Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch7_p00322.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1332-17 Filed 01/08/24 Page 7 of 13 transcripts.” Doc.945, at 3 (italics added; underscoring in original). The Court denied the motion. Doc.953. It noted the case at bar contained “allegations concerning the intimate, sexual, and private conduct of the parties and of third persons, some prominent, some private,” id. at 2; Ms. Giuffre had alleged she had been subjected to “public ridicule, contempt and disgrace,” id. at 3; she also alleged she had been “sexually abused at numerous locations around the world with prominent and politically powerful men,” id. at 3-4. As it did in denying the Dershowitz and Cernovich motions, the Court found that release of the Confidential Materials “could expose the parties to annoyance, embarrassment, and oppression given the highly sensitive nature of the underlying allegations.” /d. at 24. Moreover, [t]he parties mutually assented to entering into the Protective Order. The parties relied upon its provisions, as did dozens of witnesses and other non-parties. Documents designated confidential included a range of allegations of sexual acts involving Plaintiff and non-parties to this litigation, some famous, some not; the identities of non-parties who either allegedly engaged in sexual acts with Plaintiff or who allegedly facilitated such acts; Plaintiff's sexual history and prior allegations of sexual assault; and Plaintiff's medical history. The Protective Order has maintained the confidentiality of these sensitive materials. Id. The Court found irrelevant that Mr. Dershowitz and Ms. Giuffre in joining or not opposing the Miami Herald’s motion were choosing not to protect their privacy interests: The privacy interests of Maxwell, Giuffre, Dershowitz, as well as dozens of third persons, all of whom relied upon the promise of secrecy outlined in the Protective Order and enforced by the Court, have been implicated. It makes no difference that Giuffre and Dershowitz have chosen to waive their privacy interests to the underlying confidential information by supporting this motion, as Maxwell has not agreed to such a waiver. More importantly, the dozens of non-parties who provided highly confidential information relating to their own stories provided that information in reliance on the Protective Order and the understanding that it would continue to protect everything it claimed it would... .