Giuffre v. Maxwell
- Loretta Preska
- 1:15-cv-07433
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Giuffre v. Maxwell, Judge Preska denied Maxwell’s reconsideration request but briefly stayed unsealing of deposition materials so she could seek appellate relief.
Ghislaine Maxwell and Doe 1, whose deposition transcripts and related court materials were subject to the court’s unsealing schedule. The temporary stay also affected the timing of public access to those materials.
What happened
In Giuffre v. Maxwell, Ghislaine Maxwell asked the court to reconsider its July 23, 2020, decision to unseal her deposition, Doe 1’s deposition, and filings discussing those transcripts. She argued that her indictment and arrest created new reasons to keep the materials sealed.
The court said Maxwell’s arguments had already been considered in connection with her earlier objection. It also noted that she did not ask to supplement her objections or delay the ruling before the court ordered the materials unsealed.
Judge Loretta A. Preska denied the reconsideration request. She stayed unsealing of the deposition transcripts and related materials through July 31, 2020, so Maxwell could seek relief from the Court of Appeals; the materials were scheduled to be unsealed on August 3, subject to any further appellate stay.
The detailed version
- Giuffre v. Maxwell · No. 1:15-cv-07433
- Loretta Preska
- July 29, 2020
Background
The court had previously ordered the unsealing of Ghislaine Maxwell’s deposition transcript, Doe 1’s deposition transcript, and court submissions that quoted, excerpted, or summarized those transcripts. Maxwell asked the court to reconsider that July 23, 2020, decision. She relied on her indictment and arrest, arguing that those developments gave compelling reasons to keep the deposition materials sealed.
Court’s analysis
The court described reconsideration as an extraordinary remedy. It explained that such a motion is appropriate only for an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or a need to correct clear error or prevent serious injustice. The court also stated that reconsideration cannot be used to present new arguments or relitigate issues already decided.
The court concluded that Maxwell’s concerns had already been addressed. Her earlier objection had discussed the possibility that criminal investigations involving people associated with Jeffrey Epstein could affect the unsealing process and could influence potential witnesses or alleged victims. The court understood that argument to include the possibility that Maxwell herself could be investigated and indicted. The court also noted that Maxwell had been arrested on July 2, 2020, before the July 23 unsealing decision, but had not asked to supplement her objections or delay the decision.
Ruling and timing
Judge Loretta A. Preska denied Maxwell’s request for reconsideration. Because of that denial, the court stayed unsealing of Maxwell’s and Doe 1’s deposition transcripts, and of sealed or redacted orders or papers that quoted or disclosed information from those transcripts, through Friday, July 31, 2020, so Maxwell could seek relief from the Court of Appeals. Other sealed materials that did not quote or disclose information from the deposition transcripts were scheduled to be unsealed on July 30, 2020. The deposition transcripts and related materials were scheduled to be unsealed on Monday, August 3, 2020, subject to any further stay ordered by the Court of Appeals.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.