EFTA00018294.pdf

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1079 Filed 07/29/20 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE,

Plaintiff,

-against-

GHISLAINE MAXWELL,

Defendant.

No. 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP)

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

LORETTA A. PRESKA, Senior United States District Judge:

The Court has reviewed Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell’s letter
requesting reconsideration of the Court’s July 23, 2020, decision
to unseal (1) the transcripts of Ms. Maxwell’s and Doe 1’s
depositions, and (2) court submissions excerpting from, quoting
from, or summarizing the contents of the transcripts. (See dkt.
no. 1078.)

Ms. Maxwell’s eleventh-hour request for reconsideration is
denied. As Ms. Maxwell acknowledges in her letter, reconsideration
is an “extraordinary remedy.” In re Beacon Assocs. Litig., 818 F.
Supp. 2d 697, 701 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (quoting In re Health Mgmt. Sys.
Inc. Sec. Litig., 113 F. Supp. 2d 613, 614 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)). Such
motions “are properly granted only if there is a showing of: (1)
an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of
new evidence; or (3) a need to correct a clear error or prevent
manifest injustice.” Drapkin v. Mafco Consol. Grp., Inc., 818 F.
Supp. 2d 678, 696 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). “A motion for reconsideration

1
EFTA00018294

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1079 Filed 07/29/20 Page 2 of 4

may not be used to advance new facts, issues or arguments not
previously presented to the Court, nor may it be used as a vehicle
for relitigating issues already decided by the Court.” Bennett v.
Watson Wyatt & Co., 156 F. Supp.2d 270, 271 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).

Here, Ms. Maxwell’s request for reconsideration hinges on her
assertion that new developments, i.e., her indictment and arrest,
provide compelling reasons for keeping the deposition transcripts
sealed. (See dkt. no. 1078 at 5.) But, despite Ms. Maxwell’s
contention that she could not address the effect of those events
in her objections because they occurred after the close of
briefing, (id.), 1 this is plowed ground. Indeed, in her original
objection to unsealing, Ms. Maxwell argued that the specter of
ongoing criminal investigations into unknown individuals
associated with Jeffrey Epstein--a group that, of course, includes
Ms. Maxwell--loomed large over the Court-ordered unsealing

1 The Court notes as a practical matter that Ms. Maxwell was
arrested on July 2, 2020--that is, three weeks prior to the Court’s
July 23 decision to unseal the materials at issue. To the extent
that they relate to the to the Court’s balancing of interests in
the unsealing process, the issues that Ms. Maxwell raises in her
request were surely plain the day that Ms. Maxwell was apprehended.
Ms. Maxwell, however, did not seek to supplement her objections to
unsealing despite ample time to do so. In fact, the Court notified
the parties on July 21, 2020, that it would announce the unsealing
decision with respect to Ms. Maxwell’s deposition, together with
other documents, on July 23. (See dkt. no. 1076.) Even then, Ms.
Maxwell made no request for delay or to supplement her papers.
Ms. Maxwell did not raise her “vastly different position,”
(Transcript of July 23 Ruling at 16:2-3), until moments after the
Court had made its decision to unseal the relevant documents.
2
EFTA00018295

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1079 Filed 07/29/20 Page 3 of 4

process. (See dkt. no. 1057 at 5.) This argument, specifically
Ms. Maxwell’s concern that unsealing would “inappropriately
influence potential witnesses or alleged victims,” (id.), and her
reference to “publicly reported statements by Plaintiff,
Plaintiff’s counsel, the United States Attorney for the Southern
District of New York, and the Attorney General for the U.S. Virgin
Islands” about those investigations, (id.), carried with it the
clear implication that Ms. Maxwell could find herself subject to
investigation and, eventually, indictment. The Court understood
that implication as applying to Ms. Maxwell and thus has already
considered any role that criminal charges against Ms. Maxwell might
play in rebutting the presumption of public access to the sealed
materials. Ms. Maxwell’s request for reconsideration of the
Court’s July 23 ruling is accordingly denied.

Given the Court’s denial of Ms. Maxwell’s request for
reconsideration, the Court will stay the unsealing of Ms. Maxwell’s
and Doe 1’s deposition transcripts and any sealed or redacted order
or paper that quotes from or discloses information from those
deposition transcripts for two business days, i.e., through
Friday, July 31, 2020, so that Ms. Maxwell may seek relief from
the Court of Appeals. Any sealed materials that do not quote from
or disclose information from those deposition transcripts shall be
unsealed on July 30, 2020, in the manner described by the Court’s
Order dated July 28, 2020. (See dkt. no. 1077.) Ms. Maxwell’s and
3
EFTA00018296

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1079 Filed 07/29/20 Page 4 of 4

Doe 1’s deposition transcripts and any sealed materials that quote
or disclose information from them shall be unsealed in the manner
prescribed by the July 28 Order on Monday, August 3, 2020, subject
to any further stay ordered by the Court of Appeals.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: New York, New York
July 29, 2020

[Signature]
LORETTA A. PRESKA
Senior United States District Judge
4
EFTA00018297