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).
