Giuffre v. Maxwell

Background

The Gateway Pundit (TGP) moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b) to intervene in the case for the purpose of seeking unsealing of materials containing the identities of Jeffrey Epstein’s clients. The court invited responses, and a response opposing intervention was submitted on behalf of nonparty John Doe.

The court explained that permissive intervention under Rule 24(b) is the proper procedure for a nonparty seeking to modify a protective order in a private lawsuit. The rule allows intervention when the request is timely and involves a claim or defense sharing a common question of law or fact with the main action. The court has broad discretion over whether to allow it and must consider whether intervention would cause undue delay or prejudice to the original parties’ rights.

Reasons for Denial

The court declined to allow TGP to intervene at that stage for two related reasons. First, it did not consider TGP’s motion timely. Second, TGP’s interests were already adequately represented by existing parties and intervenors, including media organizations and intervenors Julie Brown and the Miami Herald, which were already seeking to unseal some or all of the record based on the presumption that judicial records are open to the public.

The court also found that the existing unsealing procedures had been carefully developed over time with input from the parties and existing intervenors. Because substantial progress had been made, adding TGP would likely disrupt that process and require responses to papers that would largely duplicate arguments already being presented. The court noted that the underlying litigation had been resolved years earlier through settlement, but that issues concerning the protective order and unsealing remained under review.

Ruling

Judge Preska denied TGP’s motion to intervene, docket number 1258. The clerk was directed to mark that motion as closed. The opinion did not decide whether the requested materials should actually be unsealed.