Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch4_p00619.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-41 Filed 01/05/24 Page 27 of 31 confidentiality of report of policing failures surrounding the murder of a young mother). “Consequently, in a major decision in this field, Martindell v. International Telephone & Telegraph Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir.1979), the Second Circuit determined that ‘absent a showing of improvidence in the grant of a Rule 26(c) protective order or some extraordinary circumstance or compelling need ... a witness should be entitled to rely upon the enforceability of a protective order against any third parties.’” /d., quoting Martindell v. International Telephone & Telegraph Corp., 594 F.2d at 296 (denying governmental access for criminal investigative purposes civil deposition transcripts taken under a protective order). In this case, Ms. Giuffre - and multiple other deponents - reasonably relied on this Court’s Protective Order in giving testimony and producing documents. Indeed, Ms. Giuffre has given testimony about being sexually assaulted in reasonable reliance upon the privacy of the Protective Order; furnished personal medical records under in reasonable reliance upon the Protective Order; and produced personal emails with close family members in reasonable reliance upon of the Protective Order. Medical Diagnostic Imaging, PLLC v. Carecore Nat., LLC, 2009 WL 2135294, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (denying motion to modify protective order because parties and third parties have reasonably relied upon the terms of the protective order). Under Martindell, this Court cannot take away those protections after the fact.*° 3. Dershowitz Seeks These Materials For an Illegitimate Purpose Which Disqualifies Him from Relief “A litigant's purpose in seeking modification of an existing protective order is also relevant for determining whether to grant a modification. Requests to modify protective orders so that the public may access discovery materials is arguably subject to a more stringent %6 “The Second Circuit has explicitly rejected the notion that the Martindell standard should be limited to cases where the government seeks to modify a protective order. Rather, Martindell has been applied even when the third party seeking access to discovery is a private litigant. Dorsett v. County of Nassau, 289 F.R.D. at 66, citing Lridium India Telecom Ltd. v. Motorola, Inc., 165 Fed.Appx. 878, 880 (2d Cir.2005). 22