Summary
This Second Circuit per curiam opinion reviews district court orders declining to unseal various documents in a now-settled defamation action between Virginia Giuffre and Ghislaine Maxwell. The court first holds that earlier interlocutory orders were not final judgments, thereby establishing appellate jurisdiction over the appeal. On the merits, it clarifies that undecided motions retain their status as judicial documents subject to a presumption of public access despite subsequent settlement mootness, and remands for further individual review where the district court incorrectly applied this standard.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Second Circuit had jurisdiction to review the district court's December 2019 and January 2020 orders despite the absence of timely notices of appeal from those orders.
- Whether materials filed in connection with motions that became moot when the underlying action settled categorically ceased to be judicial documents subject to a presumption of public access.
- Whether a document supporting a motion to intervene may be assigned only a barely cognizable presumption of public access because the district court did not rely on it in deciding the motion.
- Whether briefs and supporting documents filed in connection with motions to seal or unseal are judicial documents because they may influence the court's exercise of supervisory power over its docket.
- Whether the district court otherwise erred or abused its discretion in maintaining portions of Maxwell's deposition and documents identifying pseudonymized third parties under seal, or in declining to release the list of pseudonymized third parties.
Holdings
- The December 2019 and January 2020 orders were not final decisions because they were steps in an ongoing unsealing process and left open the possibility that the materials would later be reviewed and unsealed. The Second Circuit therefore had jurisdiction to review those orders on the timely appeal from the later final unsealing orders.
- Whether a filed document is a judicial document is determined at the time of filing. A motion that was a judicial document when filed does not cease to be a judicial document merely because the motion later became moot when the case settled.
- The district court erred by treating the Florida deposition transcript submitted in support of a motion to intervene as entitled to only a barely cognizable presumption of public access because the court did not apparently rely on it in deciding intervention. The extent to which the court relied on a document does not determine the weight of the presumption.
- Briefs and supporting documents filed in connection with motions to seal or unseal are judicial documents when they have a tendency to influence the court's exercise of supervisory power over its records and docket. They are subject to a presumption of public access, although the presumption may be lower than that applicable to materials implicating the court's core adjudicative function.
Key quotations
“In sum, the identification of a judicial document is a binary decision made as of the time of the document’s filing, i.e., filed material either is or is not a judicial document depending on whether it could have a tendency to influence the court in the exercise of its Article III powers.” (21-22)
“Whether such materials are properly identified as judicial documents is determined as of the time of filing and that determination is not affected by subsequent mootness.” (29-30)
“Documents do not “receive different weights of presumption based on the extent to which they were relied upon in resolving a motion.”” (29-30)
Factual background
Giuffre filed a defamation action alleging that Maxwell defamed her by calling Giuffre's statements implicating Maxwell in Jeffrey Epstein's sex-trafficking activities obvious lies. Extensive discovery produced hundreds of documents, and nearly one-fifth of the docket was filed under seal before the parties settled in 2017. After remand from Brown v. Maxwell, the district court reviewed hundreds of sealed documents and considered the privacy, reputational, and other interests of more than one hundred pseudonymized third parties. The appeal challenged the continued sealing of certain motions, deposition materials, third-party identifying information, and submissions concerning continued sealing.
Procedural history
Virginia Giuffre brought a defamation action against Ghislaine Maxwell in the Southern District of New York. The action settled in 2017 while hundreds of documents remained sealed. Following remand in Brown v. Maxwell, the district court conducted an extensive individualized unsealing review, issued multiple orders, and declined to unseal certain materials. Giuffre and the Miami Herald intervenors appealed, and the Second Circuit consolidated the appeals. The Second Circuit held that it had jurisdiction, affirmed most of the district court's rulings, vacated specified rulings, and remanded for further individualized review.
Remand instructions
The district court must conduct individualized review of materials filed in connection with motions that became moot, the portions of Giuffre's Florida deposition transcript submitted in support of intervention, and the Doe filings concerning sealing or unsealing. It must determine the applicable weight of the presumption of public access, balance that presumption against legitimate countervailing interests, and unseal materials as warranted consistent with the opinion. The court's other sealing and unsealing decisions remain affirmed.