Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
cl-opinion-10329570Court UnsealedOther

Giuffre v. Maxwell (SDNY): Opinion #10329570

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: Before the Court is Ms. Maxwell’s letter motion (see dkt. no. 1191) seeking limited reconsideration of the Court’s order unsealing 20 lines of Ms. Maxwell’s July 2016 deposition transcript, from page 112, line 17 through and including page 113, line 12.1 Ms. Giuffre and non-parties Julie Brown and Miami Herald Media Co oppose the motion.2 For the reasons described below, Ms. Maxwell’s motion is denied. I. Legal Standard “A motion for reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of scarce judicial resources.” Drapkin v. Mafco 1 (Letter from Laura Menninger (“Mot.”), dated Jan. 25, 2021 [dkt. no. 1191]; Letter from Laura Menninger, (“Reply”) dated Jan. 29, 2021 [dkt. no. 1204].) 2 (Letter from Sigrid McCawley, dated Jan. 27, 2021 [dkt. no. 1194]; Letter from Christine N. Walz, dated Jan. 27, 2021

Date
Unknown
Source
Court Unsealed
Reference
cl-opinion-10329570
Pages
5
Persons
0
Integrity
No Hash Available

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: Before the Court is Ms. Maxwell’s letter motion (see dkt. no. 1191) seeking limited reconsideration of the Court’s order unsealing 20 lines of Ms. Maxwell’s July 2016 deposition transcript, from page 112, line 17 through and including page 113, line 12.1 Ms. Giuffre and non-parties Julie Brown and Miami Herald Media Co oppose the motion.2 For the reasons described below, Ms. Maxwell’s motion is denied. I. Legal Standard “A motion for reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of scarce judicial resources.” Drapkin v. Mafco 1 (Letter from Laura Menninger (“Mot.”), dated Jan. 25, 2021 [dkt. no. 1191]; Letter from Laura Menninger, (“Reply”) dated Jan. 29, 2021 [dkt. no. 1204].) 2 (Letter from Sigrid McCawley, dated Jan. 27, 2021 [dkt. no. 1194]; Letter from Christine N. Walz, dated Jan. 27, 2021

0Share
PostReddit
Review This Document

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,500+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Support This ProjectSupported by 1,550+ people worldwide
Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.