Risk of Physical Harm to Woman Involved in Ghislaine Maxwell Litigation May Justify Sealing Her Identity,

holds the Second Circuit, though it leaves it to the trial court to consider the facts further.

From Doe 107 v. Giuffre, decided Wednesday by the Second Circuit, in an opinion by Judges José A. Cabranes, Rosemary S. Pooler & Reena Raggi (Doe 107 alleges that "the documents ordered unsealed identified her, among other things (and falsely, we assert) as having had sexual relations with Ms. Maxwell as well as witnessing sex acts between other named persons"):

Objector-Appellant Doe 107 appeals from the November 18, 2022 order unsealing certain litigation materials that identify her. Doe 107 argues that the District Court abused its discretion by "ignor[ing]" her assertion that identifying her "could place her in mortal danger in her culturally conservative home country," in which "'honor' killings are a real risk," and "instead concluding [that] she … offered no more than generalized concerns of adverse publicity." We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal….

On the record before us, we cannot confidently hold that the District Court did not err in concluding that Doe 107's proffered facts constituted only "generalized concerns of adverse publicity [that] do not outweigh the presumption of public access." In her submission to the District Court, Doe 107 stated that she had received "'hate mail' from someone who saw [her] name listed as a witness who may have information regarding [Jeffrey] Epstein's and [Ghislaine] Maxwell's alleged illegal conduct." Doe 107 also stated that she resides in a country "where 'honor' killings are a real risk.".

We accordingly remand the cause so that the District Court may explore—with supplemental submissions from Doe 107 as necessary—whether Doe 107 has raised more than "generalized concerns of adverse publicity" that outweigh the presumption of public access to the litigation documents identifying her.

Doe is represented by Richard W. Levitt (Levitt & Kaizer).

Comments

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Physical harm by the FBI. Sealing it won't help that.

[Tom for equal rights]

Maybe protection from Hillary - as Bill was a semi frequent guest on the Lolita express

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The FBI are the Elites goonsquad though.

Just ask Seth Rich.

[Social Justice is neither]

It will help keep her execution out of the news though. Can't have questions answered here.

[Orbital Mechanic]

"could place her in mortal danger in her culturally conservative home country,"

Read that over a couple of times. We have reached the point where courts have to accept as fact that "culturally conservative" areas are dangerous places to be for those known for the heresy of testifying against child sex traffickers.

Because that ideology can't be expected to tolerate that level of "woke" or something. And so many people here defend that ideology in the name of "freedom."

[Squirrelloid]

... there's different conservative cultures. From 'honor killings', her home country is probably predominantly Muslim or Hindu.

[gormadoc]

Read that over a couple of times.

[Dilan Esper]

What a strange comment. If a witness is in a place where they might face danger, that is obviously something that should be taken into account when determining whether to keep the identity secret.

[Carl_N_Brown]

Doe 107 appealed the 18 Nov 2022 order unsealing litigation materials that identify her specifically and which would place her in risk of an "honor killing" in her home country, a far greater risk than mere "adverse publicity."

""generalized concerns of adverse publicity do not outweigh the presumption of public access" reads like boilerplate text cut'n'paste w/o thought.

[Social Justice is neither]

Am I supposed to trust their characterization? Too many people abuse language these days for such to be taken serious without significant context. The judge may have it but outside observers cannot.

[Carl_N_Brown]

Even before ChatGPT some legal papers read like irrelevant disconnected verbiage, thoughtless cut'n'paste boilerplate too quickly decidng without consideration of all the possibilities. The future promises it will be worse. AI is AUnI.

[Dr. Ed 2]

This is interesting because her father, Robert Maxwell, died under questionable circumstances in 1991. Yes, rich people can (and often will) do stupid things with boats but he was involved in some financial irregularities at the time, and also alleged to be involved with British intelligence. And 1991 was when there were real fears that all the Soviet records would become public (a lot did) and everyone was downsizing because the cold war had ended.

A friend of mine put it best -- Epstein's death was quite convenient. And for Maxwell to hang out in New Hampshire of all places, that's someone like Hunter Biden who believed that she'd be protected.

Now as to DOE 107, Objector-Appellant, v. VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE, Plaintiff-Appellee,v. JULIE BROWN and MIAMI HERALD MEDIA COMPANY, Intervenors-Appellees -- who's the defendant?!?

Don't you need a defendant? Lord v Veazie...

[Not Unreasonable]

“ On the record before us, we cannot confidently hold that the District Court did not err in concluding that Doe 107's proffered facts constituted only "generalized concerns of adverse publicity [that] do not outweigh the presumption of public access.’”

This doesn’t seem to square with the clearly erroneous standard for factual findings.