Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch7_p00321.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1332-17 Filed 01/08/24 Page 6 of 13 subject of Mr. Epstein and Ms. Groff’s motion], was to be returned to the original party, parties, non-party, or non-parties who designated it as confidential. Id. at 7-8 (footnote omitted; quoting Protective Order 4 12).' The Court ordered: “TAJIL documents, materials, and information subject to the Protective Order must be returned to the party who designated its confidentiality as of the date this action was dismissed.” /d. at 2 (emphasis supplied). Notwithstanding the Court’s November 14, 2017, Opinion and our specific requests, the lawyers for Ms. Giuffre and Doe 43 have refused to comply with Paragraph 12 of the Protective Order. In the face of the Court’s conclusion that this case “terminat[ed]” on May 25, 2017, the lawyers have taken the position that this case has not terminated because of the pendency of appeals of this Court’s orders denying motions to unseal documents filed with the Court and in the Court’s possession. As these lawyers know the vast bulk of the Confidential Materials was never filed with the Court. They have offered no reason why they have refused to return or destroy Confidential Materials “and all copies thereof” in their possession, custody and control that have not been filed with the Court. In April 2018 a Miami Herald journalist and the Herald (collectively “the Miami Herald”) moved to unseal all sealed and redacted documents filed with the Court. Doc.936, at 1. Messrs. Dershowitz and Cernovich joined the motion. Docs.941 & 947; see Doc.953, at 10. The lawyers for Ms. Giuffre and Doe 43 took this position on behalf of Ms. Giuffre: “Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre does not oppose [the Miami Herald’s motion to unseal] to the extent it seeks to unseal all docket entries . . ., including the unsealing of all trial designated deposition ‘In the footnote the Court acknowledged that the parties could comply with Paragraph 12 by destroying the Confidential Materials, but observed that “without any affidavits provided to the Court stating [that destruction has occurred], and in light of the present dispute, the Court infers that such action was not taken.” Jd. at 8 n.1.