Plaintiff: This material should be unsealed in full. First, "[t]he burden of demonstrating that a document submitted to a court should be sealed rests on the party seeking such action." DiRussa v. [REDACTED] Witter [REDACTED] Inc., 121 F.3d 818, 826 (2d Cir. 1997). This individual did not raise any objection to unsealing, and thus did not meet their burden of identifying "with specificity competing and compelling interests in closure" and that "those interests outweigh the presumption of access." Lytle v. JPMorgan Chase, 810 F. Supp. 2d 616, 621 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). Second, this individual gave a media interview about their work for Epstein to the Daily Mail in 2011, weighing against continued sealing. United States v. Avenatti, No. (S1) 19 CR. 373 (PGG), 2020 WL 70952, at \*6 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 6, 2020) ("In considering whether sealing is appropriate, an important consideration is, of course, whether the information sought to be kept confidential is already public."); 4/19/22 Hearing Tr. at 7:11-16 (unsealing documents relating to Doe who gave media interviews and was identified in the press); see [REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
Defendant: All docket mentions are Rule 26 disclosures. This individual and Doe #4 reportedly live abroad and no confirmation of receipt of the Notice was received.
| | J. DOE 004 | 235-13, 249-13, 280-1, 321-1, 423-4 | Employee of Epstein; Alleged Witness |Plaintiff: This material should be unsealed in full. First, this individual did not raise any objection to unsealing, and thus did not meet their burden of identifying interests that outweigh the presumption of access with specificity. DiRussa, 121 F.3d at 826; Lytle, 810 F. Supp. 2d at 621. Second, this individual gave a media interview about their work for Epstein to the Daily Mail in 2011, weighing against continued sealing. Avenatti, 2020 WL 70952, at \*6; 4/19/22 Hearing Tr. at 7:11-16; see [REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
| | Pseudonym | Relevant Docket Entries | Characterization | Additional Comments/Argument | | ---------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | -------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | | Defendant: All mentions are Rule 26 disclosures and search terms. This individual and Doe #3 reportedly live abroad and no confirmation of receipt of the Notice was received. | | J. DOE 005 | 315, 316-7, 340-4, 368, 369-3 | Alleged Victim;Plaintiff: This material should be unsealed in full. First, this individual did not raise any objection to unsealing, and thus did not meet their burden of identifying interests that outweigh the presumption of access with specificity. DiRussa, 121 F.3d at 826; Lytle, 810 F. Supp. 2d at 621. Second, this individual testified publicly at Maxwell's criminal trial, weighing against continued sealing. Avenatti, 2020 WL 70952, at \*6; 11/18/22 Hearing Tr. at 6:19-25 (unsealing documents relating to Doe whose name came up publicly at Maxwell criminal trial). This individual, however, testified under their first name only with Judge Nathan's permission. Plaintiff therefore has no objection to the redaction of this individual's last name in documents that are not already public.
Defendant objects to redaction of this Doe's last name. The witness publicly waived any right to anonymity after the criminal trial, as Judge Nathan found, and gave an interview using their first and last names, so no legal basis to redact last name remains. See United States v. Maxwell, 20-cr-330, Dkt. 589, 593, 662;
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
| | J. DOE 006 | 203, 211, 235-4, 235-13, 249-4, 249-14, 280-1, 321-1, 380, 381-4, 423-1, 510-4 | Alleged VictimPlaintiff: This material should be unsealed in full. First, this individual did not raise any objection to unsealing, and thus did not meet their burden of identifying interests that outweigh the presumption of access with specificity. DiRussa, 121 F.3d at 826; Lytle, 810 F. Supp. 2d at 621. Second, portions of this individual's deposition were released by the Second Circuit, meaning their name and association with this case is already public. Avenatti, 2020 WL 70952, at \*6; 7/1/21 Hearing Tr. at 6-7 (ruling that materials released by the Second Circuit should be unsealed).
Defendant: Confirmation of receipt of Notice received.
| | Pseudonym | Relevant Docket Entries | Characterization | Additional Comments/Argument | | ---------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | J. DOE 007 | 338, 338-1, 338-9, 369-12, 397, 398, 398-5, 468, 469, 469-2, 479, 514-5, 660-1 | Employee of Epstein |Plaintiff: This material should be unsealed in full. First, this individual did not raise any objection to unsealing, and thus did not meet their burden of identifying interests that outweigh the presumption of access with specificity. DiRussa, 121 F.3d at 826; Lytle, 810 F. Supp. 2d at 621. Second, portions of this individual's deposition were released by the Second Circuit, meaning their name and association with this case is already public. Avenatti, 2020 WL 70952, at \*6; 7/1/21 Hearing Tr. at 6-7 (ruling that materials released by the Second Circuit should be unsealed). This individual's name and relationship to Epstein were also publicly discussed at Maxwell's criminal trial.
Defendant: Confirmation of receipt of Notice received.
| | J. DOE 008 | 144-6, 173-6, 249-13, 369-1, 407-9, 423-4 | Alleged Epstein Affiliate |Plaintiff: This material should be unsealed in full. First, this individual did not raise any objection to unsealing, and thus did not meet their burden of identifying interests that outweigh the presumption of access with specificity. DiRussa, 121 F.3d at 826; Lytle, 810 F. Supp. 2d at 621. Second, this individual gave a media interview about their interactions with Epstein to Vanity Fair in 2020, weighing against continued sealing. Avenatti, 2020 WL 70952, at \*6; 4/19/22 Hearing Tr. at 7:11-16 (unsealing documents relating to Doe who gave media interviews and was identified in the press); see [REDACTED]
Defendant: No confirmation of receipt of Notice received.
| | Relevant P seudonym | | | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | | Docket Entries Characterization 122-4, 173-6, 180-1, 180-3, 235-13,280-1, 321-1, 321-2, | Additional Comments/Argument | | 321-3, 321-4, | Plaintiff: This material should be unsealed in full. First, this individual did not | | 338, 338-3, 346- | raise any objection to unsealing, and thus did not meet their burden of | | 4, 369-1, 384-1, | identifying interests that outweigh the presumption of access with specificity. | | 388, 389-8, 392, | DiRussa, 121 F.3d at 826; Lytle, 810 F. Supp. 2d at 621. Second, documents | | 397, 398-1, 466, Alleged Witness; | relating to this individual, including emails on which the individual is copied | | J. DOE 009 467-1, 467-2, Alleged Maxwell | and a substantive declaration by the individual, were released by the Second | | 481, 482, 482-1, | Employee Circuit, meaning their name and association with this case is already public. | | 482-3, 482-4, | Avenatti, 2020 WL 70952, at \*6; 7/1/21 Hearing Tr. at 6-7 (ruling that materials | | 637, 638, 638-1, 638-2, 638-3, | released by the Second Circuit should be unsealed). | | 638-4, 638-5, 653, 654, 654-1, 660-3, 697, 698, 698-1, 698-2, | Defendant: Confirmation of receipt of Notice received. | | 173-6, 180-3, | identifying interests that outweigh the presumption of access with specificity. | | 3464, 369-1, Alleged Witness; | DiRussa, 121 F.3d at 826; Lytle, 810 F. Supp. 2d at 621. Further, this individual | | J. DOE 010 384-1, 482-2, Alleged | ii | | 638-1, 698-1, | Employee them, and still raised no objection to unsealing after receiving those excerpts Maxwell | | 698-2 | Second, the sealed material as to this individual is not salacious. received. | | Pseudonym | R elevant | | | | ---------- | ---------------- | ---------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | Docket Entries | Characterization | Additional Comments/Argument | | | 173-6, 249-13, | | identifying interests that outweigh the presumption of access with specificity. | | | 280-1, 321-1' | | DiRussa, 121 F.3d at 826; Lvtle, 810 F. Stipp. 2d at 621. Second, this | | J. DOE 011 | 340-3, 340-4, | Alleged Epstein | individual's association with Epstein has been reported in the media already. | | | 363-7, 369-1. | Affiliate | and their name came up at Maxwell's public criminal trial. Avenatti, 2020 WL | | | 423-4 | | 70952, at \*6; 11/18/22 Hearing Tr. at 6:19-25. | | | 249-13, 321- | Employee of | DiRussa, 121 F.3d at 826; Lvtle, 810 F. Supp. 2d at 621. Second, this | | J. DOE 013 | 1, 321-5, 321-6, | Epstein; Alleged | individual's association with Epstein has been reported in the media already, and | | | 363-7, 423-4 | Witness; Alleged | their name came up at Maxwell's public criminal trial. Avenatti, 2020 WL | | | | Perpetrator | 70952, at \*6; 11/18/22 Hearing Tr. at 6:19-25. | | J. DOE 014 | 34o- 1 | Alleged Epstein | | | | | | any knowledge of individual. No confirmation of receipt of Notice was | | Pseudonym | Relevant Docket Entries | Characterization | Additional Comments/Argument | | ---------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------ | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | 249-13, 280-1, 321-1, 363-7, 423-4 | Alleged Victim Affiliate |Plaintiff: This material should be unsealed in full. First, this individual did not raise any objection to unsealing, and thus did not meet their burden of identifying interests that outweigh the presumption of access with specificity. DiRussa, 121 F.3d at 826; Lytle, 810 F. Supp. 2d at 621. Second, the sealed material as to this individual is not salacious and consists primarily of Rule 26 disclosures.
Defendant: This individual gave a press interview in 2011 publicly denying that Epstein had been alone with Doe # 16, who she mentioned by name and whose photograph is contained in the article. The article was produced by Plaintiff in this action at Giuffre003394 and was broadcast over the Web to millions of users. [REDACTED]
[REDACTED] (the article appears to have been removed from the internet but a copy of Plaintiff's produced version can be provided to the Court upon request).
All redacted references are R. 26 disclosures, search terms, and a deponent who denied ever meeting individual. Confirmation of receipt of Notice was received.
| | J. DOE 015 | 150-1, 172, 173-6, 229-2, 249-13, 321-1, 321-5, 321-6, 339, 340-3, 340-4, 363-7, 369-1, 400, 401-5, 423-4, 450-1 | Alleged Victim |Plaintiff: This material should be unsealed in full. First, this individual did not raise any objection to unsealing, and thus did not meet their burden of identifying interests that outweigh the presumption of access with specificity. DiRussa, 121 F.3d at 826; Lytle, 810 F. Supp. 2d at 621. Second, this individual testified publicly at Maxwell's criminal trial, weighing against continued sealing. Avenatti, 2020 WL 70952, at \*6; 11/18/22 Hearing Tr. at 6:19-25 (unsealing documents relating to Doe whose name came up publicly at Maxwell criminal trial). This individual, however, testified under a pseudonym with Judge Nathan's permission. Plaintiff therefore has no objection to the redaction of only this individual's name in documents that are not already public, but any relevant information about their allegations against Epstein and Maxwell should be unsealed because this individual revealed that information at trial publicly.
| | Pseudonym | Relevant Docket Entries | Characterization | Additional Comments/Argument | | ---------- | ------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------ | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | |Defendant: As an adult, this Doe voluntarily interviewed with the press about her allegations against Epstein.
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
The Second Circuit has already released this Doe's entire name and details about her profession. Ex. KK to the summary judgment motion at pages 28 and 29.
Ms. Maxwell objected to this witness testifying under a pseudonym at the criminal trial. See 20-cr-330, Dkt. 382 at pp. 4-23 (redacted). And for the same reasons objects to further "redaction of only this individual's name" as Plaintiff urges.
| | J. DOE 018 | 381-3 | Law Enforcement Officer |Plaintiff: This material should be unsealed in full. First, this individual did not raise any objection to unsealing, and thus did not meet their burden of identifying interests that outweigh the presumption of access with specificity. DiRussa, 121 F.3d at 826; Lytle, 810 F. Supp. 2d at 621. Second, this individual's name appears only in an already publicly available police report, and the individual appears to be a member of law enforcement (specifically, an assistant state attorney). Finally, the only document that substantively discusses this individual is already publicly available on the docket with this individual's name unredacted. See D.E. 1199-10.
Defendant: No confirmation of receipt of Notice was received.
| | J. DOE 019 | 180-2, 203, 211, 235-10, 235-13, 249-14, 280-1, 321-1, 363-7 | Alleged Victim Affiliate |Plaintiff: This material should be unsealed in full. First, this individual did not raise any objection to unsealing, and thus did not meet their burden of identifying interests that outweigh the presumption of access with specificity. DiRussa, 121 F.3d at 826; Lytle, 810 F. Supp. 2d at 621. Second, this individual's role in this case has been reported in the media already. Avenatti, 2020 WL 70952, at \*6; 11/18/22 Hearing Tr. at 6:19-25.
Defendant: Confirmation of receipt of Notice was received.
| | Pseudonym | Relevant | Characterization Docket Entries Additional Comments/Argument | | ---------- | ------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------ | | J. DOE 020 | 656-2, 947-1 | Alleged Witness | | J. DOE 021 | 435 | Alleged Epstein | | J. DOE 022 | 701-1, 947-1 | Alleged Epstein | | | | Affi bete | | Pseudonym | Relevant Docket Entries | Characterization | Additional Comments/Argument | | ---------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------ | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | J. DOE 023 | 150-1, 160, 165-3, 172, 173-5, 173-6, 185-2, 185-3, 185-11, 189, 203, 211, 224, 229, 229-2, 235-4, 247-3, 249-4, 249-13, 272-3, 280-1, 316-6, 320, 321-1, 321-2, 321-3, 321-4, 321-5, 321-6, 339, 340-3, 363-7, 369-1, 369-2, 369-14, 369-15, 407-9, 408-1, 423-4, 641-1, 655, 700, 701-1, 714 | Alleged Perpetrator;Plaintiff: This material should be unsealed in full. First, this individual did not raise any objection to unsealing, and thus did not meet their burden of identifying interests that outweigh the presumption of access with specificity. DiRussa, 121 F.3d at 826; Lytle, 810 F. Supp. 2d at 621. Second, this individual is alleged to have engaged in serious wrongdoing, and it is generally the privacy interests of "innocent third parties" that "weigh heavily in a court's balancing equation." Amodeo, 71 F.3d at 1050. Third, this individual or their representatives will have "a fair opportunity" to respond to any unsealed accusations, putting countervailing privacy interests "at the lowest." Huntley, 943 F. Supp. 2d at 387. Finally, this individual's name was unsealed in materials released by the Second Circuit.
Defendant: This individual is dead and therefore will not have "a fair opportunity" to respond to any unsealed accusations which apparently was never adjudicated publicly. Dkt. 1116 at ¶ 8.
| | J. DOE 061 | 249-13, 280-1, 321-1, 321-5, 321-6, 423-4 | Unknown |Plaintiff: This material should be unsealed in full. First, this individual did not raise any objection to unsealing, and thus did not meet their burden of identifying interests that outweigh the presumption of access with specificity. DiRussa, 121 F.3d at 826; Lytle, 810 F. Supp. 2d at 621. Second, the sealed material as to this individual is not salacious and consists primarily of Rule 26 disclosures.
Defendant: The parties were unable to locate an address for this individual and therefore no notice was provided. Dkt. 1116, ¶ 7. All of the references are either in R. 26 disclosures or search terms.
| | J. DOE 062 | 258-3 | Alleged Victim |Plaintiff: This material should be unsealed in full. First, this individual did not raise any objection to unsealing, and thus did not meet their burden of identifying interests that outweigh the presumption of access with specificity. DiRussa, 121 F.3d at 826; Lytle, 810 F. Supp. 2d at 621. Second, the sealed material as to this individual is not salacious.
| | Relevant Psendons ni | | | ------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | | Docket Entries Characterization | Additional Comments/Argument | | 144-4, 144-6. | identifying interests that outweigh the presumption of access with specificity. | | 150-1, 173-6, | DiRussa, 121 F.3d at 826; Lytle, 810 F. Supp. 2d at 621. Second, this | | 235-13, 249-13, | individual's allegations against Epstein and others has been previously reported | | J. DOE 063 315, 339, 340-3, Alleged Victim | on by the press, this individual has given multiple interviews to the media, and | | 340-4, 368, 369- | this individual testified publicly at Maxwell's criminal trial under their real | | 1, 423-4, 845. | name. Avenatti, 2020 WL 70952, at \*6; 11/18/22 Hearing Tr. at 6:19-25: | | | Defendant: Plaintiff's counsel represents this individual and so should be in a position to give her position on unsealing directly. | | 280-1, 315, 316- Plaintiff: Alleged | DiRussa, 121 F.3d at 826; Lytle, 810 F. Supp. 2d at 621. Second, this | | 7, 321-1, 339, | Victim individual's allegations against Epstein and others has been previously reported | | J. DOE 064 340-4, 368, 369- | on by the press, and this individual has given multiple interviews to the media. | | 3, 845, 856 | Defendant: Avenatti, 2020 WL 70952, at \*6; 11/18/22 Hearing Tr. at 6:19-25: Alleged Witness | | | Defendant: Plaintiff's counsel represents this individual and so should be in a position to give her position on unsealing directly. | | Pseudonym | Relevant Docket Entries | Characterization | Additional Comments/Argument | | ---------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | J. DOE 065 | 172, 173-5, 235-13Plaintiff: This material should be unsealed in full. First, this individual did not raise any objection to unsealing, and thus did not meet their burden of identifying interests that outweigh the presumption of access with specificity. DiRussa, 121 F.3d at 826; Lytle, 810 F. Supp. 2d at 621. Plaintiff was unable to locate any address for this individual.
Defendant: Plaintiff located no address for this person. Only reference is a deposition question to which the deponent denied knowledge of the Doe.
| | J. DOE 099 | passim | Employee of Epstein; Alleged Perpetrator |Plaintiff: This material should be unsealed in full. Plaintiff sent a non-party notice to this individual's counsel and received delivery confirmation. First, this individual did not raise any objection to unsealing, and thus did not meet their burden of identifying interests that outweigh the presumption of access with specificity. DiRussa, 121 F.3d at 826; Lytle, 810 F. Supp. 2d at 621. Second, this individual's name and association with Epstein and Maxwell has been widely publicized by the media, this individual has been named as a defendant in public lawsuits relating to Epstein, and the Second Circuit unsealed substantial material relating to this individual. Avenatti, 2020 WL 70952, at \*6; 11/18/22 Hearing Tr. at 6:19-25. Third, this individual is alleged to have engaged in serious wrongdoing, and it is generally the privacy interests of "innocent third parties" that "weigh heavily in a court's balancing equation." Amodeo, 71 F.3d at 1050. Finally, this individual will have "a fair opportunity" to respond to any unsealed accusations, putting countervailing privacy interests "at the lowest." Huntley, 943 F. Supp. 2d at 387.
| | J. DOE 100 | 340-4 | Unknown |Plaintiff: This material should be unsealed in full. First, this individual did not raise any objection to unsealing, and thus did not meet their burden of identifying interests that outweigh the presumption of access with specificity. DiRussa, 121 F.3d at 826; Lytle, 810 F. Supp. 2d at 621.
Defendant: Plaintiff located no address for this person. Only reference is a deposition question to which the deponent denied knowledge of the Doe.
| | Pseudonym | Relevant Docket Entries | Characterization | Additional Comments/Argument | | ---------- | ---------------------------------- | ------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | J. DOE 101 | 235-13, 280-1, 321-1, 423-1, 510-4 | Alleged Victim Affiliate | Plaintiff: This material should be unsealed in full. First, this individual did not raise any objection to unsealing, and thus did not meet their burden of identifying interests that outweigh the presumption of access with specificity. DiRussa , 121 F.3d at 826; Lytle , 810 F. Supp. 2d at 621. Further, this individual actually requested excerpts of materials mentioning them, which the parties sent them, and still raised no objection to unsealing after receiving those excerpts. Second, the sealed material as to this individual is not salacious and consists primarily of Rule 26 disclosures and lists of search terms. Plaintiff sent a non-party notice to this individual. Although Plaintiff did not receive delivery confirmation, this individual received the notice because they requested excerpts and did not lodge and objection to unsealing. | | J. DOE 102 | 280-2, 338-9, 398-5 | Alleged Epstein Affiliate | Plaintiff: This material should be unsealed in full. Plaintiff sent a non-party notice to this individual's counsel and received delivery confirmation. First, this individual did not raise any objection to unsealing, and thus did not meet their burden of identifying interests that outweigh the presumption of access with specificity. DiRussa , 121 F.3d at 826; Lytle , 810 F. Supp. 2d at 621. Second, this individual's name and association with Epstein has already been publicized by the media. | | J. DOE 103 | 235-13, 363-7 | Alleged Epstein Affiliate | Plaintiff: This material should be unsealed in full. Plaintiff sent a non-party notice to this individual's counsel and received delivery confirmation. First, this individual did not raise any objection to unsealing, and thus did not meet their burden of identifying interests that outweigh the presumption of access with specificity. DiRussa , 121 F.3d at 826; Lytle , 810 F. Supp. 2d at 621. Second, this individual's association with Epstein has been widely reported in the media already, and the Second Circuit unsealed this individual's name and information about their relationship with Epstein. Avenatti , 2020 WL 70952, at \*6; 11/18/22 Hearing Tr. at 6:19-25. | | J. DOE 104 | 247-1 | Unknown | Plaintiff: This material should be unsealed in full. This individual did not raise any objection to unsealing, and thus did not meet their burden of identifying interests that outweigh the presumption of access with specificity. DiRussa , 121 F.3d at 826; Lytle , 810 F. Supp. 2d at 621. | | Pseudonym | Relevant | | | | ---------- | -------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | Docket Entries | t haracteriiation | Additional Comments/Argument | | | 249-13, 280-1, | | Plaintiff: This material should be unsealed in full. Plaintiff sent a non-party | | | 321-1, 321-5. | Alleged Epstein | notice to this individual and received delivery confumation. This individual did | | J. DOE 106 | 321-C 423-4. | Affiliate | not raise any objection to unsealing, and thus did not meet their burden of | | | 435 | | identifying interests that outweigh the presumption of access with specificity. | | J. DOE 108 | 701- I | Alleged Witness | burden of identifying interests that outweigh the presumption of access with | | | 185-3, 363, 450- 1, 450-5, 568-3 | Alleged Epstein burden of identifying interests that outweigh the presumption of access with J. DOE 109 Affiliate | specificity. DiRussa, 121 F.3d at 826; Lvtle, 810 F. Supp. 2d at 621. Second. | | Relevant PseutionN ni | | | | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------ | | Docket Entries Characterization 173-6, 249-13, | | Additional Comments/Argument | | 339, 340_3, 340. | | | | DiRtasa, 280-1, 321-1, 321-5, 321-6, Alleged Epstein J. DOE 110 Affiliate 4, 363-7, 369-1, | 121 F.3d at 826; | Lyle, 810 F. Supp. 2d at 621. Further, this individual | | publicized by the media. 423-4 | | Avenatti, 2020 WL 70952, at \*6; 11/18/22 Hearing Tr. | | at 6:19-25. unsealing. 249-13, 280-1 | Plaintiff sent a non-party notice to this individual. | Although | | i Doi I I I | | | | interests that outweigh the presumption of access with specificity. Employee of 321-1, 321-5. | | DiRtissa, 121 | | F.3d at 826; Epstein 321-6, 423-4 235-13, 249-13, | Lytle, | 810 F. Supp. 2d at 621. | | DiRussa, Alleged Epstein 280-1, 321-1. J. DOE 112 Affiliate 423-4 | 121 F.3d at 826; | Lytle, 810 F. Supp. 2d at 621. Second, this | | media. | Avenatti, | 2020 WL 70952, at \*6; 11/18/22 Hearing Tr. at 6:19-25. | | Pseudonym | Relevant | | | | ---------- | -------------- | ----------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | Characterization | Additional Comments/Argument | | | 249-13, 280-1, | | DiRussa, 121 F.3d at 826; Lytle, 810 F. Supp. 2d at 621. Second, this individual | | | 321-1, 321-5. | Alleged Epstein | is alleged to have engaged in serious wrongdoing, and it is generally the privacy | | J. DOE 113 | 321-6, 423-4 | Affiliate; | interests of "innocent third parties" that "weigh heavily in a court's balancing | | | 435 | Alleged Witness | equation." Amodeo, 71 F.3d at 1050. Plaintiff sent a non-party notice to this | | J. DOE 114 | 173-6, 369-1 | Alleged Epstein | | | | | Affiliate | F.3d at 826; Lytle, 810 F. Supp. 2d at 621. | | .1 Doi IV | | Allege jr psten i | | | Pseudonym | Relevant Docket Entries | Characterization | Additional Comments/Argument | | ---------- | ------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | J. DOE 116 | 398-4, 338, 338-8, 468, 469-1, 660-1 | Employee of Epstein | Plaintiff: This material should be unsealed in full. Plaintiff sent a non-party notice to this individual and received delivery confirmation. First, this individual did not raise any objection to unsealing, and thus did not meet their burden of identifying interests that outweigh the presumption of access with specificity. DiRussa , 121 F.3d at 826; Lytle , 810 F. Supp. 2d at 621. Further, this individual actually requested excerpts of materials mentioning them, which the parties sent them, and still raised no objection to unsealing after receiving those excerpts. Finally, the sealed material as to this individual is not salacious. | | J. DOE 117 | 450-1, 471-1 | Law Enforcement Officer | Plaintiff: This material should be unsealed in full. First, this individual did not raise any objection to unsealing, and thus did not meet their burden of identifying interests that outweigh the presumption of access with specificity. DiRussa , 121 F.3d at 826; Lytle , 810 F. Supp. 2d at 621. Second, this individual is a former law enforcement official and, specifically, a former Assistant U.S. Attorney, and this individual's role in the Epstein case is part of a public Office of Professional Responsibility Report. Plaintiff was unable to locate an address for this individual. | | J. DOE 118 | 249-13, 280-1, 321-1, 321-5, 321-6, 423-4 | Alleged Epstein Affiliate | Plaintiff: This material should be unsealed in full. First, this individual did not raise any objection to unsealing, and thus did not meet their burden of identifying interests that outweigh the presumption of access with specificity. DiRussa , 121 F.3d at 826; Lytle , 810 F. Supp. 2d at 621. Second, the sealed material as to this individual is not salacious and consists primarily of Rule 26 disclosures. Plaintiff sent a non-party notice to this individual, but did not receive a delivery confirmation.Plaintiff:
Employee of
Epstein; Alleged
Perpetrator;
Alleged Witness
Defendant:
Employee of
Epstein;
Alleged Witness
Plaintiff: This material should be unsealed in full. First, this individual did not raise any objection to unsealing, and thus did not meet their burden of identifying interests that outweigh the presumption of access with specificity. DiRussa, 121 F.3d at 826; Lytle, 810 F. Supp. 2d at 621. Second, this individual's name and association with Epstein and Maxwell has been widely publicized by the media and this individual has been named as a defendant in public lawsuits relating to Epstein. Avenatti, 2020 WL 70952, at \*6; 11/18/22 Hearing Tr. at 6:19-25 (unsealing documents relating to Doe who "has been the subject of intense media coverage"). Third, this individual is alleged to have engaged in serious wrongdoing, and it is generally the privacy interests of "innocent third parties" that "weigh heavily in a court's balancing equation." Amodeo, 71 F.3d at 1050. Finally, this individual will have "a fair opportunity" to respond to any unsealed accusations, putting countervailing privacy interests "at the lowest." Huntley, 943 F. Supp. 2d at 387. Plaintiff sent a non-party notice to this individual, but did not receive a delivery confirmation.
| | J. DOE 121 | 381-1 | Law Enforcement |Plaintiff: This material should be unsealed in full. First, this individual did not raise any objection to unsealing, and thus did not meet their burden of identifying interests that outweigh the presumption of access with specificity. DiRussa, 121 F.3d at 826; Lytle, 810 F. Supp. 2d at 621. Second, this individual's name appears only in an already publicly available police report, and the individual appears to be a member of law enforcement (specifically, a police officer). Finally, the only document that substantively discussing this individual is already publicly available on the docket with this individual's name unredacted. See D.E. 1199-8. Plaintiff sent a non-party notice to this individual, but did not receive a delivery confirmation.
| | Relevant Psendon% m | | | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Docket Entries 150-1, 173-6, 203, 211, 224, | Characterization | Additional Comments/Argument | | 235-4, 280-1, 320, 321-1, 321- 6, 340-3, 340-4, J. DOE 122 369, 369-1, 407, 407-9, 655, 656- 5, 656-6, 656-9, 700, 701-1, 701- | DiRussa, 121 F.3d at 826; Lytle, 810 F. Supp. 2d at 621. Employee of Epstein; Alleged . Perpetrator, Alleged Witness | Second. this | | 260-2, 270-6. J. DOE 123 272-9 | Huntley, 943 F. Supp. 2d at 387. Alleged Victim Affiliate | Plaintiff sent a non-party notice to this individual, but did not receive a delivery confirmation. individual, but did not receive a delivery confirmation. | | J. DOE 124 701-1 | Alleged Witness | F.3d at 826; Lytle, 810 F. Supp. 2d at 621. | | | Defendant: | Plaintiff located no address for this person. The witness's allegations against this individual are salacious. | | Pseudonym | Relevant Docket Entries | Characterization | Additional Comments/Argument | | ---------- | ------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | | J. DOE 125 | 235-13, 249-13, 280-1, 321-1, 321-5, 321-6, 423-4 | Alleged Epstein Affiliate | Plaintiff: This material should be unsealed in full. Plaintiff sent a non-party notice to this individual and received delivery confirmation. First, this individual did not raise any objection to unsealing, and thus did not meet their burden of identifying interests that outweigh the presumption of access with specificity. DiRussa, 121 F.3d at 826; Lytle, 810 F. Supp. 2d at 621. Second, this individual's name and association with Epstein has been publicized by the media. Avenatti , 2020 WL 70952, at \*6; 11/18/22 Hearing Tr. at 6:19-25. | | J. DOE 126 | 249-13, 280-1, 321-1, 321-5, 321-6, 423-4 | Alleged Epstein Affiliate | Plaintiff: This material should be unsealed in full. First, this individual did not raise any objection to unsealing, and thus did not meet their burden of identifying interests that outweigh the presumption of access with specificity. DiRussa, 121 F.3d at 826; Lytle, 810 F. Supp. 2d at 621. Second, this individual's name and association with Epstein has been publicized by the media. Avenatti , 2020 WL 70952, at \*6; 11/18/22 Hearing Tr. at 6:19-25. Plaintiff sent a non-party notice to this individual, but did not receive a delivery confirmation. | | J. DOE 127 | 235-13, 280-1, 321-1 | Alleged Victim Affiliate; Witness | Plaintiff: This material should be unsealed in full. First, this individual did not raise any objection to unsealing, and thus did not meet their burden of identifying interests that outweigh the presumption of access with specificity. DiRussa , 121 F.3d at 826; Lytle , 810 F. Supp. 2d at 621. Second, this individual's name appears in a publicly available police report. Plaintiff sent a non-party notice to this individual, but did not receive a delivery confirmation. | | J. DOE 128 | 249-13, 280-1, 321-1, 321-5, 321-6, 423-4 | Employee of Epstein | Plaintiff: This material should be unsealed in full. Plaintiff sent a non-party notice to this individual and received delivery confirmation. This individual did not raise any objection to unsealing, and thus did not meet their burden of identifying interests that outweigh the presumption of access with specificity. DiRussa , 121 F.3d at 826; Lytle , 810 F. Supp. 2d at 621. | | J. DOE 129 | 249-13, 280-1, 321-1, 321-5, 321-6, 423-4 | Employee of Epstein | Plaintiff: This material should be unsealed in full. Plaintiff sent a non-party notice to this individual and received delivery confirmation. This individual did not raise any objection to unsealing, and thus did not meet their burden of identifying interests that outweigh the presumption of access with specificity. DiRussa , 121 F.3d at 826; Lytle , 810 F. Supp. 2d at 621. | | Pseudonym | Relevant Characterization Docket Entries | | Additional Comments/Argument | | ---------- | ---------------------------------------- | ------------------ | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | J. DOE 130 | 450-1, 471-1 | Law Enforcement | burden of identifying interests that outweigh the presumption of access with | | | 203, 211, 232, | | Plaintiff: This material should be unsealed in full. First, this individual did not | | | 235, 235-7, 235- | | raise any objection to unsealing, and thus did not meet their burden of | | | 13, 2494, 258- | | identifying interests that outweigh the presumption of access with specificity. | | J. DOE 131 | 10, 2804' 320, | | | | | | Alleged Victim | DiRussa, 121 F.3d at 826; Lytle, 810 F. Supp. 2d at 621. Second, portions of | | | 321-1, 368, 369, | Affiliate | this individual's deposition were released by the Second Circuit, meaning their | | | 369-8, 392, 393, | | name and association with this case is already public. Avenatti, 2020 WL 70952. | | | 393-1 | | at \*6; 7/1/21 Hearing Tr. at 6-7. Plaintiff sent a non-party notice to this | | | 173-5, 173-6, | | DiRitssa, 121 F.3d at 826; Lytle, 810 F. Supp. 2d at 621. Second, this individual | | | 235-13, 280-1, | Plaintiff Alleged | | | | | Epstein Affiliate; | is alleged to have engaged in serious wrongdoing, and it is generally the privacy | | | 321-1, 321-5, | Alleged | interests of "innocent third parties," not those accused of serious misconduct. | | J. DOE 132 | 321-6, 340-5, | Perpetrator | that "weigh heavily in a court's balancing equation." United States v. Amodeo. | | | 363-7, 369-1, | | 71 F.3d 1044, 1050 (2d Cir. 1995). Finally, allegations about this individual | | | | Alleged Epstein | have been widely reported in the media, and the Second Circuit unsealed | | | 3, 514-3, 701-1 | Affiliate: | allegations about this individual in this case. Avenatti, 2020 WL 70952, at \*6: | | Pseudonym | Relevant | | | | ---------- | ---------------- | ---------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | Docket Entries | Characterization | Additional Comments/Argument | | | | | DiRussa, 121 F.3d at 826; Lytle, 810 F. Supp. 2d at 621. Second, this | | | 173-6, 228, 249- | | individual's name and association with Epstein and Maxwell has been | | | 13, 280-1, 321- | Alleged Epstein | publicized by the media. Avenatti, 2020 WL 70952, at \*6: 11/18/22 Hearing Ti. | | J. DOE 134 | 1, 321-5, 321-6, | Affiliate; | at 6:19-25. Third, this individual is alleged to have engaged in serious | | | 369-1, 423-4 | Alleged Witness | wrongdoing, and it is generally the privacy interests of "innocent third parties" | | | 173-6, 235-13, | | any objection to unsealing, and thus did not met their burden of identifying | | J. DOE 135 | 321-5, 321-6, | Alleged Victim | interests that outweigh the presumption of access with specificity. DiRussa, 121 | | | 340-3, 369-1 | | F.3d at 826; Lytle, 810 F. Supp. 2d at 621. | | Pseudonym | Relevant Docket Entries | Characterization | Additional Comments/Argument | | ---------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | J. DOE 136 | 184, 185-3, 249-13, 280-1, 321-1, 321-5, 321-6, 406, 407, 408, 408-1, 423-4, 435 |Plaintiff:
Employee of Epstein; Alleged Perpetrator; Alleged Witness
Defendant:
Employee of Epstein
Alleged Witness
Plaintiff: This individual is the same individual as Doe 157. This material should be unsealed in full. Plaintiff sent a non-party notice to this individual and received delivery confirmation. First, this individual did not raise any objection to unsealing, and thus did not meet their burden of identifying interests that outweigh the presumption of access with specificity. DiRussa, 121 F.3d at 826; Lytle, 810 F. Supp. 2d at 621. Second, this individual's name and association with Epstein and Maxwell has been widely publicized by the media and this individual has been named as a defendant in public lawsuits relating to Epstein. Avenatti, 2020 WL 70952, at \*6; 11/18/22 Hearing Tr. at 6:19-25 (unsealing documents relating to Doe who "has been the subject of intense media coverage"). Third, this individual is alleged to have engaged in serious wrongdoing, and it is generally the privacy interests of "innocent third parties" that "weigh heavily in a court's balancing equation." Amodeo, 71 F.3d at 1050. Finally, this individual will have "a fair opportunity" to respond to any unsealed accusations, putting countervailing privacy interests "at the lowest." Huntley, 943 F. Supp. 2d at 387.
| | J. DOE 137 | 363-7 | Alleged EpsteinPlaintiff: This material should be unsealed in full. This individual did not raise any objection to unsealing, and thus did not meet their burden of identifying interests that outweigh the presumption of access with specificity. DiRussa, 121 F.3d at 826; Lytle, 810 F. Supp. 2d at 621. The information relating to his individual is also not salacious.
Defendant: Plaintiff located no address for this person. The only reference is a deposition question to which the Party denied knowledge of.
| | J. DOE 138 | 381-1 | Alleged VictimPlaintiff: This material should be unsealed in full. Plaintiff sent a non-party notice to this individual and received delivery confirmation. This individual did not raise any objection to unsealing, and thus did not meet their burden of identifying interests that outweigh the presumption of access with specificity. DiRussa, 121 F.3d at 826; Lytle, 810 F. Supp. 2d at 621. Further, this individual's name appears only in a public police report and was already released by this Court. See D.E. 1199-8.
| | Pseudonym | Relevant Characterization Docket Entries | | Additional Comments/Argument | | ---------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | | notice to this individual and received delivery confirmation. First, this | | | 249-13, 280-1, | | individual did not raise any objection to unsealing, and thus did not meet then | | J. DOE 139 | 321-1, 321-5. | Employee of | burden of identifying interests that outweigh the presumption of access with | | | 321-6, 423-4 | Epstein | specificity. DiRussa, 121 F.3d at 826: Lytle, 810 F. Supp. 2d at 621. Second. | | | 249-13, 280- I . | | identifying interests that outweigh the presumption of access with specificity. | | J. DOE 140 | 280-2, 321-1. | Employee of | DiRussa, 121 F.3d at 826; Lytle, 810 F. Supp. 2d at 621. Second, the Second | | | 423-4 | Epstein | Circuit unsealed this individual's name and relationship with Epstein. Avenatti, | | | 249-13, 363-7. | Employee | identifying interests that outweigh the presumption of access with specificity. | | i DOI I II | 423-4 | of DiRussa, 121 F.3d at 826; Lytle, 810 F. Stipp. 2d at 621. Second, the Second Epstein | Circuit previously unsealed this individual's name. Avenatti, 2020 WL 70952, | | | 228, 249-13, | | Plaintiff: This material should be unsealed in full. First, this individual did not | | | 321-1, 321-5, identifying interests that outweigh the presumption of access with specificity. J. DOE 142 321-6, 3404, | Alleged Epstein Affiliate | DiRussa, 121 F.3d at 826; Lytle, 810 F. Supp. 2d at 621. Second, the sealed | | | 4234 | | material as to this individual is not salacious. Plaintiff sent a non-party notice | | Pseudonym | Relevant Docket Entries | Characterization | Additional Comments/Argument | | ---------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | J. DOE 143 | passim | Alleged Perpetrator; Alleged Epstein Affiliate; Alleged Witness | Plaintiff: This material should be unsealed in full. First, this individual did not raise any objection to unsealing, and thus did not meet their burden of identifying interests that outweigh the presumption of access with specificity. DiRussa , 121 F.3d at 826; Lytle , 810 F. Supp. 2d at 621. Second, this individual's association with Epstein and Maxwell has been widely reported in the media already, and their name came up at Maxwell's public criminal trial. Avenatti , 2020 WL 70952, at \*6; 11/18/22 Hearing Tr. at 6:19-25. This individual was also named as a defendant in public, federal lawsuit involving the same conduct underlying this action. Third, this individual is alleged to have engaged in serious wrongdoing, and it is generally the privacy interests of "innocent third parties" that "weigh heavily in a court's balancing equation." Amodeo , 71 F.3d at 1050. Finally, this individual will have "a fair opportunity" to respond to any unsealed accusations, putting countervailing privacy interests "at the lowest." Huntley , 943 F. Supp. 2d at 387. | | J. DOE 145 | 249-13, 321-1, 321-5, 321-6, 368, 369, 369-12, 423-4, 513, 514, 514-5, 568-5, 607-3 | Employee of Epstein | Plaintiff: This material should be unsealed in full. Plaintiff sent a non-party notice to this individual and received delivery confirmation. First, this individual did not raise any objection to unsealing, and thus did not meet their burden of identifying interests that outweigh the presumption of access with specificity. DiRussa , 121 F.3d at 826; Lytle , 810 F. Supp. 2d at 621. Portions of this individual's 2009 deposition in a matter against Epstein were also unsealed by the Second Circuit. | | J. DOE 146 | 701-1 | Plaintiff: Alleged Victim AffiliatePlaintiff: This material should be unsealed in full. First, this individual did not raise any objection to unsealing, and thus did not meet their burden of identifying interests that outweigh the presumption of access with specificity. DiRussa, 121 F.3d at 826; Lytle, 810 F. Supp. 2d at 621. Second, this individual has given statements to the media in connection with this matter. Avenatti, 2020 WL 70952, at \*6; 7/1/21 Hearing Tr. at 6-7.
Defendant: Plaintiff located no address for this person.
| | J. DOE 153 | 203, 211, 235-4, 235-13, 249-4, 280-1, 321-1, 338, 423-1, 423-4, 510-4 | Alleged Victim Affiliate;Plaintiff: This material should be unsealed in full. First, this individual did not raise any objection to unsealing, and thus did not meet their burden of identifying interests that outweigh the presumption of access with specificity. DiRussa, 121 F.3d at 826; Lytle, 810 F. Supp. 2d at 621. Second, this individual has given statements and interviews to the media in connection with this matter, and portions of this individual's deposition were released by the Second Circuit. Avenatti, 2020 WL 70952, at \*6; 7/1/21 Hearing Tr. at 6-7; [REDACTED] Plaintiff sent a non-party notice to this individual, but did not receive a delivery confirmation.
| | J. DOE 154 | 173-6, 249-13, 258-4, 280-1, 321-1, 321-5, 321-6, 340-3, 340-4, 369-1, 423-4, 450-1, 482-4 | Alleged Underage Victim;Plaintiff: This material should be unsealed in full. Plaintiff sent a non-party notice to this individual and received delivery confirmation. First, this individual did not raise any objection to unsealing, and thus did not meet their burden of identifying interests that outweigh the presumption of access with specificity. DiRussa, 121 F.3d at 826; Lytle, 810 F. Supp. 2d at 621. Second, this individual's allegations against Epstein and others have been previously reported on by the press, and this individual has given interviews to the media. Avenatti, 2020 WL 70952, at \*6; 11/18/22 Hearing Tr. at 6:19-25; [REDACTED]
| | Pseudonym | Relevant | | | | | --------- | ----------------- | ---------------- | -------------------------------------------------------- | ------------ | | | Docket Entries | Characterization | Additional Comments/Argument | | | | 5, 606, 607, 607- | | | | | | | | DiRussa, 121 F.3d at 826; Lytle, 810 F. Supp. 2d at 621. | Second, this | | Pseudonym | Relevant Docket Entries | Characterization | Additional Comments/Argument | | ------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | J. DOE 157 | 249-13, 321-5, 321-6, 338, 338-9, 398-5, 407, 407-9, 423-4, 450-1, 450-5, 660-1 | Plaintiff:Plaintiff: This material should be unsealed in full. This individual did not raise any objection to unsealing, and thus did not meet their burden of identifying interests that outweigh the presumption of access with specificity. DiRussa, 121 F.3d at 826; Lytle, 810 F. Supp. 2d at 621. This individual's name also appears in a publicly available police report. Finally, the only document that substantively discusses this individual is already publicly available on the docket with this individual's name unredacted. See D.E. 1199-10.
Defendant: Plaintiff located no address for this person. Only reference appears to relate to juvenile criminal conduct by this individual in regards to Plaintiff, unclear why not redacted by the law enforcement agency.
| | J. DOE 162 | 143, 144-6, 150-1, 172, 173, 173-5, 173-6, 189, 203, 204, 204-1, 211, 212, 212-1, 224, 249-4, 249-13, 257, 258, 258-2, 261, 272-7, 280-1, 315, 316, 316-1, 316-6, 316-8, 321-1, 321-5, 321-6, 338, 338-1, 338-7, 339, 340, 340-3, 340-4, 340-5, 340-6, 363-7, 368, 369, 369-1, 369-2, 369-5, 378, 388, 389, | Alleged Victim;Plaintiff: This material should be unsealed in full. Plaintiff sent a non-party notice to this individual's counsel and received delivery confirmation. First, this individual did not raise any objection to unsealing, and thus did not meet their burden of identifying interests that outweigh the presumption of access with specificity. DiRussa, 121 F.3d at 826; Lytle, 810 F. Supp. 2d at 621. Further, this individual actually requested excerpts of materials mentioning them, which the parties sent them, and still raised no objection to unsealing after receiving those excerpts. Finally, this individual's allegations against Epstein and others has been previously reported on by the press, this individual gave an interview to the Daily Mail in 2021, and the Second Circuit unsealed substantial information relating to this individual. Avenatti, 2020 WL 70952, at \*6; 11/18/22 Hearing Tr. at 6:19-25; [REDACTED]
| | Pseudonym | Relevant Docket Entries | Characterization | Additional Comments/Argument | | ---------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | 389-1, 392 393, 393-1, 400, 401, 401-3, 401-4, 423-4, 450-6, 492, 493, 493-1, 568-5, 660-3, 845, 856 | | | | J. DOE 163 | 405-1 | Media | Plaintiff: This individual is a journalist, and thus materials relating to this individual should be unsealed in full. | | J. DOE 164 | 316-7, 340-4, 369-3 | Alleged Underaged Victim; Alleged Witness | Plaintiff: This material should be unsealed in full. This individual did not raise any objection to unsealing, and thus did not meet their burden of identifying interests that outweigh the presumption of access with specificity. DiRussa , 121 F.3d at 826; Lytle , 810 F. Supp. 2d at 621. Plaintiff sent a non-party notice to this individual, but did not receive a delivery confirmation. | | J. DOE 165 | 340-4 | Unknown | Plaintiff: This material should be unsealed in full. Plaintiff sent a non-party notice to this individual and received delivery confirmation. First, this individual did not raise any objection to unsealing, and thus did not meet their burden of identifying interests that outweigh the presumption of access with specificity. DiRussa , 121 F.3d at 826; Lytle , 810 F. Supp. 2d at 621. Second, the sealed material as to this individual is not salacious.unsealing after receiving those excerpts. Second, the sealed material as to this individual is not salacious and consists primarily of Rule 26 disclosures and lists of search terms.
Defendant: All references are R. 26 disclosures, search terms, or one deponent's refusal to answer whether the Doe is known to them, and refusing to answer all questions.
|