{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "16",
    "document_number": "311-4",
    "date": "07/02/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 311-4 Filed 07/02/21 Page 16 of 27 To Be Filed Under Seal (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 15, 2010) (order was not improvidently granted where \"parties were concerned about exchanging commercially sensitive material with their direct competitors\"). In fact, at least one district court in this Circuit has held that \"stipulated, umbrella confidentiality orders are not per se improvident even if good cause was not shown.\" Int'l Equity Invs., Inc. v. Opportunity Equity Partners Ltd., No. 05-cv-2745, 2010 WL 779314, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2010) (emphasis added), objections overruled, No. 05-cv-2745, 2010 WL 1459178 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 12, 2010), aff'd, 415 F. App'x 286 (2d Cir. 2011). The Protective Order entered by Judge Sweet was certainly not \"improvidently granted\" under the standard articulated in Dorsett. The Protective Order was granted on the basis of legitimate privacy concerns on the part of both Giuffre and Maxwell, as well as third parties. See In re Ionosphere Clubs, Inc., 156 B.R. 414, 435 (S.D.N.Y. 1993), aff'd, 17 F.3d 600 (2d Cir. 1994) (finding \"no showing of improvidence where the justifications for the Protective Orders [were] immediately apparent\"). Material turned over in discovery that was ultimately used at trial would have been publicly available. (Protective Order ¶ 13 (\"This Protective Order shall have no force and effect on the use of any CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION at trial in this matter.\").) The Second Circuit may well be on the verge of making material used in connection with the summary judgment motions publicly available, though of course I cannot predict what order will ultimately issue from the Court of Appeals. And there does not appear to be any problem with the entry of a Protective Order that specifically contemplates case-by-case consideration of whether materials filed with the court should or should not be sealed. I have no idea whether Judge Sweet made the requisite findings in his decisions granting the various motions to seal publicly-filed documents that were made in Giuffre. See, e.g., TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d 222, 231 (2d Cir. 2001) (\"While Martindell established a general and 15 SDNY_GM_00000889 DOJ-OGR-00004939",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 311-4 Filed 07/02/21 Page 16 of 27 To Be Filed Under Seal",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "(E.D.N.Y. Mar. 15, 2010) (order was not improvidently granted where \"parties were concerned about exchanging commercially sensitive material with their direct competitors\"). In fact, at least one district court in this Circuit has held that \"stipulated, umbrella confidentiality orders are not per se improvident even if good cause was not shown.\" Int'l Equity Invs., Inc. v. Opportunity Equity Partners Ltd., No. 05-cv-2745, 2010 WL 779314, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2010) (emphasis added), objections overruled, No. 05-cv-2745, 2010 WL 1459178 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 12, 2010), aff'd, 415 F. App'x 286 (2d Cir. 2011). The Protective Order entered by Judge Sweet was certainly not \"improvidently granted\" under the standard articulated in Dorsett. The Protective Order was granted on the basis of legitimate privacy concerns on the part of both Giuffre and Maxwell, as well as third parties. See In re Ionosphere Clubs, Inc., 156 B.R. 414, 435 (S.D.N.Y. 1993), aff'd, 17 F.3d 600 (2d Cir. 1994) (finding \"no showing of improvidence where the justifications for the Protective Orders [were] immediately apparent\"). Material turned over in discovery that was ultimately used at trial would have been publicly available. (Protective Order ¶ 13 (\"This Protective Order shall have no force and effect on the use of any CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION at trial in this matter.\").) The Second Circuit may well be on the verge of making material used in connection with the summary judgment motions publicly available, though of course I cannot predict what order will ultimately issue from the Court of Appeals. And there does not appear to be any problem with the entry of a Protective Order that specifically contemplates case-by-case consideration of whether materials filed with the court should or should not be sealed. I have no idea whether Judge Sweet made the requisite findings in his decisions granting the various motions to seal publicly-filed documents that were made in Giuffre. See, e.g., TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d 222, 231 (2d Cir. 2001) (\"While Martindell established a general and",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "15",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SDNY_GM_00000889 DOJ-OGR-00004939",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Judge Sweet",
      "Giuffre",
      "Maxwell",
      "Martindell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Int'l Equity Invs., Inc.",
      "Opportunity Equity Partners Ltd.",
      "TheStreet.Com"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y.",
      "E.D.N.Y.",
      "2d Cir."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "Mar. 15, 2010",
      "Mar. 2, 2010",
      "Apr. 12, 2010",
      "07/02/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 311-4",
      "No. 05-cv-2745",
      "2010 WL 779314",
      "2010 WL 1459178",
      "415 F. App'x 286",
      "156 B.R. 414",
      "17 F.3d 600",
      "273 F.3d 222",
      "SDNY_GM_00000889",
      "DOJ-OGR-00004939"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a case involving Giuffre and Maxwell. The text discusses the Protective Order entered by Judge Sweet and its implications. The document is marked 'To Be Filed Under Seal' and contains references to various court cases and decisions."
}