Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch7_p00211.png

20 21 22 23 24 25 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1332-10 Filed 01/08/24 Page 14 of 64 13 H2G8GIUC interest in revealing documents concerning sexual assault should disturb the protective order. Moreover, there is prima facie evidence here that there is an illegitimate purpose. There are two purported intervenors -- one intervenor and one purported intervenor moving the Court to unseal these documents right now. Under Nixon v. Warner, Supreme Court case, 435 U.S. 598, and Amodeo, 71 F.3d at 1044, the purported intervenor's history of being, as New York Magazine termed, a rape apologist and attacking victims of sexual abuse point to a highly illegitimate purpose to get these unsealed documents that relate to sexual assault. Also, Dershowitz's now official joining of this motion shows that both directly and by proxy are acting to ratify Dershowitz's private spite. Courts in this district and others routinely seal summary judgment materials, such as in Louis Vuitton v. My Other Bag, wherein the court held that privacy interests of business figures were sufficient to keep summary judgment documents sealed. Here, the privacy interests are those of underage victims of sexual assault. If this Court can extend protection to summary judgment materials related to business figures, it can certainly protect documents surrounding sexual assault of minors. Again, I don't think the Court needs to reach the merits because I don't think there is standing to intervene. Thank you, your Honor. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300