dChan - Q Origins Project Archive

New filing in Guiffre v. Maxwell: Letter

We write respectfully on behalf of non-party John Doe with regard to the Protective

Order that was proposed by the parties in Giuffre v. Dershowitz, 19 Civ. 3377 (LAP)

(“Dershowitz”) on December 21, 2020, see DE 226, and entered by the Court later that day, see

DE 227 (“Dershowitz Protective Order” or “Order”). 1 The Dershowitz Protective Order appears

to give plaintiff Virginia Giuffre and defendant Alan Dershowitz the unfettered bilateral

authority to publicly file presently sealed documents from Giuffre v. Maxwell, 15 Civ. 7433

(LAP) (“Maxwell”), which have been produced as discovery in Dershowitz. For all the reasons

previously set forth by this Court, that must not be permitted. Accordingly, we request that the

Court clarify the Dershowitz Protective Order to require judicial approval for any such unsealing

or public filing of presently sealed materials from this case. 2

The Dershowitz Protective Order addresses the handling and treatment of documents

designated by Ms. Giuffre and Mr. Dershowitz as “Confidential Information.” See DE 227 ¶ 2.

It defines Confidential Information to include, inter alia, “information filed under seal or

designated as ‘Confidential’ in another action for which the confidentiality designation or seal

has not been lifted.” Id. Thus, “Confidential Information” encompasses sealed information from

Maxwell that has been produced in Dershowitz.

Paragraph 2 of the Order provides, however, that “any party to this action [the

Dershowitz case – i.e., Ms. Giuffre and Mr. Dershowitz]” may request that “another party to this

action [again, either Ms. Giuffre or Mr. Dershowitz] remove the confidentiality designation”

from confidential documents from “another action” that were produced in the Dershowitz case.

Unless otherwise noted, Docket Entries refer to the Dershowitz case.

We also request that any de-designation of Confidential Information of presently sealed

materials in Maxwell – or any other agreement between the Dershowitz parties – or any filing of

presently sealed materials that identify any non-party, should be held in abeyance pending the

Court’s consideration of the instant request.

Id. (emphasis added). It further provides that, upon such a designation-removal request by one

Dershowitz party, the other Dershowitz party should “promptly review” the identified document

and “remove the confidentiality designation . . . if appropriate.” Id.

But even if presently sealed materials from Maxwell retain the confidentiality

designation, the Dershowitz parties are nonetheless free to publicly file those materials without

any judicial review or intervention. Specifically, Paragraph 11 of the Order permits “any party”

to file Confidential Information in the public record so long as that party “obtain[s] written

permission from the producing party to file such material.” Id. ¶ 11.

As such, the Dershowitz Protective Order may fatally undermine this Court’s carefully

constructed measures designed to protect from unnecessary public disclosure sensitive and

private non-party information in the Maxwell materials.

After rejecting multiple attempts by Mr. Dershowitz to gain access to sealed materials

from the Maxwell case, this Court ultimately directed Ms. Giuffre to produce to Mr. Dershowitz

“sealed materials and discovery that mentions Mr. Dershowitz.” DE 174, at 7. In ruling on Mr.

Dershowitz’s application, the Court drastically limited Mr. Dershowitz’s access to certain sealed

materials owing, in large part, to the reliance and privacy interests of non-parties. The Court

observed that “the gravity of the privacy interests of nonparties . . . weigh[ed] heavily against the

unilateral disclosure” that Mr. Dershowitz sought because it would betray “one of the core

purposes of the unsealing process in Maxwell” – that is, protecting non-parties’ privacy interests.

……………………..

https://eu.usatoday.com/documents/7339891-Letter/