Doe 107 is female.
Risk of Physical Harm to Woman Involved in Ghislaine Maxwell Litigation May Justify Sealing Her Identity,
holds the Second Circuit, though it leaves it to the trial court to consider the facts further.
Eugene Volokh | 8.7.2023 8:57 AM
From Doe 107 v. Giuffre, decided Wednesday by the Second Circuit, in an opinion by Judges José A. Cabranes, Rosemary S. Pooler & Reena Raggi (Doe 107 alleges that "the documents ordered unsealed identified her, among other things (and falsely, we assert) as having had sexual relations with Ms. Maxwell as well as witnessing sex acts between other named persons"):
Objector-Appellant Doe 107 appeals from the November 18, 2022 order unsealing certain litigation materials that identify her. Doe 107 argues that the District Court abused its discretion by "ignor[ing]" her assertion that identifying her "could place her in mortal danger in her culturally conservative home country," in which "'honor' killings are a real risk," and "instead concluding [that] she … offered no more than generalized concerns of adverse publicity." We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal….
On the record before us, we cannot confidently hold that the District Court did not err in concluding that Doe 107's proffered facts constituted only "generalized concerns of adverse publicity [that] do not outweigh the presumption of public access." In her submission to the District Court, Doe 107 stated that she had received "'hate mail' from someone who saw [her] name listed as a witness who may have information regarding [Jeffrey] Epstein's and [Ghislaine] Maxwell's alleged illegal conduct." Doe 107 also stated that she resides in a country "where 'honor' killings are a real risk.".
We accordingly remand the cause so that the District Court may explore—with supplemental submissions from Doe 107 as necessary—whether Doe 107 has raised more than "generalized concerns of adverse publicity" that outweigh the presumption of public access to the litigation documents identifying her.
Doe is represented by Richard W. Levitt (Levitt & Kaizer).
https://reason.com/volokh/2023/08/07/risk-of-physical-harm-to-woman-involved-in-ghislaine-maxwell-litigation-may-justify-sealing-her-identity/
Doe 107 is allegedly a victim of Epstein.
"The judge described two of the three people whose names will remain sealed — J. Does 58 and 124 — as “classic outsiders peripheral to the events at issue” who are not associated with Epstein and Maxwell. A third, Doe 133, was mistakenly identified in a photo, according to the judge, who noted that Doe was characterized as “an alleged perpetrator” by a reporter. The judge did not further elaborate on her decision."
..
"Thirteen other people fought unsuccessfully to keep their names secret. The rest on the list — about 150 people — did not object to being identified, presumably because their names are already publicly known as associates or employees of Epstein and Maxwell, a British socialite who was convicted in 2021 of sex trafficking underage girls."
…
"Those people who objected to their names being unsealed cited general privacy objections, not wanting to be associated with such a sinister matter or, in some instances, they insisted that the information about them contained in the lawsuit was false or a case of mistaken identity."
moar:
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/crime/article283358378.html
Is that a genuine question or a comment made from bias and pre-judgment?
Presuming she was young, possibly a teen back then, she may well have gone on to have had a successful life.
Go dig on them then.
Now you're just projecting.