Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch7_p00209.png

20 21 22 23 24 25 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1332-10 Filed 01/08/24 Page 12 of 64 11 H2G8GIUC improvidently granted or if there is some extraordinary circumstance or compelling need. The proposed intervenors fail to make any showing whatsoever for either prong of this test. The Second Circuit has been hesitant to permit -—- THE COURT: Forgive me, but we are talking about the motion to intervene. You're talking about the substance of unsealing. But do they get in to make that motion? MS. SCHULTZ: No, your Honor, and this is why. The First Amendment does not give the proposed intervenor standing to intervene in this case. Nonparties cannot claim a First Amendment infringement on their freedom of speech. The right to speak in public does not carry with it an unrestrained right to gather information. Moreover, the proposed intervenor's brief is completely silent on how the public access to pretrial proceedings would play a significant positive role in the functioning of the judicial process. And under the test set forth by the Second Circuit in Newsday LLC, 730 F.Supp.2d, at page 417, he makes no showing of that whatsoever. So already there is no standing to intervene based on the Second Circuit test. Finally, this Court has already ruled that it's appropriate for these materials to be sealed, and nothing in either the purported intervenor or Professor Dershowitz's joining of that brief put forth any evidence that the law should be disturbed. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300