Giuffre v. Maxwell (SDNY): Opinion #10343356
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE, Plaintiff, 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP) -against- GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. LORETTA A. PRESKA, Senior United States District Judge: Before the Court is the motion of The Gateway Pundit (TGP) to intervene in this matter for the purpose of unsealing certain materials, namely any materials containing the identities of clients of Jeffrey Epstein. (Dkt. nos. 1258-1259.) The Court invited any party who wished to be heard on the motion to submit a response. (Dkt. no. 1261.) One response opposing intervention was received on behalf of non-party John Doe. (Dkt. no. 1264.) It is well-settled that intervention pursuant to Rule 24(b) is the proper procedure for a third party to seek to modify a protective order in a private suit. See United States v. Alex Brown & Sons, Inc., 169 F.R.D. 532, 537 (S.D.N.Y.1996) (“[I]ntervention under [R]ule 24 is the proper mechanism for a non-party to seek modification of a protective order and thus to gain access to information generated through judicial proceedings.”), aff'd sub nom., United States v. Bleznak, 153 F.3d 16 (2d Cir. 1998). Where a non-party, such as the TGP here, “seeks to
Summary
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE, Plaintiff, 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP) -against- GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. LORETTA A. PRESKA, Senior United States District Judge: Before the Court is the motion of The Gateway Pundit (TGP) to intervene in this matter for the purpose of unsealing certain materials, namely any materials containing the identities of clients of Jeffrey Epstein. (Dkt. nos. 1258-1259.) The Court invited any party who wished to be heard on the motion to submit a response. (Dkt. no. 1261.) One response opposing intervention was received on behalf of non-party John Doe. (Dkt. no. 1264.) It is well-settled that intervention pursuant to Rule 24(b) is the proper procedure for a third party to seek to modify a protective order in a private suit. See United States v. Alex Brown & Sons, Inc., 169 F.R.D. 532, 537 (S.D.N.Y.1996) (“[I]ntervention under [R]ule 24 is the proper mechanism for a non-party to seek modification of a protective order and thus to gain access to information generated through judicial proceedings.”), aff'd sub nom., United States v. Bleznak, 153 F.3d 16 (2d Cir. 1998). Where a non-party, such as the TGP here, “seeks to
Forum Discussions
This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,500+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.