>>7802406 (pb)

Key paragraph before the conclusion

At this stage in the unsealing process, the Court declines Ms. Guiffre's invitation to assume categorically that the undecided motions are germaine to Judge Sweet's rulings on the decided motions but nonetheless acknowledges the realistic possibility that they are relevant and thus ripe for unsealing.

Basically, because the case Judge Sweet presided over was settled, these particular documents aren't automatically presumed

Link to page with doc link:

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4355835/giuffre-v-maxwell/?order_by=desc

Full doc:

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4355835/1018/giuffre-v-maxwell/

Doc's in question from Giuffre v. Max-well, 2018 WL 4062649 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2018) :

With respect to the discovery doc-uments, Judge Sweet reasoned that both the parties and dozens of non-parties had relied on the confiden-tiality order in providing evidence concerning particularly salacious allegations related to sexual acts involving non-parties and the Plain-tiff’s sexual history.

https://www.maglaw.com/publications/articles/2018-10-15-privacy-trumps-right-of-access-to-judicial-documents-in-giuffre-v-maxwell/_res/id=Attachments/index=0/NYLJ%20article%2010.15.18.pdf

Anon's opinion (not a legal fag) So these doc's and names (famous people no doubt hence the desperation to prevent unsealing) likely will be unsealed in the new case, just not on the basis relied upon this time around as pertaining to the previous case.