A federal appeals court ordered nearly 2,000 pages of sealed court documents unsealed in the defamation case between Virginia Giuffre and Ghislaine Maxwell, releasing on August 9, 2019, a record that had been locked away from public view for years while Maxwell settled the lawsuit and Jeffrey Epstein avoided federal prosecution.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals vacated three sealing orders issued by the Southern District of New York, ruling that documents tied to a summary judgment motion carry a strong presumption of public access under both common law and the First Amendment. The lower court, the appeals panel found, had failed to conduct the document-by-document review required before sealing materials — an abuse of discretion.
What the Records Reveal
Giuffre filed the underlying defamation suit against Maxwell on September 21, 2015, in the Southern District of New York. She alleged Maxwell publicly defamed her through two statements.
The first, issued in March 2011 through Maxwell’s British solicitors, denied what it called “the various allegations” as “all entirely false.”
The second came in January 2015, when Maxwell’s press agent Ross Gow distributed a statement to approximately six to thirty British media representatives. Maxwell’s lawyer Philip Barden prepared it both as a reputation-defense measure and, in his own description, as a “shot across the bow” — a pre-litigation warning to media outlets.
That statement called Giuffre’s allegations “untrue,” said they had been “shown to be untrue,” and characterized her claims as “obvious lies.”
Giuffre alleged those three characterizations were deliberate falsehoods. Maxwell maintained the statement constituted protected opinion, was privileged as pre-litigation communication, and was substantially true.
“I understand newspapers need stories to sell copies,” Maxwell said in the statement distributed through Gow. “It is well known that certain newspapers live by the adage, ‘why let the truth get in the way of a good story.’ However, the allegations made against me are abhorrent and entirely untrue and I ask that they stop.”
“A number of newspapers have shown a complete lack of accuracy in their reporting of this story and a failure to carry out the most elementary investigation or any real due diligence,” Maxwell said. “I am now taking action to clear my name.”
Maxwell proceeded to file suit against those newspapers.
How the Allegations Entered the Record
Giuffre’s allegations against Maxwell did not originate in the defamation case. They surfaced publicly on December 30, 2014, when Giuffre — then proceeding anonymously as Jane Doe 3 — moved to join a separate federal action filed under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act.
Two of Jeffrey Epstein’s victims, identified only as Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2, had brought that action against the U.S. government, alleging prosecutors failed to consult them before entering into Epstein’s 2008 plea agreement. Epstein had pleaded guilty on June 30, 2008, to Florida state charges of soliciting prostitution and procuring a person under the age of eighteen for prostitution. He received limited jail time, registered as a sex offender, and agreed to compensate victims. Federal charges were declined.
Giuffre’s joinder filing included extensive allegations of sexual trafficking and named numerous prominent individuals. The Florida district court struck those allegations as unnecessary, lurid, immaterial, and impertinent, finding Giuffre could participate as a witness without joining as a party.
The Sealing of Nearly One-Fifth of the Docket
Maxwell filed for summary judgment on January 6, 2017. The district court denied the motion in a heavily redacted 76-page opinion on March 22, 2017. The case settled on May 24, 2017.
Before settlement, Judge Robert W. Sweet entered a broad sealing order in August 2016 that effectively allowed parties to seal documents at will. Approximately 167 documents — nearly one-fifth of the entire docket — were filed under seal, including motions to compel, sanctions motions, and the full summary judgment record.
Three outside parties sought to unseal the records: Alan Dershowitz in August 2016, Michael Cernovich in January 2017, and the Miami Herald in April 2018. Judge Sweet denied all three motions. All parties appealed.
The Appeals Court’s Warning
The Second Circuit panel — composed of Judges Cabranes, Pooler, and Droney — ordered immediate unsealing with only narrow redactions to protect personal identifying information, the names of minor victims, and certain intimate deposition responses. Judge Pooler dissented in part, arguing the district court was better positioned to handle redactions given the volume and sensitivity of the material.
The court also appended a warning to the public. Court filings, the panel wrote, are prepared by parties seeking to advance their own interests in an adversarial process. Perjury prosecutions in civil proceedings are exceedingly rare, the court noted, and the litigation privilege immunizes statements in court filings from defamation liability. Court filings may therefore be less credible than ordinary publications. The panel urged the media to exercise restraint in covering potentially defamatory allegations and cautioned the public to read such accounts with discernment.
Maxwell’s summary judgment brief had argued, among other things, that lead detective Joseph Recarey testified no victim ever mentioned Maxwell during the underlying criminal investigation.