Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch4_p00606.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-41 Filed 01/05/24 Page 14 of 31 Sealed Ex. 16, Motion for Sanctions. Before that motion was heard, Dershowitz willfully violated the court’s order and again disclosed the confidential settlement communications, for which Giuffre again sought sanctions. McCawley Dec. Sealed Ex. 17, Supplement to Motion for Sanctions. However, before the sanction motions were heard, Dershowitz settled the underlying litigation. Dershowitz has insisted upon keeping confidential the monetary settlement that resolved the claims against him.”? The trial court declined to retain jurisdiction to hear Ms. Giuffre’s sanctions claims after the settlement. Ms. Giuffre’s attorneys have appealed the ruling to the Florida Court of Appeals and filed an opening brief on August 25, 2016. I. THE PROTECTIVE ORDER IN THIS CASE This is a case concerning sex abuse of minors, brought by a woman who was herself a minor victim of sex abuse. Accordingly, this Court has recognized from the outset the paramount importance of a protective order in this case, announcing at one of the first hearings in the case that that “of course there should be a protective order in this case.””* Thereafter, on March 18, 2016, “[u]pon a showing of good cause,” the Protective Order was entered (DE 62 at p.1). The following month, this Court sought even greater strictures regarding the Protective Order.”° Furthermore, as this Court will remember, it twice allowed the parties to submit suggested redactions to the public versions of its Orders (DE 135; June 20, 2016, Order”). While 3 “Did Dershowitz Shell Out Big Bucks to Get Settlement in Sex Case?” by Vivia Chen, April 12, 2016 at http://thecareerist.typepad.com/thecareerist/20 1 6/04/did-dershowitz-shell-out-money-for-settlement-in-case- sex.html 4 March 17, 2016, Hearing Transcript at 4:25-5:1. McCawley Dec. at Exhibit 18. * “However, I’m also going to ask the parties to agree upon an order that would expand the confidentiality agreement to this extent to this extent, to require the plaintiff to indicate to me and to the defense if there is anyone else who is going to be active in this litigation. I’ll tell you why I feel this way. I want to be sure that we can enforce the confidential aspect of that agreement, and J think that could be critical down the line. That’s the reason for those requests.” April 21, 2016, Hearing Transcript at 6:24-7:6. McCawley Dec. at Exhibit 19. °° “This matter being subject to a Protective Order, the parties are directed to meet and confer regarding redactions to this Opinion consistent with that Order. The parties are further directed to jointly file a proposed redacted version of this Opinion or Notify the Court that none are necessary within two weeks of the date of receipt of this Opinion.” June 20, 2016, Sealed Order at p. 19.