Giuffre v. Maxwell
- Loretta Preska
- 1:15-cv-07433
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Giuffre v. Maxwell, Judge Preska denied Maxwell’s request to reconsider unsealing 20 deposition lines because no reconsideration basis was shown.
The ruling directly affected Ghislaine Maxwell’s request to reconsider the unsealing of part of her deposition transcript. It also concerned public access to that testimony and the positions of Virginia L. Giuffre, Julie Brown, and Miami Herald Media Co.
What happened
In Giuffre v. Maxwell, Ghislaine Maxwell asked the court to reconsider its earlier decision to unseal 20 lines of her July 2016 deposition. Virginia L. Giuffre, Julie Brown, and Miami Herald Media Co. opposed the request.
Maxwell argued that the testimony involved private adult activity, was outside proper deposition questioning, was covered by confidentiality assurances, and could make it harder to exclude the testimony from her criminal trial. The court said she was repeating arguments it had already considered and had identified no new law, evidence, or clear error.
Judge Preska denied Maxwell’s motion for reconsideration. The court concluded that the testimony concerned massages rather than private sexual activity, that Maxwell’s privacy interest was limited, and that her concerns about use of the testimony at her criminal trial could be raised before the criminal-trial judge.
The detailed version
- Giuffre v. Maxwell · No. 1:15-cv-07433
- Loretta Preska
- Feb. 8, 2021
Background
The court considered Ghislaine Maxwell’s letter motion for limited reconsideration of an earlier order unsealing 20 lines of Maxwell’s July 2016 deposition transcript, from page 112, line 17 through page 113, line 12. Virginia L. Giuffre and nonparties Julie Brown and Miami Herald Media Co. opposed the motion.
Legal standard
The court described reconsideration as an extraordinary remedy that should be used sparingly. Under the applicable standard, reconsideration may be granted based on an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. A party generally may not use reconsideration simply to repeat arguments that the court has already decided.
Maxwell’s arguments
Maxwell argued that the testimony belonged to a category of private, consensual adult activity that should remain sealed. She also argued that, if the testimony was not sexual, it was outside the permissible scope of deposition questions; that confidentiality assurances in a protective order outweighed the public’s interest in access; and that releasing the testimony could make it more difficult for her to suppress the testimony in her criminal trial.
Court’s reasoning
The court found that Maxwell had identified no change in controlling law, new evidence, or clear error. It also determined that she had raised the same three arguments in her earlier objections and that the court had considered them before ordering the testimony unsealed.
The court further held that the testimony concerned massages, not private sexual activity involving consenting adults. It therefore found Maxwell’s privacy interest minimal and insufficient to overcome the presumption of public access. The court acknowledged Maxwell’s interest in a fair criminal trial but stated that she could raise her arguments before the judge presiding over that trial and use the protections available under the Federal Rules of Evidence and Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. If she could show that the government improperly obtained the testimony in advance, she could argue at trial that suppression was warranted.
Disposition
The court denied Maxwell’s motion for reconsideration.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.