Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch4_p00138.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-6 Filed 01/05/24 Page 9 of 32 to agents, publishers, and the press with the goal of maximizing the public attention paid to her slanderous story; and she even sought and obtained a lengthy interview with ABC News with the intent that it be broadcast on national television news programs. Ms. Giuffre and her attorneys cannot credibly argue that documentary evidence undermining the accusations she has spent years working to make public are “secret” and should be kept so under the authority of this Court. Disclosing the Requested Documents would violate no right of privacy. By publicly leveling false accusations against Professor Dershowitz in graphic detail and seeking to publicize those accusations in the media, Ms. Giuffre has forfeited any claim that her own (defamatory) words are somehow confidential. Indeed, what Ms. Giuffre’s own counsel have referred to as the “strong current media interest in the case”’—which Ms. Giuffre has worked to sustain, including by selling her story—bolsters the public’s right to access the Requested Documents. Were Ms. Giuffre to prevail in her efforts to suppress these documents of high public interest, the result would be absurd and unfair: Ms. Giuffre’s false allegations would remain in the public record, while the innocent victim of her slanders would be barred from using her own words to disprove them. No one should be permitted to game the legal system so perversely. The law recognizes Professor Dershowitz’s right to the Requested Documents under the First Amendment, the common-law right of access to judicial documents, and governing Second Circuit jurisprudence, which forbids sealing and secrecy for their own sake. Here, having waived any privacy interest she may have had by both disseminating the allegations against Professor Dershowitz and by filing this lawsuit against Ghislaine Maxwell, Ms. Giuffre should not be heard to say that her own words, and the words of those with whom she communicated, are somehow “confidential.” They are not. This Court should grant Professor Dershowitz the right to intervene in this action and unseal the Requested Documents.