Giuffre v. Maxwell (SDNY): Opinion #10321670
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE Plaintiff, 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP) -against- ORDER GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. LORETTA A. PRESKA, Senior United States District Judge: 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 litigation. (See dkt. nos. 1025, 1026, 1028, 1029, 1030.) The Court rules as follows: 1. Decided Motions: The parties disputed whether two motions (dkt. nos. 468, 567) were actually decided by Judge Sweet and thus disagreed as to whether they should be included on the list of materials to be reviewed by the Court. After reviewing those items, the Court determines that they were ruled on by Judge Sweet and thus should be included in the Court’s individualized review. 2. List of Non-Parties: The parties disagreed as to the scope of the list of non-parties that should receive notice of unsealing. Specifically, Plaintiff suggested that non- parties “discussed in materials that have already been unsealed in this litigation [or] in otherwise unsealed
Summary
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE Plaintiff, 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP) -against- ORDER GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. LORETTA A. PRESKA, Senior United States District Judge: 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 litigation. (See dkt. nos. 1025, 1026, 1028, 1029, 1030.) The Court rules as follows: 1. Decided Motions: The parties disputed whether two motions (dkt. nos. 468, 567) were actually decided by Judge Sweet and thus disagreed as to whether they should be included on the list of materials to be reviewed by the Court. After reviewing those items, the Court determines that they were ruled on by Judge Sweet and thus should be included in the Court’s individualized review. 2. List of Non-Parties: The parties disagreed as to the scope of the list of non-parties that should receive notice of unsealing. Specifically, Plaintiff suggested that non- parties “discussed in materials that have already been unsealed in this litigation [or] in otherwise unsealed
Forum Discussions
This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,500+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.