Giuffre v. Maxwell

Background

The court had previously ruled that only motions actually decided by Judge Sweet, and documents relevant to those decisions, qualified as court documents carrying a presumption of public access. The materials covered by this order are called the “Sealed Materials” or “Sealed Items.” The court stated that, consistent with the Second Circuit’s decision in Brown v. Maxwell, it would individually review each item to determine the strength of the public-access presumption, identify competing interests favoring continued sealing or redaction, and decide whether those interests overcome the presumption.

Protocol for Review

Because of the volume of sealed materials, the court adopted a rolling review process. The materials would be reviewed in groups based on the non-party mentioned in them. The plaintiff, Virginia L. Giuffre, and the defendant, Ghislaine Maxwell, had submitted lists of non-parties whose privacy, reputational, or other interests might be affected. The court resolved disagreements about the lists and would issue a sealed, court-approved list identifying each non-party by name and a matching pseudonymous identifier, such as Doe #1.

For each group of materials, the court would notify the original parties. They would use their best efforts to serve each affected non-party confidentially with a notice, generally by certified mail. Within 14 days after service, a non-party could request excerpts concerning that person. Within 14 days after receiving the excerpts, the non-party could object to unsealing or unredacting and could identify interests favoring continued sealing. The original parties could respond to those objections, and the parties could also submit their own objections under the stated seven-day deadlines.

A non-party requesting excerpts had to keep them confidential and use them only to decide whether to object and prepare an objection. A non-party who requested excerpts or filed an objection submitted to the court’s authority for purposes of enforcing the confidentiality restrictions or conducting the unsealing proceeding. Non-party participation was optional, and failure to object would not be treated as consent to unsealing. Submissions by non-parties would remain sealed, with identifying information redacted or replaced by pseudonymous identifiers as appropriate.

Court’s Order

After the parties’ submissions, any replies, and any evidentiary hearing, the court would set a date to decide the objections in open court. For each sealed item, the court would decide whether it should be unsealed entirely, unsealed in redacted form, or kept under seal. An order unsealing an item, in whole or in part, as to a non-party would be treated as affecting that non-party’s rights and interests for purposes of an appeal. Unless the court expressly stated otherwise, filings made under the protocol would remain permanently sealed. Judge Preska ordered the protocol on August 27, 2020; the opinion does not itself announce the unsealing of any particular item.