Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
cl-opinion-10660339Court UnsealedOther

Giuffre v. Maxwell (SDNY): Opinion #10660339

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1315 Filed 12/18/23 Page 1 of 51 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK VIRGINIA GIUFFRE, Plaintiff, 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP) -against- ORDER GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. LORETTA A. PRESKA, Senior United States District Judge: The Court reiterates here its previous recitation of the applicable law and descriptions of the unsealing process set out in the transcripts dated January 19, 2021 (dkt. no. 1196), July 1, 2021 (dkt. no. 1220), April 19, 2022 (dkt. no. 1254), and November 18, 2022 (dkt. no. 1283). The following are the Court’s findings as to the Does designated following its particularized review of the documents noted: Relevant . This material should be unsealed in full. First, “[t]he burden of demonstrating that a document submitted to a court should be sealed rests on the party seeking such action.” DiRussa v. Dean Witter Reynolds Inc., 121 F.3d 818, 826 (2d Cir. 1997).

Date
Unknown
Source
Court Unsealed
Reference
cl-opinion-10660339
Pages
51
Persons
0
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1315 Filed 12/18/23 Page 1 of 51 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK VIRGINIA GIUFFRE, Plaintiff, 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP) -against- ORDER GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. LORETTA A. PRESKA, Senior United States District Judge: The Court reiterates here its previous recitation of the applicable law and descriptions of the unsealing process set out in the transcripts dated January 19, 2021 (dkt. no. 1196), July 1, 2021 (dkt. no. 1220), April 19, 2022 (dkt. no. 1254), and November 18, 2022 (dkt. no. 1283). The following are the Court’s findings as to the Does designated following its particularized review of the documents noted: Relevant . This material should be unsealed in full. First, “[t]he burden of demonstrating that a document submitted to a court should be sealed rests on the party seeking such action.” DiRussa v. Dean Witter Reynolds Inc., 121 F.3d 818, 826 (2d Cir. 1997).

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.