Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch4_p00608.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-41 Filed 01/05/24 Page 16 of 31 legal principles exist so that courts may have accountability to the public; they do not exist to enable individuals on a personal vendetta to advance a public smear campaign against a victim of childhood sexual abuse. U.S. v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995) (“Amodeo II’) (“The presumption of access is based on the need for federal courts, although independent—indeed, particularly because they are independent—to have a measure of accountability and for the public to have confidence in the administration of justice.”). Indeed, the motion to intervene is devoid of any citations to precedent that allows an individual to exploit these bedrock legal principles solely for his personal benefit, rather than the public at large. Furthermore, the Court should not overlook the fact that that Dershowitz already possesses these documents because they were sent to him by Maxwell’s counsel who has named him as a witness, and, as demonstrated below, the Second Circuit does not provide a right of access to protected material when an individual seeks to use it solely for harm. B. These Are Not Judicial Documents and Therefore Should Not be Disclosed The Court can end its legal analysis of this motion quickly, as, contrary to Dershowitz’s suggestion, the documents in question are not judicial documents. This fact is fatal to the motion, as neither the First Amendment nor the common law right of access applies in a scenario where the materials in question are not judicial documents. U.S. v. Amodeo, 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995) (“Amodeo I’) (noting material must be a “judicial document” to be “accessible to the public”). Dershowitz only became aware of the documents he now seeks because Ms. Giuffre produced them in discovery. It is established law in the Second Circuit that documents simply exchanged in the civil discovery context do not come within the purview of the First Amendment or the common law right of access. “Documents that play no role in the performance of Article III functions, such as those passed between the parties in discovery, lie entirely beyond the 11