Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch8_p00876.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1335-5 Filed 01/09/24 Page 8 of 12 Defendant cannot articulate one legitimate purpose for making them public. Accordingly, they should remain confidential under the existing protective order. In addition, even if the Court were to find, for some reason, that the motion is untimely under the Protective Order, or that these documents do not come within the ambit of the existing protective Order, this Court still clearly has the inherent power to determine that these documents are confidential and should be kept under seal. Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a district court to “make any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense” upon a showing of good cause. In her moving brief, Ms. Giuffre has established “good cause” for these documents to remain and/or be deemed confidential by the Court. Therefore, the Court should grant the instant motion independent of the language of the Protective Order (drafted by Defendant). As this Court will remember, the Court twice allowed the parties to make suggested redactions to the public versions of its Orders (see, e.g., DE 135). While the redactions were agreed upon by the parties, they were solely at Defendant’s request. This is a case concerning sex abuse of minors, brought by a minor victim of sex abuse. If any civil case cries out for protective treatment, it is this one. As the Defendant explained to this Court back in March of 2016, the materials in this case, and the materials at issue in the instant motion, are sensitive in nature, and therefore fall squarely into the categories of material over which courts routinely grant protection. C.F. Strategic Growth Intern., Inc. v. Remote MDX, Inc., 2007 WL 3341522, at *3 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 9, 2007) (Sweet, J.) (“To the extent that RMDX is concerned about the sensitive nature of the