DOJ-OGR-00015119.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 804 Filed 08/06/25 Page 24 of 27

BINDER & SCHWARTZ

The government has plainly not met its burden to justify an unsealing in this case.² And even if this Court determines that unsealing is warranted despite the high burden required to do so, [REDACTED] respectfully request that any reference to them or to any information which may be used to identify them be redacted from any public filing. [REDACTED] were innocent third parties at the time of any allegations contained in the grand jury materials, and any references to them should remain sealed. While we are not aware of the context in which [REDACTED] are mentioned in the grand jury materials (despite counsel having asked DOJ), the events detailed in the indictment of Ghislaine Maxwell occurred between 1994 and 1997, [REDACTED].

Any reference to [REDACTED] similarly should remain sealed, as they are also innocent third parties and publication of their names in connection with these materials would have the potential to contribute to additional needless and irreparable harm beyond what they have already suffered as a result of this matter. Where, as here, the effect of unsealing grand jury materials would have the potential to harm still-living third parties, the historical interest of the public cannot outweigh the privacy interests in keeping the materials under seal. See In re Application of Newsday, Inc., 895 F.2d 74, 79–80 (2d Cir. 1990) (emphasizing in the context of a request to unseal a search warrant application that “privacy interests of innocent third parties as well as those of defendants . . . should weigh heavily in a court’s balancing equation” (quoting In re N.Y. Times Co., 828 F.2d 110, 116 (2d Cir. 1987))); Craig, 131 F.3d at 107 (directing courts assessing requests to unseal grand jury materials to pay particular attention to the request’s timing, given that the passage of time may weigh in favor of disclosure of grand jury materials because it inevitably “brings about the death” of all parties involved).

I. The grand jury materials in this case should remain sealed

There is a long history of maintaining the secrecy of grand jury proceedings for a reason. The purposes of the secrecy include ensuring the freedom of grand juries in their deliberations and “to protect [the] innocent accused . . . .” Procter & Gamble, 356 U.S. at 681 n.6. Beyond protecting innocent parties who are the subject of grand jury investigations, this secrecy also serves to protect witnesses and other innocent nonparties who may be mentioned in grand jury proceedings from any unwarranted association with the crimes alleged therein. Because of the policy and due process rationale behind grand jury secrecy, the permissible bases upon which grand jury materials may be shared are limited to certain exceptions in Rule 6(e)(3). The Second Circuit has recognized limited additional “special circumstances” in which release of grand jury records is appropriate, including historical interest by the public. Craig, 131 F.3d at 102. But in

² The Southern District of Florida recently declined to unseal the grand jury materials pertaining to the government’s investigation into Jeffrey Epstein, which we understand concerns the same or substantially similar facts. Due to a Circuit split, the Southern District of Florida evaluated only the exceptions to grand jury secrecy enumerated in Rule 6(e). Order Den. Pet. to Unseal Grand Jury Trs., In re Grand Jury 5-02 & 07-103, 9:25-mc-80920 (S.D. Fla. July 23, 2025).

2

DOJ-OGR-00015119