Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / Judge Rakoff Makes A Ruling On Unsealed Exhibits In The USVI/JP Morgan/Survivor Lawsuit (Part 2)

Transcript

Judge Rakoff Makes A Ruling On Unsealed Exhibits In The USVI/JP Morgan/Survivor Lawsuit (Part 2) · The Vault: The Epstein Files

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up everyone, and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles.
• 0:03
  In this episode, we're picking up where we left off
• 0:06
  with the Judge Rakoff opinion and Order two First Amendment
• 0:11
  right of access. Even where an item qualifies as a
• 0:15
  judicial document, the First Amendment right of access attaches only
• 0:19
  where the document satisfies at least one of two tests.
• 0:22
  Under the first test, the right attaches to judicial documents
• 0:26
  that have historically been opened to the press and general public,
• 0:30
  and to which public access plays a significant positive role
• 0:33
  in the functioning of the particular process in question Lugosh
• 0:37
  four to thirty five ft three d At one twenty.
• 0:40
  Under the second test, the right attaches if the documents
• 0:43
  are derived from or are a necessary corollary of the
• 0:47
  public capacity to attend the relevant proceedings. In the first
• 0:52
  Amendment right applies, it does so with the highest weight
• 0:55
  possible in sealing. The documents can only be justified with
• 0:58
  specific on the record findings that sealing is necessary to
• 1:02
  preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to achieve that aim.
• 1:07
  Applying either test, the Second Circuit has held that there
• 1:10
  exists a qualified First Amendment right of access to documents
• 1:13
  submitted to the court in connection with the sum rejudgment. However,
• 1:18
  neither the Second Circuit nor any district court in the
• 1:21
  Circuit has addressed whether the First Amendment right continues to
• 1:24
  apply when a s rejudgment motion is mooted by settlement.
• 1:28
  But as mentioned above, the Fourth Circuit has recently addressed
• 1:31
  the question, ruling that First Amendment right does apply regardless
• 1:35
  of the settlement ce Nell Net. One oh five four
• 1:39
  Fourth at one seventy three. The Core finds the Fourth
• 1:42
  Circuit's reasoning persuasive and in line with the Second Circuit precedent.
• 1:46
  According to the Fourth Circuit, the First Amendment right of
• 1:49
  access to some rejudgment materials does not depend on judicial
• 1:53
  resolution of the sum rejudgment motion or judicial reliance on
• 1:57
  the documents in resolving the motion Idea at one seventy two.
• 2:02
  This is because the public has an interest in ensuring
• 2:05
  basic fairness and deterring official misconduct, not only in the
• 2:08
  outcome of certain proceedings, but also in the very precedings themselves.
• 2:13
  For some cases that settle, it's up to the public
• 2:16
  to decide why the case was brought and fought and
• 2:19
  what exactly was at stake in it, including the question
• 2:22
  of why the case was settled Idea at one seventy three. Thus,
• 2:27
  access to filings attached to mooted motions satisfy the second
• 2:31
  test for the First Amendment as a necessary corollary of
• 2:34
  the right to attend protected proceedings. This position is consistent
• 2:38
  with reasoning adopted by the Second Circuit. The Second Circuit
• 2:41
  has suggested that some rejudgment is an adjudication, and an
• 2:45
  adjudication is a formal act of government, the basis of
• 2:49
  which should, absent exceptional circumstances, be subject to public scrutiny.
• 2:53
  Since nothing about the timing of the ruling on some
• 2:56
  rejudgment is relevant to whether the First Amendment right applies,
• 3:00
  it is apparent that the First Amendment right attaches immediately
• 3:04
  upon the filing of submarine judgment papers. See also Lugosh
• 3:08
  four to thirty five ft three d At one twenty two.
• 3:12
  Relevant documents which are submitted to and accepted by a
• 3:15
  court of competent jurisdiction in the course of adjudicatory proceedings
• 3:20
  become documents to which the presumption of public access applies,
• 3:24
  a framing that has nothing to do with how court
• 3:26
  ultimately comes out on a motion. The Second Circuit's rule
• 3:30
  in Bernstein also weighs in favor of findings that the
• 3:33
  First Amendment right of access applies here. Pleadings in settle
• 3:37
  cases allow the public to understand the activity of the
• 3:40
  federal courts, enhance the court system's accountability and legitimacy, and
• 3:45
  inform the public of matters of public concern Bernstein, eight
• 3:49
  fourteen f. Dot three d at one forty one. Conversely,
• 3:53
  a sealed complaint leaves the public unaware that a claim
• 3:55
  has been leveled and that a state power has been
• 3:58
  invoked in public resources spent in an effort to resolve
• 4:01
  the dispute. Since the district courts routinely engage and in
• 4:05
  judicatory duties even in connection with complaints that are dismissed
• 4:09
  or settled, a public right of access to monitor courts
• 4:12
  is warranted even where speedy settlement of the claim means
• 4:15
  that the court will not adjudicate the merits of the case.
• 4:19
  The same broad rationales applied a mooted some rejudgment motions.
• 4:23
  Public access to documents. Attaches to such motions allow for
• 4:27
  a better understanding of the courts, improving public perception and legitimacy,
• 4:31
  and informing the public of matters of concern, including how
• 4:35
  public resources are being spent. These documents may also help
• 4:39
  the public to understand why and how settlement was reached.
• 4:42
  For example, a party's review of its adversaries collected evidence
• 4:46
  and arguments after discovery may be sufficient incentive to force settlement. Finally,
• 4:52
  the analogy between trial and some rejudgment adjudication helps to
• 4:56
  understand why the presumption applies regardless of settlement. The First
• 5:00
  Amendment right of access to judicial documents is derived from
• 5:03
  a necessary corollary of the capacity to attend the relevant proceedings.
• 5:08
  Where no hearing is held, as is the case for
• 5:10
  some rejudgment, access to written documents filed in connection with
• 5:13
  pre trial motions is particularly important since the public otherwise
• 5:18
  lacks any ability to monitor court activity. If a case
• 5:22
  settles in the midst of trial, all exhibits introduced to
• 5:25
  that point would remain in the public record, regardless of
• 5:28
  that fact. A some rejudgment motion is an alternative to
• 5:32
  a resolution at trial, and so the fact that a
• 5:34
  settlement makes such a motion moot similarly should not affect
• 5:38
  the public's right of access to exhibits that have already
• 5:41
  been filed for the aforementioned reasons, the Court finds the
• 5:45
  First Amendment right of access to apply to some rejudgment filings,
• 5:49
  regardless of whether the motion was mooted by settlement. Because
• 5:53
  the Court finds the First Amendment right attaches, it need
• 5:56
  not consider the weight of any common law right of
• 5:59
  access to these documents three countervailing interests to the First
• 6:04
  Amendment right. Since the First Amendment right applies to the
• 6:08
  three exhibits attached to the summary judgment motions, sealing these
• 6:11
  excerpts can only be justified with specific on the record
• 6:15
  findings that sealing is necessary to preserve higher values and
• 6:19
  is narrowly tailored to achieve that aim. The privacy interests
• 6:22
  of those who resist disclosures are one such higher value.
• 6:26
  Both Staley and Doe assert privacy interests. Staley argues his
• 6:30
  interest is in keeping Doe's false and uncontested testimony confidential,
• 6:34
  since unsealing the excerpts would not allow him any fair
• 6:37
  opportunity to respond to any accusations contained therein Staley Opposition
• 6:43
  Docket two ninety three f. Four. For her part, dou
• 6:46
  argues that her identity as a survivor of sexual assault,
• 6:49
  as well as a related psychological and emotional well being,
• 6:53
  overcome the First Amendment presumption of access. Upon particularized review
• 6:58
  of the excerpted testimony in the exhibits, the Court finds
• 7:01
  these interests outweigh of the public right to access the
• 7:04
  documents in their entirety. Those privacy interests, by itself warrants
• 7:09
  complete sealing of the three exhibits. In determining the weight
• 7:13
  to be accorded an assertion of right of privacy, court
• 7:16
  should first consider the degree to which the subject matter
• 7:19
  is traditionally considered private rather than public. The nature and
• 7:24
  degree of injury must also be weighed. This will entail
• 7:28
  consideration of the sensitivity of the information and the subject
• 7:32
  amideoh two seventy one Ft three D ten fifty one.
• 7:37
  Protecting the identity of sexual assault survivors and the details
• 7:40
  of their assaults is traditionally considered a private and has
• 7:43
  been widely recognized as a compelling reason to limit public
• 7:46
  access to judicial documents. Countervailing interests are particularly acute given
• 7:51
  that the psychological and emotional well being of survivors of
• 7:54
  alleged sexual assaults may be implicated by such a broad
• 7:57
  disclosure Given the specific graphic detail of the alleged non
• 8:01
  consensual activity that Dough describes in these excerpts, the privacy
• 8:06
  interest Doe has in non disclosure of her testimony is
• 8:08
  robust on Sealing these documents would force Doe to relive
• 8:13
  these traumatic moments from her deposition publicly, and that the
• 8:16
  mere redaction of her name would not protect her from retraumatization. Moreover,
• 8:22
  Doe's basic accusation that she was sexually assaulted by Staley
• 8:26
  is already in the public record, as is Staley's denial.
• 8:29
  The further information contained in the excerpts serves little value
• 8:33
  aside from catering to a morbid craving for that which
• 8:36
  is sensational and impure to which courts have long declined
• 8:40
  to allow public access. Nor would target redactions of identifying
• 8:44
  information rather than wholesale withholding suffice as a narrowly tailored
• 8:48
  means to serving Doe's privacy interest. As the time suggests,
• 8:53
  the Court has reviewed the relevant excerpts and finds that
• 8:56
  the extent of redactions needed to protect those relevant privacy
• 8:59
  interests would render that remains of little value. Where privacy
• 9:04
  interests require reed actions so systematic that unsealing a document
• 9:08
  is more likely to mislead than inform the public, As
• 9:12
  would be the case here, sealing the entire document is
• 9:15
  the more appropriate course, even assuming arguendo that those interests
• 9:20
  are not independently sufficient to overcome the First Amendment right
• 9:23
  of access. Staley's privacy interests are also compelling and would,
• 9:28
  alongside those interests jointly warrant keeping the exhibits under seal.
• 9:33
  When determining the weight of an individual's privacy interest, the
• 9:36
  court should consider the reliability of the information. Raw unverified
• 9:40
  information should not be as readily disclosed as matters that
• 9:44
  are verified. Similarly, a court may consider whether the nature
• 9:48
  of the materials is such that there is a fair
• 9:50
  opportunity for the subject to respond to any accusations contained therein.
• 9:55
  These considerations clearly militate against disclosure. Here is Staley points
• 10:00
  out the deposition testimony was taken before he was even
• 10:03
  made a party to the case, so his counsel never
• 10:06
  had the opportunity to cross examine Doe about her claims. Indeed,
• 10:10
  a deposition of Doe by Staley's council had been scheduled
• 10:14
  at the time the case settled. Two Thus, the unsealing
• 10:17
  her deposition would leave Staley devoid of any opportunity to
• 10:21
  respond to any allegations contained therein. The Times contends that
• 10:25
  Staley is not an innocent third party who somehow finds
• 10:28
  himself caught up in a civil case in which he
• 10:31
  has no real interest in the outcome. This argument, however,
• 10:35
  ignores the fact that Doe never brought any claim against Staley,
• 10:38
  and that Staley was only brought into the case via
• 10:40
  third party complaint filed by JP Morgan. Indeed, Doe's original
• 10:45
  complaint did not even identify Staley by name. The Times
• 10:49
  also argues that Staley's interest against public disclosure of untested
• 10:52
  allegations is not cognizable, because if it were, no complaint
• 10:56
  ever filed in a civil case would be public unless
• 11:00
  object to subsequent testing. But any allegation in a complaint
• 11:03
  are by their nature untested, and so will be taken
• 11:07
  as such by any reader. By contrast, untested deposition testimony
• 11:11
  is a much more serious matter, with potentially more far
• 11:15
  ranging consequences, and of course such untested testimony will remain
• 11:19
  under seal only in the unusual instance such as that here,
• 11:23
  where the matter is discussed in the testimony are particularly sensitive. Finally,
• 11:28
  even if arguably Stalely's professed interests or insufficient standing alone
• 11:32
  to preclude disclosure, his interests, when combined with the interest
• 11:36
  of Doe, provides more than adequate basis to keep the
• 11:39
  transcripts under seal B exhibits attached to the motion for
• 11:44
  class certification. With respect to the two exhibits filed with
• 11:48
  the motion for class certification which do not involve Staley,
• 11:51
  Dough does not dispute their status as judicial documents, given
• 11:55
  that the Court in fact ruled on the class certification motion.
• 11:59
  Lord does d dispute that a First Amendment right of
• 12:02
  access and or the common law presumption of access attached. Rather,
• 12:07
  Doe argues that her privacy interests in maintaining the secrecy
• 12:10
  of her identity warrants against disclosure. While the Court agrees
• 12:14
  Doe has a privacy interest in connection with these transcripts,
• 12:18
  the interest is less expansive than that in sealing the
• 12:21
  summary judgment transcripts. Unlike the transcripts filed with Emotions for
• 12:25
  some rejudgment that contain lurid descriptions of dose alleged non
• 12:29
  consensual sexual relations with Staley, the transcripts that were filed
• 12:34
  with the party's class certification briefing contain much more mundane
• 12:38
  descriptions of Doe's recruitment by Epstein. There is much less concern,
• 12:43
  if any, about disclosing intimate details of traumatic events. Further,
• 12:48
  whereas the public interest in viewing the summary judgment transcripts
• 12:52
  is nothing more than a morbid craving for that which
• 12:55
  is sensational and impure, the public's interest in viewing the
• 12:58
  class certification transcript extends to the reasonable desire to understand
• 13:03
  how Epstein's organization operated and recruited victims. Ultimately, the Court
• 13:07
  agrees that those interests in maintaining the secrecy of her
• 13:10
  identity overcomes the First Amendment and common law presumption of access,
• 13:15
  but the Court also finds that this interest does not
• 13:18
  require complete ceiling of the excerpts. Rather, the Court finds
• 13:22
  that redactions are capable of preserving those anonymity while still
• 13:26
  leaving sufficient relevant material so as to not be misleading.
• 13:30
  Class Council argues that merely redacting the Jane Doe one's
• 13:34
  name is not sufficient to protect her identity or privacy interests,
• 13:38
  because the excerpts contain intimate details about Jane Doe one's
• 13:41
  life that are specific to her and whose publication would
• 13:45
  reveal her identity to the public and to those who
• 13:48
  harmed her, who she fears might retaliate against her. The
• 13:51
  Court agrees that it's appropriate to redact more than simply
• 13:54
  those names from the transcripts, and that other information that
• 13:57
  might be used to identify her, such as the location
• 14:00
  where Dough lived, should also be redacted. Similarly, portions of
• 14:04
  the transcripts that could be used to identify other victims
• 14:08
  should be redacted as well, but that still leaves much
• 14:11
  non identifying information that can be unsealed. Three conclusion. For
• 14:17
  the reasons set forth above, the Court grants in part
• 14:20
  and denies in part the times motion to unseal. Specifically,
• 14:23
  the motion to unseal the exhibits submitted with the summary
• 14:26
  judgment motions is denied, but the motion to unseal the
• 14:29
  exhibits submitted with the motion for class certification is granted,
• 14:33
  subject to redactions. To preserve the anonymity of Doe and
• 14:37
  other victims. Class Council is directed to, within two weeks
• 14:41
  of the date of this opinion submit for the Court
• 14:44
  in camera review proposed redactions of the relevant class certification
• 14:48
  transcripts that are consistent with this opinion, so ordered July
• 14:53
  twenty ninth, twenty twenty four, and this was signed by
• 14:57
  Judge Raykoff. All of the information that goes with this
• 15:00
  episode can be found in the description box.