Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch4_p00369.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-20 Filed 01/05/24 Page 12 of 14 pertaining to alleged victims of sexual abuse by Jeffrey Epstein. Beginning December 10, 2015 when Plaintiff filed her Response in Opposition to the Motion to Stay (Doc. # 21-7), then again on March 14, 2016 (Doc. # 55-2) and on May 5, 2016 (Doc. #144-3), May 11, 2016 (Doc. # 153- 6), and May 27, 2016 (Doc. # 173-8), Plaintiff filed on ECF Palm Beach Police Department reports that contain references to alleged juvenile victims of sexual misconduct, with the names of the alleged victims redacted. If Plaintiff truly believes that police reports with redacted identifying information such as these are “confidential,” why has she been the one to publicly disseminate such reports? Where did she obtain these reports? Was it “theft” of “sealed juvenile records” for her to have those police reports? It would seem the juveniles referenced in the reports filed by Plaintiff, juveniles who have never brought public defamation lawsuits, juveniles who have never been paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by the tabloids for their stories, are entitled to more protection from publicity than is Plaintiff. Her position that identity-redacted police reports should be kept Confidential is belied by her own repeated, public, self-serving court filings in this case. CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, Ms. Maxwell requests the Court enforce the Protective Order, deny Plaintiff's motion to make publicly available police reports “Confidential” under the terms of the Protective Order in this case, and award attorneys’ fees and costs associated with the filing of this Response to Ms. Maxwell. 10