GIUFFRE v. Julie Brown, Miami Herald Media Company, Michael Cernovich, dba Cernovich Media, Intervenors. (2020)

SUMMARY ORDER

Defendant-Appellant Ghislaine Maxwell appeals from a July 23, 2020 order unsealing certain litigation materials, including, and related to, Maxwell's April 2016 deposition transcript. She argues that the District Court abused its discretion in ordering the unsealing of the deposition materials. Specifically, she argues that there is a lower presumption of access to the deposition materials at issue in this case than to the summary judgment materials we ordered unsealed in Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 2019), and that her interests outweigh the public's interests. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.¹

When reviewing a district court's decision to seal a filing or maintain such a seal, “we examine the court's factual findings for clear error, its legal determinations de novo, and its ultimate decision to seal or unseal for abuse of discretion.” Brown, 929 F.3d at 47 (citing Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, 814 F.3d 132, 139 (2d Cir. 2016)). A district court abuses its discretion if it “(1) bases its decision on an error of law or uses the wrong legal standard; (2) bases its decision on a clearly erroneous factual finding; or (3) reaches a conclusion that, though not necessarily the product of a legal error or a clearly erroneous factual finding, cannot be located within the range of permissible decisions.” Klipsch Grp. Inc. v. ePRO E-Commerce Ltd., 880 F.3d 620, 627 (2018) (internal quotation marks omitted).

We cannot conclude that the District Court abused its discretion in ordering the unsealing of the deposition materials. While “the presumption of public access in filings submitted in connection with discovery disputes or motions in limine is generally somewhat lower than the presumption applied to material introduced at trial, or in connection with dispositive motions such as motions for dismissal or summary judgment,” the District Court correctly held that the deposition materials are judicial documents to which the presumption of public access attaches, and did not abuse its discretion in rejecting Maxwell's meritless arguments that her interests superseded the presumption of access. Brown, 929 F.3d at 50. The District Court's order articulated and applied the correct legal framework in its individualized review of the materials to be unsealed.

CONCLUSION

We have reviewed all of the arguments raised by Defendant-Appellant Maxwell on appeal and find them to be without merit. We DENY the motion to consolidate this appeal with the pending appeal in United States v. Maxwell, No. 20-3061-cr. For the foregoing reasons, we also AFFIRM the July 23, 2020 order of the District Court.

In the interest of judicial economy, any further appeal in this civil case shall be referred to this panel.

The mandate shall issue forthwith.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Although Michael Cernovich, DBA Cernovich Media, did not enter an appearance in this appeal, letters of his dated July 31, 2020 and September 9, 2020 are before the Court.