Case 20-2413, Document 44, 08/20/2020, 2913556, Page1 of 78¶
20-2413¶
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit¶
—against—¶
Plaintiff-Appellee,¶
GHISLAINE MAXWELL,¶
Defendant-Appellant,¶
SHARON CHURCHER, JEFFREY EPSTEIN,¶
Respondents,¶
JULIE BROWN, MIAMI HERALD MEDIA COMPANY,¶
ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ, MICHAEL CERNOVICH, DBA CERNOVICH MEDIA¶
Intervenors.¶
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, 15-CV-7433 (LAP)¶
APPENDIX¶
Volume IV of VIII (Pages App.-0777 to App.-0852)¶
Ty Gee¶
Adam Mueller¶
HADDON, MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C.¶
Attorneys for Defendant-Appellant Ghislaine Maxwell¶
EFTA00076383¶
Case 20-2413, Document 44, 08/20/2020, 2913556, Page2 of 78¶
| Docket Entries | App.-0001 |
| Order regarding Ms. Maxwell’s Letter Motion to Reconsider July 23, 2020 Ruling, Dated July 29, 2020 (Dkt. 1079) | App.-0777 |
| Notice of Appeal, Dated July 29, 2020 (Dkt. 1081) | App.-0781 |
| Non-Redacted Declaration of Sigrid S. McCawley In Support of Plaintiff’s Motion to Exceed Presumptive Ten Deposition Limit in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(A)(2)(a)(ii), Dated July 30, 2020 (Dkt. 1090-10) | App.-0783 |
| Ms. Maxwell’s Letter Response to August 3, 2020 Order, Dated August 10, 2020 (Dkt. 1100) | App.-0787 |
| Exhibit A to Maxwell’s Letter Response to August 3, 2020 Order - Protective Order, Dated July 30, 2020 U.S. v. Maxwell, No. 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) (S.D.N.Y.) (Dkt. 1100-1) | App.-0791 |
| Order regarding Ms. Maxwell’s Letter Response to August 3, 2020 Order, Dated August 12, 2020 (Dkt. 1103) | App.-0803 |
| Transcript of April 21, 2016 Hearing | App.-0805 |
| Transcript of July 23, 2020 Hearing | App.-0835 |
| Order regarding Modification of Protective Order, Dated August 18, 2020 U.S. v. Maxwell, No. 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) (S.D.N.Y.) (Dkt. 044) | App.-0852 |
EFTA00076384¶
Case 1526v207433DAPmeDocument82007920Filed 05729/20gePage78 of 4¶
App.-0777¶
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK¶
No. 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP)¶
MEMORANDUM & ORDER¶
LORETTA A. PRESKA, Senior United States District Judge:¶
The Court has reviewed Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell’s letter requesting reconsideration of the Court’s July 23, 2020, decision to unseal (1) the transcripts of Ms. Maxwell’s and Doe 1’s depositions, and (2) court submissions excerpting from, quoting from, or summarizing the contents of the transcripts. (See dkt. no. 1078.)¶
Ms. Maxwell’s eleventh-hour request for reconsideration is denied. As Ms. Maxwell acknowledges in her letter, reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy.” In re Beacon Assocs. Litig., 818 F. Supp. 2d 697, 701 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (quoting In re Health Mgmt. Sys. Inc. Sec. Litig., 113 F. Supp. 2d 613, 614 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)). Such motions “are properly granted only if there is a showing of: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; or (3) a need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Drapkin v. Mafco Consol. Grp., Inc., 818 F. Supp. 2d 678, 696 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). “A motion for reconsideration¶
1¶
EFTA00076385¶
Case1520v247433.Document1007920.Filed 05729/20ge Page78 of 4¶
App.-0778¶
may not be used to advance new facts, issues or arguments not previously presented to the Court, nor may it be used as a vehicle for relitigating issues already decided by the Court.” Bennett v. Watson Wyatt & Co., 156 F. Supp.2d 270, 271 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).¶
Here, Ms. Maxwell’s request for reconsideration hinges on her assertion that new developments, i.e., her indictment and arrest, provide compelling reasons for keeping the deposition transcripts sealed. (See dkt. no. 1078 at 5.) But, despite Ms. Maxwell’s contention that she could not address the effect of those events in her objections because they occurred after the close of briefing, (id.),¹ this is plowed ground. Indeed, in her original objection to unsealing, Ms. Maxwell argued that the specter of ongoing criminal investigations into unknown individuals associated with Jeffrey Epstein—a group that, of course, includes Ms. Maxwell—loomed large over the Court-ordered unsealing¶
1 The Court notes as a practical matter that Ms. Maxwell was arrested on July 2, 2020—that is, three weeks prior to the Court’s July 23 decision to unseal the materials at issue. To the extent that they relate to the to the Court’s balancing of interests in the unsealing process, the issues that Ms. Maxwell raises in her request were surely plain the day that Ms. Maxwell was apprehended. Ms. Maxwell, however, did not seek to supplement her objections to unsealing despite ample time to do so. In fact, the Court notified the parties on July 21, 2020, that it would announce the unsealing decision with respect to Ms. Maxwell’s deposition, together with other documents, on July 23. (See dkt. no. 1076.) Even then, Ms. Maxwell made no request for delay or to supplement her papers. Ms. Maxwell did not raise her “vastly different position,” (Transcript of July 23 Ruling at 16:2-3), until moments after the Court had made its decision to unseal the relevant documents.¶
2¶
EFTA00076386¶
Case1520v247433.DAPmeDocument107920Filed105729/20gePage73 of 4¶
App.-0779¶
process. (See dkt. no. 1057 at 5.) This argument, specifically Ms. Maxwell’s concern that unsealing would “inappropriately influence potential witnesses or alleged victims,” (id.), and her reference to “publicly reported statements by Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s counsel, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and the Attorney General for the U.S. Virgin Islands” about those investigations, (id.), carried with it the clear implication that Ms. Maxwell could find herself subject to investigation and, eventually, indictment. The Court understood that implication as applying to Ms. Maxwell and thus has already considered any role that criminal charges against Ms. Maxwell might play in rebutting the presumption of public access to the sealed materials. Ms. Maxwell’s request for reconsideration of the Court’s July 23 ruling is accordingly denied.¶
Given the Court’s denial of Ms. Maxwell’s request for reconsideration, the Court will stay the unsealing of Ms. Maxwell’s and Doe 1’s deposition transcripts and any sealed or redacted order or paper that quotes from or discloses information from those deposition transcripts for two business days, i.e., through Friday, July 31, 2020, so that Ms. Maxwell may seek relief from the Court of Appeals. Any sealed materials that do not quote from or disclose information from those deposition transcripts shall be unsealed on July 30, 2020, in the manner described by the Court’s Order dated July 28, 2020. (See dkt. no. 1077.) Ms. Maxwell’s and¶
3¶
EFTA00076387¶
Case1520v247433.DAPmeD0812007920Filed 05729/20gePage74 of 4¶
App.-0780¶
Doe 1’s deposition transcripts and any sealed materials that quote or disclose information from them shall be unsealed in the manner prescribed by the July 28 Order on Monday, August 3, 2020, subject to any further stay ordered by the Court of Appeals.¶
SO ORDERED.¶
Dated: New York, New York July 29, 2020¶
Louetta A. Presley¶
LORETTA A. PRESKA¶
Senior United States District Judge¶
4¶