Use this searchbox to search JudicialCaselaw.com for more interesting court decisions.

Giuffre v. Maxwell (1:15-cv-07433-LAP)

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Share on Social Media

Giuffre v. Maxwell (1:15-cv-07433-LAP)

Follow on Feedly for case updates: follow us on feedly

RSS: RSS Feed Icon

Related Cases: 1:15-cv-07433-RWS

  • ORDER: The Court has reviewed the parties' joint letter seeking clarification of the review protocol. (See dkt. no. 1052.) Defendant's position accurately interprets the protocol, i.e., the Court will only review Docket Entries 143, 164, 172, 199, and 230 with respect to Does 1 and 2, meaning only Does 1 and 2 will be notified in the first instance. However, the Court acknowledges the practical difficulties with this process as explained by Plaintiff in her submission, (dkt. no. 1052 at 2), and is thus amenable to unsealing portions of documents mentioning non-parties rather than waiting to unseal the entirety of a given document until all non-parties have provided input. This will hopefully allow the materials to b e unsealed on a rolling basis and at a rate somewhat coextensive with that of the review process. Moreover, as the Court noted in a previous order, this process is a "cooperative effort between the Court and the parties." (See dkt. no. 1047 at 1 n.1.) Should the current process prove unworkable or inefficient, the Court is happy to revisit the review protocol with the parties' input. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Loretta A. Preska on 5/1/2020) (va)

  • ORDER re: (Document 1045) Letter filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. The Court has reviewed and approved the parties' joint proposed redacted Decided Motions List that was submitted to the Court on April 3, 2020. (See dkt. no. 1045.) That redacted Decided Motions List is attached hereto. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Loretta A. Preska on 4/14/2020) (va)

  • ORDER: The Court has considered the parties' submissions regarding the next steps in the Court's individualized review of the sealed materials, (dkt. nos. 1045, 1046), and rules as follows: (As further set forth herein this Order.) (Signed by Judge Loretta A. Preska on 4/9/2020) (va)

  • ORDER AND PROTOCOL FOR UNSEALING DECIDED MOTIONS: The Court previously ruled that "only motions actually decided by Judge Sweet along with documents relevant to Judge Sweet's decisions on those motionsare properly considered judicial do cuments to which a presumption of public access attaches." Order, dated Dec. 16, 2019 (DE 1016). Such materials are referred to herein as the "Sealed Materials" or "Sealed Items." The Sealed Materials will be enumerated in a List of Decided Motions designated by the Court. In accordance with Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 49-51 (2d Cir. 2019), the Court will conduct an individualized review of each Sealed Item in the List of Decided Motions to determine (a) the we ight of presumption of public access that should be afforded to the document, (b) the identification and weight of any countervailing interests supporting continued sealing/redaction, and (c) whether the countervailing interests rebut the presumpt ion of public access. To assist in this process and afford persons identified or otherwise interested in the Sealed Materials the opportunity to participate in the Court's individualized review, the Court adopts the following protocol. (As further set forth herein this Order.) SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Loretta A. Preska on 3/31/2020) (va)

  • ORDER re: (Document 1038) Letter filed by Virginia L. Giuffre; (Document 1037) Letter, filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. The Court is in receipt of the parties' letters in response to the Court's March 19, 2020 order on the procedures to be utilized in the u nsealing process. (See dkt. nos. 1037, 1038.) The parties shall confer and shall file on the public docket a dial-in number for a teleconference to take place on March 31, 2020 at 1:00 PM. SO ORDERED. ( Telephone Conference set for 3/31/2020 at 01:00 PM before Judge Loretta A. Preska.) (Signed by Judge Loretta A. Preska on 3/30/2020) (va)

  • ORDER: The Court has considered the parties' various submissions regarding the review protocol ("the Protocol") to be utilized by the Court in its individualized review of the sealed materials at issue in this litigstion. (See dkt. nos. 1025, 1026, 1028, 1029, 1030.) The Court rules as follows: (As further set forth herein this Order.) (Signed by Judge Loretta A. Preska on 3/19/2020) (va)

  • ORDER denying (Document 1023) Motion for Reconsideration. For the reasons detailed above, the Intervenors' motion for reconsideration (dkt. no. 1023) is DENIED. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Loretta A. Preska on 2/26/2020) (va)

  • OPINION & ORDER: For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that motions that were not decided by Judge Sweet and the papers associated with those motions are not judicial documents subject to the presumption of public access. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Loretta A. Preska on 1/13/2020) (mml)

  • ORDER: The parties have jointly requested clarification of the Court's directive that counsel inform the Court of the names and contact information of non-parties mentioned in the motions previously decided in this case. (See Dkt. No. 1004). C ounsel are only required to log the information of non-parties mentioned in filings or materials that remain sealed. Counsel are not required to log the information of any non-parties discussed in materials that have already been unsealed in this litigation. Similarly, counsel are not required to log information of non-parties discussed in otherwise unsealed materials that are included in sealed filings. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Loretta A. Preska on 11/13/2019) (mml)

Use this searchbox to search JudicialCaselaw.com for more interesting court decisions.

Giuffre v. Maxwell (1:15-cv-07433-LAP)

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Share this with your network