Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch4_p00148.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-6 Filed 01/05/24 Page 19 of 32 a number of discovery disputes and other applications have been submitted to the Court in just the last few weeks, this modest request is unlikely to appreciably affect the schedule of the litigation or to delay its ultimate disposition. See Schiller v. City of N.Y., No. 04 Civ. 7922, 2006 WL 2788256, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2006) (noting that intervention “for the limited purpose of challenging strictures on the dissemination of information should not impede the progress of the litigation’’). Cc. Professor Dershowitz Has a Compelling Interest in Access That Is Not Represented by Any Existing Party As the Supreme Court has recognized, the public’s right to access judicial proceedings and documents extends well beyond those with direct interests in the subject matter of the litigation at issue: “American decisions generally do not condition enforcement of this right on a proprietary interest in the document or upon a need for it as evidence in a lawsuit.” Nixon v. Warner Commce’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978) (noting that “the citizen’s desire to keep a watchful eye on the workings of public agencies” is a sufficient basis to compel access). Even if a more concrete stake were needed, Professor Dershowitz has a compelling interest in obtaining and disclosing the Requested Documents, which corroborate his denials of Ms. Giuffre’s heinous allegations against him and undermine her credibility. He also plans to rely on them to defend against a request for sanctions against him that is pending on appeal in a Florida court. Dershowitz Decl. § 46. Although Professor Dershowitz has valiantly fought to clear his name—by, among other efforts, marshaling incontrovertible proof of his innocence, asserting defamation claims in court, and commissioning a thorough investigation led by a respected former federal judge that exonerated him—he has found himself unable to stem the tide of media reports and public statements by Ms. Giuffre and her lawyers labeling him a pedophile and sexual abuser. Professor Dershowitz seeks to intervene here to assert his First Amendment and 13