Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch7_p00325.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1332-17 Filed 01/08/24 Page 10 of 13 and that the parties were required to return or destroy the Confidential Materials pursuant to Paragraph 12: e “Based upon the conclusions set forth below, . . . all documents, materials, and information subject to the Protective Order must be returned to the party who designated its confidentiality as of [May 25, 2017,] the date this action was dismissed.” Sealed Op. (Nov. 14, 2017), at 2 (emphasis supplied). e {Paragraph 13 and the [Protective] Order’s introductory language establish that the purpose of the Order was to guide confidentiality determinations during the discovery process, and not beyond this point. The Protective Order did not extend beyond the completion of discovery or beyond the termination of this action.” /d. at 7. e “Accordingly, absent ‘other arrangements .. . agreed upon’ regarding the disposal of the protected information, this Court was informed of no such arrangements, on May 25, 2017, all protected information, including the Jane Doe Evidence, was to be returned to the original party, parties, non-party, or non-parties who designated it as confidential.” /d. at 7-8 (footnote omitted; emphasis supplied). These conclusions and the Court’s direction to the parties to comply with Paragraph 12 underscore the willful violation of Paragraph 12 of the Protective Order and the directive in Court’s November 14, 2017, opinion to comply with Paragraph 12. Ms. Giuffre’s counsel’s argument that the case has not been terminated because of the pendency of the appeals by the non-parties is meritless. When the Court issued its directive on November 14, 2017, to comply with Paragraph 12, it was well aware of the two pending appeals. There is no dispute this action has been terminated: the case was dismissed with prejudice by the parties’ stipulation approved by the Court on May 25, 2017. Id. at 3; Doc.917. The Court’s interpretation of its own Protective Order is conclusive. It explicitly held that the Protective Order “did not extend beyond the completion of discovery or beyond the termination of this action,” and it declared on November 14, 2017, that this case is well beyond both. Sealed Op., at 3 (Nov. 14, 2017).