Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch7_p00326.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1332-17 Filed 01/08/24 Page 11 of 13 The three pending appeals are irrelevant to the parties’ compliance with Paragraph 12. None of the non-parties who brought the appeals requested Confidential Materials in the parties’ possession, custody and control. To the contrary, each requested the unsealing of discrete court filings or, in the case of the Miami Herald, the unsealing of all sealed court filings. None of these requests concern the parties, who are not in the possession, custody or control of the court filings. Indeed none of the non-parties requested any order requiring the parties to maintain or produce Confidential Materials to them. Axiomatically whatever the result of the appeals, nothing but unwarranted intransigence explains Ms. Giuffre and her counsel’s refusal to comply with the Protective Order or the Court’s November 14, 2017, directive. The Court’s inherent power to vindicate its orders is broad. “When the district court invokes its inherent power to sanction misconduct by an attorney that involves that attorney’s violation of a court order or other misconduct that is not undertaken for the client’s benefit, the district court need not find bad faith before imposing a sanction under its inherent power.” United States v. Seltzer, 227 F.3d 36, 42 (2d Cir. 2000). We have such a situation here. Ms. Giuffre’s attorneys’ refusal to comply with Paragraph 12 and this Court’s November 14, 2017, directive was not undertaken for Ms. Giuffre’s benefit. Ms. Giuffre has settled her lawsuit. Meanwhile Ms. Giuffre’s lawyers are prosecuting Doe 43 and seeking to take advantage of the Confidential Materials in that lawsuit.’ >To the extent Ms. Giuffre is complicit in her attorneys’ violation of the Court’s orders and directives, both she and her counsel are subject to sanction. See, e.g., Seltzer, 227 F.3d at 40- 41; N.Y. State Nat’l Org. for Women v. Terry, 886 F.2d 1339, 1352 (2d Cir. 1989). 10