment materials we ordered unsealed in Brown v. Maxwell,
    929 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 2019), and that her interests outweigh the public’s interests. We assume the
    parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on
    appeal. 1

    When reviewing a district court’s decision to seal a filing or maintain such a seal, “we
    examine the court’s factual findings for clear error, its legal determinations de novo, and its ultimate
    decision to seal or unseal for abuse of discretion.” Brown, 929 F.3d at 47 (citing Bernstein v. Bernstein
    Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP, 814 F.3d 132, 139 (2d Cir. 2016)). A district court abuses its
    discretion if it “(1) bases its decision on an error of law or uses the wrong legal standard; (2) bases its
    decision on a clearly erroneous factual finding; or (3) reaches a conclusion that, though not
    necessarily the product of a legal error or a clearly erroneous factual finding, cannot be located
    within the range of permissible decisions.” Klipsch Grp. Inc. v. Epro E-Commerce Ltd., 880 F.3d 620,
    627 (2018) (internal quotation marks omitted).

    Although Michael Cernovich, DBA Cernovich Media, did not enter an appearance in this
    1

    appeal, letters of his dated July 31, 2020 and September 9, 2020 are before the Court.

    2
    Case 20-2413, Document 140-1, 10/19/2020, 2955244, Page3 of 3

    We cannot conclude that the District Court abused its discretion in ordering the unsealing of
    the deposition materials. While “the presumption of public access in filings submitted in connection
    with discovery disputes or motions in limine is generally somewhat lower than the presumption
    applied to material introduced at trial, or in connection with dispositive motions such as motions for
    dismissal or summary judgment,” the District Court correctly held that the deposition materials are
    judicial documents to which the presumption of public access attaches, and did not abuse its
    discretion in rejecting Maxwell’s meritless arguments that her interests superseded the presumption
    of access. Brown, 929 F.3d at 50. The District Court’s order articulated and applied the correct legal
    framework in its individualized review of the materials to be unsealed.

    CONCLUSION

    We have reviewed all of the arguments raised by Defendant-Appellant Maxwell on appeal


    and find them to be without merit. We DENY the motion to consolidate this appeal with the
    pending appeal in United States v. Maxwell, No. 20-3061-cr. For the foregoing reasons, we also
    AFFIRM the July 23, 2020 order of the District Court.

    In the interest of judicial economy, any further appeal in this civil case shall be referred to
    this panel.

    The mandate shall issue forthwith.

    FOR THE COURT:


    Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

    3
    Case 20-2413, Document 140-2, 10/19/2020, 2955244, Page1 of 1

    United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit


    Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse
    40 Foley Square
    New York, NY 10007

    DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON CATHERINE O'HAGAN WOLFE


    CHIEF JUDGE CLERK OF COURT

    Date: October 19, 2020 DC Docket #: 15-cv-7433


    Docket #: 20-2413cv DC Court: SDNY (NEW YORK
    Short Title: Giuffre v. Maxwell CITY)
    DC Judge: Preska

    BILL OF COSTS INSTRUCTIONS

    The requirements for filing a bill of costs are set forth in FRAP 39. A form for filing a bill of
    costs is on the Court's website.

    The bill of costs must:


    * be filed within 14 days after the entry of judgment;
    * be verified;
    * be served on all adversaries;
    * not include charges for postage, delivery, service, overtime and the filers edits;
    * identify the number of copies which comprise the printer's unit;
    * include the printer's bills, which must state the minimum charge per printer's unit for a page, a
    cover, foot lines by the line, and an index and table of cases by the page;
    * state only the number of necessary copies inserted in enclosed form;
    * state actual costs at rates not higher than those generally charged for printing services in New
    York, New York; excessive charges are subject to reduction;
    * be filed via CM/ECF or if counsel is exempted with the original and two copies.
    Case 20-2413, Document 140-3, 10/19/2020, 2955244, Page1 of 1

    United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit


    Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse
    40 Foley Square
    New York, NY 10007

    DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON CATHERINE O'HAGAN WOLFE


    CHIEF JUDGE CLERK OF COURT

    Date: October 19, 2020 DC Docket #: 15-cv-7433


    Docket #: 20-2413cv DC Court: SDNY (NEW YORK
    Short Title: Giuffre v. Maxwell CITY)
    DC Judge: Preska

    VERIFIED ITEMIZED BILL OF COSTS

    Counsel for
    _________________________________________________________________________

    respectfully submits, pursuant to FRAP 39 (c) the within bill of costs and requests the Clerk to
    prepare an itemized statement of costs taxed against the
    ________________________________________________________________

    and in favor of
    _________________________________________________________________________

    for insertion in the mandate.

    Docketing Fee _____________________

    Costs of printing appendix (necessary copies ______________ ) _____________________

    Costs of printing brief (necessary copies ______________ ____) _____________________

    Costs of printing reply brief (necessary copies ______________ ) _____________________

    (VERIFICATION HERE)

    ________________________
    Signature

    You might also like