Giuffre v. Maxwell
- Loretta Preska
- 1:15-cv-07433
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 13
In Giuffre v. Maxwell, Judge Preska set procedures for reviewing and potentially unsealing sealed materials while protecting non-parties’ privacy.
Virginia L. Giuffre, Ghislaine Maxwell, non-parties identified or mentioned in the sealed materials, and members of the public seeking access to court documents.
What happened
Giuffre v. Maxwell concerns sealed court materials in a case involving allegations of sexual abuse and sexual trafficking of minors. The court had previously determined that only motions decided by Judge Sweet, and documents relevant to those decisions, were subject to a presumption of public access.
Judge Preska created a process for reviewing the sealed materials in groups. People identified in those materials may confidentially request excerpts and object to unsealing, while the original parties may also object. The court will consider privacy, reputational, and other interests for each item.
The order does not itself unseal any particular document. Judge Preska will later decide whether each item should be fully unsealed, unsealed with redactions, or kept sealed.
The detailed version
- Giuffre v. Maxwell · No. 1:15-cv-07433
- Loretta Preska
- Mar. 31, 2020
Background
The court addressed how to review sealed materials in Virginia L. Giuffre’s case against Ghislaine Maxwell. It relied on an earlier ruling that only motions actually decided by Judge Sweet, together with documents relevant to those decisions, are judicial documents carrying a presumption of public access. The court stated that it would conduct an individualized review of each sealed item, weighing the public-access presumption against privacy, reputational, and other interests favoring continued sealing or redaction.
The sealed materials include documents that may identify or describe non-parties. The court-approved non-party list includes, among others, people who produced or answered discovery based on an understanding that the materials would remain protected, people identified as allegedly engaging in or facilitating sexual acts involving Virginia L. Giuffre or other alleged victims, people whose intimate or private conduct is described, and people alleged to have been victimized.
Protocol
The court will review sealed items on a rolling basis, generally grouping items according to the non-party mentioned. For each group, the court will notify Virginia L. Giuffre and Ghislaine Maxwell of the items under review. The parties must use their best efforts to serve each affected non-party confidentially with a notice, using the most current address available from public records or another readily available source.
A non-party has 14 days after service of the notice to request excerpts of the sealed materials concerning that person. After receiving the excerpts, the non-party has 14 days to object to unsealing or redaction. The original parties may respond to a non-party’s objection, and the non-party may reply. Virginia L. Giuffre or Ghislaine Maxwell may also file their own objections and related responses.
A non-party’s participation is optional. Not objecting does not count as consent to unsealing. Requests, objections, and other submissions by non-parties will remain under seal, with identifying information redacted and pseudonymous identifiers used in court filings. Excerpts may be used only to decide whether to object and prepare an objection, and may not be disclosed except to a lawyer representing the non-party in this proceeding.
Ruling and effect
After receiving objections, responses, and replies, and after any evidentiary hearing if needed, the court will set a date to decide the objections in open court. For each sealed item, the court may order that it be unsealed entirely, unsealed in redacted form, or kept under seal. The order also states that an order unsealing a sealed item in whole or in part as to a non-party should be treated as affecting that non-party’s rights and interests for purposes of an appeal.
The court entered an order and protocol governing the possible future unsealing of materials; it did not itself decide to unseal any specific item.
Read the full 13-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.