Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch4_p00155.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-6 Filed 01/05/24 Page 26 of 32 Nothing could be less private. Indeed, both Ms. Giuffre’s relationship with Ms. Churcher and the nature of her allegations against Professor Dershowitz have been the subject of publicly available court filings in this and other actions and of numerous media stories. Dershowitz Decl. | 15-20, 26-27; Ex. K. Any claim to confidentiality has been waived. See infra Part III. In short, the Requested Documents contain none of the kinds of information that give courts pause in granting public access to judicial documents. “The information at issue . . . does not involve the type of medical, health-related, family, or personal financial matter to which courts grant the greatest protection.” United States v. Martoma, No. S1 12 Cr. 973, 2014 WL 164181, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 9, 2014). It involves only contemporaneous evidence of a scheme to cook up false and defamatory allegations against Professor Dershowitz. He is entitled to access and use that evidence to defend himself. D. The First Amendment Guarantees Access to the Requested Documents Even if the common law did not compel the conclusion that the Requested Documents must be made public, the First Amendment would supply an alternative basis for their disclosure. The First Amendment presumption of access to judicial documents applies when “experience and logic” indicate that “the documents have historically been open to the press and general public,” and that “public access plays a significant positive role in the functioning of the particular process in question.” Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 120 (internal quotation marks omitted). With respect to the experience prong, the Second Circuit has held that “the notion of public access to judicial documents is a capacious one: the courts of this country have long recognized a general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents,” in order to facilitate public monitoring. Erie Cnty., 763 F.3d at 241 (internal quotation marks omitted). Discovery motions and the documents supporting them are routinely filed in courts across the country without sealing and with the understanding that such 20