UNITED TATES DISTRICT SOUT-4.9 DISTRIC-3.7 OF NEW UNITED TATES OF AMERICA,-6.1 GHISLAINE MAXWE-4.6 LL Defendant Cr PAE OPINION ORDER-3.8 PAUL A ENGELMAYER District Judge On December a jury conv5.2 icted defendant Ghislaine Maxwell of five felon5.5 es involving the sexual abuse of young girls that she and the notori ous pedophile Jeffrey Epstein committed between and This decision resolves the Govern ment 2s July motion to unseal grand jury tran scripts and exhibits in Maxwell case subject to redactions aimed at protecting victim onfidentiality Dkt see a6 so Dkt For the reasons that follow Court denie4.7 the tion I Background to the Motion to Unseal A Indictments In late November prompted by investigative journalism the United States Attorney in this District opened an investigation into Epstein and his co9 conspirators On July a grand jury returned an indictme nt that charged pstein with pa rticipa4.8 ting6 in a sex tra4.8 f4 fick6 ing conspiracy in violation of U.S.C a and On July Epstein was arrested A motion seeking on similar term the unsealing of grand jury materials in Epstein 2s case is pending before the Hon Richard Berman See United States Epstein Cr RMB S.D.N.Y uly Dkt See United States Epstein Cr RMB S.D.N.Y uly Dkt Case Document Filed Page of A A 4A E0 A4 DE a qr?q rq qrCX HhL Kg lg d?a d6U a M3 flW y??S m/y t0 I F/Z V/j 1a qC KS u?v vZ O5 a qr rCX qC 0V I I dc rM?M rM 10Cy n??m?n k?o?h I A I w?!ac qr MCX 10Cy ITy qr M3 Ґ??1rA5R h?H?T3P K?z X?K H?o I Idc rM?M rM 10Cy f헊?f?Tz e?e:Aa I v"x i X5 EO5 5a r?q CX 9r Cy rq rqC M3 ş?:c p/p0 5H V)V 6T Y2 G5 qrM?r?qr?r9 q?10Cy rCX qr l1 X?l 3K fm?Q Z2f CX CX gT L??T 2E Cy 3P EM3 J4T L?h??M q?ᡚ?Y r??O?rJt CTX i P!e i I CTX rC YY I 1e 2j CTX X0T1i k3v Jh/e0h1 H(K W/Q0 CTX j?!k 5B r2 CTX A A A 4v z"p A A A0A?A AK CTX A A?!k CX qCX YCX i!d A fi8 l8 yuZ 6L pH m?c sP;0 6ZR Ni P0 0Q X(P0s s(s p0 Pp CTX qq dR B/J Va A y!k N?M??N rC f?Nla3 Yz N?q qr NEeD K?i N?M?qr EeD k??O GH FT I CTX U3 U3 U3 U3 S6 E"L I I I5K7C:I 9O U3 Cn qrr qr q??r?q 9qr CTX G5 qr CX rC l0 WS zN pf1 ODV8L?m jC1DxV CTX CTX A qr 10Cy rYY Ң??P?V CTX C"C rqM?rq?q?qr qr CTX YY Jb?C.y CTX CTX GG4 A A G5 C.C M??r 10Cy rq YY C?J?yO c/XE?lgF GM??H p?ݡG Dp9Oh CTX CTX CJ4 I J6 CJ4 CK qrrM?q qq 9/CX?o CX qYqr rC dd?Z c6S ttcx A CTX CTX 10Cy rq rqYY X?qiX:4 3J Db ZH uD-8 1g?BH I vS 7Oo7u E?K?O J6 UJP U0 UT??ʴ UT UT UT O(p U(u UF1 iZ qr?r CX CX Yr zKW:E A K5M P-M UW VW L1J KJ56 N/Q SQ rC 6J ߵl ߵl 5TZ w8ĥDG oj?K _4 N)?Y Hp pRqc?W26 vz?WBrz?ZB??3X H4 CTX A CTX X4 U5 P8 5D qr qr 10Cy qr YY Mo?ANp D01jJ 9F bzEV 4O 8V CTX O!o CTX KK AA qr A C5 qr rYY 1A?CC V9 a c?F CTX A G5 qr EeD?M CTX 9?rY 10Cy rq qY ȠX1 a f??B CTX 9F I CTX 6D N?qr rrqq qC O?J RmA??b"0 M?.F q?D B?G CTX CTX F4 d6P A F4 qr rYY 4G AV8 CTX UY UL0 U0 U0 U0 UF UF UFAGA UA UA UAL UL UL UL UL UL UL U7 U7 U7 U7 U7 U7 U7 2EH GTU U/U OUoU UV G1 CTX TUV 1G 7A UA UAL X7 U7 U7 U77XL UL UL ULLYX KTX 8Y GJ A UMAT UD 7M GVW GF10 MWA LL MPM M?M 4M XY qr qr qr NEeD 10Cy qYY E2 GH l1 Pd h3V g?KIq V5kL O65S d_xKKU vV 5H p1 Z6 CTX U0 U1 CTX U0 U1 A0 1D qr qr 10Cy YY K??Kl 1B AMwv 1K F1 KV yW Gd T?H CTX CTX I CK M?qr K?SK?PQZ I IRZX 8YCX 10Cy qr CX kv zg S5kB??a iG wA CTX U2 6Y CTX U2 6Y I K,,j j,s 6Y P!p qr 10Cy qr YY G?O 9K mSd X0 9r?yal 1d bY0 XNf??qN D?J CTX P!Z b!o C,C qrM 10Cy qr8 I fX2 9R lO KV CTX Oo CTX A qr r?qr rq YY Lsy7H4 C,6E IL CTX U3 CTX J,O3_3xx qrM?r q?CX Y9/C 9CX CTX Y10Cy CX CX CX YC YY FV uTl bEWa ȓjJ-8 Gc G??Q9E 9Wq CTX CTX Up i I A 9_ qr qr YY D.X 7s F??Y bc3_c iH CTX CTX A qr 10Cy YY EMq 7H AY mK9Z BY A2 P6L N7 CTX CTX a I I i qr rC CTX CTX 7O I FMM qr qr i I I3 CTX Z6 I L(K4 P:u Z6P CTX y8 On August Epstein committed suicide while in pretrial custody at the Metropolitan Correctional Center 223MCC See generally Dkt at Dkt at On June a grand jury in this District returned a six-count indictment against Maxwell alleging that she had fa litated and tic4.6 ipated in Epstein5.8 xual abuse multip5.8 le minor girls It charged her with conspiracy to entice minors to tr avel to engage in illegal sex acts in violation of U.S.C enticement of a minor to ngage in illegal sex acts in violation of U.S.C and conspiracy to transport minors with intent to engage in illegal sexual activity in violati on of U.S.C transportati on of a minor with intent to engage in illegal sexual activit in violation of U.S.C a and and in two counts perjury in violation of U.S.C See Dkt itial Indic tment It based these charges on Maxwell 2s conduct with respect to three minor vict ims whom the Government identified pseudonymously On July the gr and jury returned a su perseding indictment that made ministerial corrections Dkt S1 Indictment On March a different grand jury in this District retu rned a second superseding indictme nt It added two counts based on a fourth minor victim to whom it also referred pseudony mously One charged a sex trafficking conspiracy in viola tion of U.S.C the othe charged sex trafficking of a minor in violation of U.S a and See Dkt Indictment The S2 Indictment also broadened the time period of the sexua4.7 buse crimes,5.9 origin5.9 ally alleged to span to to span to Trial Trial commenced on November before the Honorable Alison Nathan to whom this case was then assigned and a jury on six counts in the S2 Indictment 227all but the Case Document Filed Page of two perjury counts It ended on December with Maxwell 2s con5.4 viction on five of the six counts and her acquittal on th substantive enticement count The evidence adduced at trial is well-summa rized in Judge Nathan 2s post-trial decision denying Maxwell 2s post-trial moti ons including under Federal Ru le of iminal ocedure for a judgment of acquittal Dkt in th Government 2s brief in Maxwell 2s appeal ee United States xwell No 2d Cir June Dk and in the Second Circuit 2s decision in that appeal United States Maxwell F.4th 2d Cir In brief the Government 2s evidence included the te stimony of four women who describ5.9 ed sexual abu5.9 se they had suffe4.7 red as gi rls at the hands of stein and M5 axwell the testimony of individuals who worked for Epstein and Maxwell the testimony of law enforcement officials corrobor ating physical evidence includ ing photographs of and evidence recovered from searches of Epstein 2s residen ces and Epstein 2s and Ma xwell 2s black address book and other corroborating records such as fli ght logs of Epstein 2s pr ivate planes and FedEx records The trial evidence focused on six girls including the four testifying vi ctims who suffered abusive sexual contact as a result of Maxwell criminal actions Jane Kate Annie rolyn Virginia and Melissa It established that Maxw ell had been instrumental in an approximately decade-long5.3 scheme with Epstein to entice groo5.4 transport,5.4 and traffic numerous oung women and underage girls to engage in sexual act ivity with E6 pstein Maxwell helped identify vulnerab6.2 rls for abu6.2 targ eting those who faced difficult family circumstances including On April Judge Nathan granted Maxwe ll 2s motion to sever the perjury charges Dkt After Maxwell 2s sentencing the Govern ment moved to dismiss these counts in light of victims interests in closur and avoiding the trauma of te stifying again Judge Nathan granted that motion Dkt at Dkt at Case Document Filed Page of financial hardship substance use disorders and prior sexual abuse Maxwell purported to befriend the girls to gain their tru6 st an6 create the illus5.2 on of friendship and5.9 responsib5.9 le adult supervision while isolating them from others She then manipul ated that trust to normalize sexual abuse by Epstein and hersel often through the pretext of giving stein 223massages Maxwell personally participated in acts of sexu al abuse including fo example instructing then 22614-year-old Jane how to touch Epstein 2s pe nis during a 223massage and touching Jane 2s breasts herself Maxwell and Epstein also id young girls hundreds of dollars of cash in exchange for meeting pstein to be sexually abused Once a girl was introduced to these sexualized massages she was offered more mone if she brought other girls to engage in sexualized massages Maxwell also fostered a culture of silence at Epstein 2s various households where sexual abuse occurred dire cting employees to 223see noth ing hear nothing say nothing Post-Tria5.7 Motions4.9 On January Maxwell moved for a new trial under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure based on a juror 2s pr ision of ina5 ccura5 te for4.2 at ion during jury deliberations Dkt On April after an evidentiar hearing Judge Nathan denied that motion Dkt On February Maxwell made other pretrial motions under Rules and Dkt On April Judge Nathan denied all but one of these mo tions In the motion she granted Judge Nathan found that the ee nspiracy cou5.9 ts were ltip5.9 licitous and therefore entered judgment on only one of them Dkt Sentencing Sentencing was held on June The Gove rnment sought a sentence of at least months imprisonment Dkt at The de fense sought a sentence below the Guidelines Case Document Filed Page of range months calculated by Judge Natha)1.5 Dkt at Eight victims submitted victim impact statements Dkt Judge Nathan imposed an above-Guidelines sentence of mont hs imprisonment Dkt at Maxwell she stated had 223direc tly repeatedly and over the course of many years participated in a rrific me to tic4.7 transpo5.9 nd tr affic underage girls some as young as for sexual abuse by a nd with Jeffrey Epstein Id7 at As an example she noted after Carolyn had confided in Maxw7.4 ell her person al history of having een raped and molested by her grandfather starting at a very young age Maxwell used that knowledge to continue the 223cycle of sexual abuse inducing Carolyn to give Epstein 223sexualized massages for 223years and by herself touching Carolyn 2s breas ts when Carolyn was years old Id at Judge Nathan also noted that Maxwell had repeatedly deflected blame and li ed about her offenses including in a civil deposition and to Pretrial Serv5.6 ices and the Court Id at Appeal On February Maxwell appealed her conviction and sentence United States Maxwell 2d Cir Feb Dkt The Second Circuit a ffirmed It upheld Judge Nathan 2s holding that a non-pros ecution agreement between Epstein and the U.S Attorney 2s Office for Southern District of Florida did not ba Maxwe4.8 ll 2s p6 osecu6 ion in th6 is District holding that the S2 Indictment had been timely fi led denial of Maxwell 2s Rule motion based on juror misconduct response to a jury not which Maxwell had argued resulted in a constructiv5.7 amend5.7 of or ej icia5 var4.2 ce fro6.2 the S2 Indictme5 nt and sentence as procedur ally6.1 reasonab6.1 United States Maxwell F.4th 2d Cir Judge Nathan also sentenced Maxwell to a post imprisonment term of fi ve years supervised release and to pay a fine the maximum allowable Case Document Filed Page of On November the Second Circuit den5.9 ed axwell 2s etition for reh5.9 earing United States Maxwell No 2d Cir Nov Dkt On April Maxwell petitioned for a writ of certiorari before the upreme Court Her petition argues that Epstein n-prosecu5.5 tio5.5 agreement with the Attorney 2s Office for the Southern District of Florida barred her prosecu tion in this District United States Maxwell Ct Apr On July the Government pposed the petition On July Maxwell replied As of this decision the pe tition remains pending DOJ 2s Recent Statements Regarding the Disclosure of Epstein Records On February the Department of Justice 223DOJ issued a press release It stated that the Atto6 rney Genera4.8 an)6 Federal B8 u1 eau of Investigation FBI had declassified and were publicly releas ing files relating to Epstein 2s expl oitation of more than girls Quoting the AG and the FBI Directo5.5 the press releas4.7 stated5.5 223This DOJ is following through on President 2s mmitment to transpa4.5 ency5.7 and lifting5.7 the veil di sgus4.7 ting5.5 action5.5 of ffrey5.5 Epstein and co-conspirators said ttorney General Pa mela Bondi he fi rst phase of files-5.7 rele4.8 ased tod6 ay sheds lig6 ht on Epstein 2s extensive network and begins to provide the public with long overdue accountab5.2 ility 223The FBI is enterin5.3 a new era 227one that will be fined integ5.5 ity accountability and the unwaver ing pursuit of justice said FBI Director Kash Patel 223There will be no cover-ups no missing documents and no stone left unturned 227and anyone from the prior or curre nt Bureau who undermines this will be swiftly rsued If there ps we will find the5 If re5 cords ave been hidden we will cover3.3 the4.1 And5.3 we will ing every5.3 hin5.3 we find5.3 the DOJ4.5 to be fully assessed and tr ansparen5.2 tly dissemina4.1 ed the American ple it should be U.S Dep 2t of Just Attorney General Pamela Bondi Releases First Phase of Declassified Epstein Files Feb https://w.ju stice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-ge neral-pamela-bondi-releases firs5.1 t-pha4.7 eclass5.1 pstein5.9 iles erma.cc/H2QZ-3.9 WZCV The released documents4.6 are des4.6 ri and acces4.8 ble on the DOJ 2s website Case Document Filed Page of In the same press release the DOJ quoted a letter from the AG to the FBI Director stating that the AG had just learned that the FBI possessed 223thousands of pages of documents rela4.8 ted to th6 inves5.2 tiga4.8 ion and indic4.8 tmen6 of Epstein The AG 2s letter continued By a.m tomorrow,5.5 February the FBI will deliver the full and complete Epstein5.7 file4.5 to my ce includ5.7 ing all records documents audio and video recordings and materials related to Jeffre Epstein and his clients regardless of how such information obtain5.5 Ther will be no withholdi ngs or limitation5.7 to my or ur acce4.4 ss The DOJ will ensu re that any pub6.1 lic dis5.3 closu6.1 of thes5.3 files will be done in a manne to protect the privacy of victims and in accordance-6.4 with law as I have done my enti re career as a prosecutor I appreciate your immediate attention to th is important matter I know that we are both committed to transparency for the American people and I look forward to continuing to work with you to serve our President and our country Id On July the DOJ and the FBI issued another memorandum rega rding Epstein It stated in part As part our commitment to ansp aren5.3 the DOJ and the FBI have conducted an exhaustive review of inve stigative holdings re lating to Jeffrey Epstein To ensure that the review was thor-6.5 ough the FBI conducted digital searches of its databases hard drives and network drives as well as physical search5.8 es of squad areas,5.8 locked cab5.8 inets desks,5.3 closets other areas where responsive material may have been store These searches uncovered a significant amount of material including more than gigabytes of data and physical evidence.5.9 The files elating to Eps5 ein inc4.6 ude a la rge volume of images of Epstein images and videos of victims ho ar eith5.6 er mino5.6 or appear to be minors and over ten thousand downloaded videos and images of illegal child sex abuse material and other pornography Only a fraction of this material ould have been aired publicly had Epstein gone to trial as the eal served only to protect victims and did not expose any additional third-p5.3 rties to allegation5.3 of illeg5.3 wrongdoing Through this review we found no basis to revisit the disc losure of those materials and will permit release child pornograp5.7 hy This syste4.5 atic review rev ealed no incriminating5.6 list.5.6 There was also credible evidence found that Epstein blackmailed prominen-2 individuals as part of his actions We did not uncover evidence tha4.8 could pr4 edic4.8 ate an inv6 tiga4.8 tion6 against uncharged third parties Case Document Filed Page of One of our highest priorities is combatting child exploi tion5.9 and ingin5.9 justice4.7 to victims Perpetuating unfounded theories about Epstein serves neither of those ends To that while we have lab5.8 red to pro5.8 ide the blic with maximum information5.7 regarding Epstein and5.7 ensure examina4.7 tion any evide4.7 ce in the government 2s possession it is the determinat ion of the Department of Justice and the Fede4.5 ral Bureau vestig5.7 ation5.7 that no further disclosure would be appropriate or warranted U.S Dep 2t of Just Untitled Memo Jul dl?inline at The memorandu7.4 included a hyperlink to vide footage from Epstein 2s housing unit which it stated supported the I 2s investigative conclusion that pstein had committed suicide in his cell at the MCC on August Id at Ensuing news accounts reported public and cong ressional dissatisfac tion with the July memorandum and calls for the re lease of records held by the DOJ and FBI regarding their investigatio5.2 into Epstein See e.g Perry Stein et al Rift Erupts Among Justice FBI Leaders Over Epstein Memo Sources Say Wash Post July https://w iles Sadie urman Alex Leary Top Trump Offic4.4 ials lit Over Eps4.8 ein Inv4.4 stig5.6 ation Conclusion Wall St July PM officials-split-over-ep2.5 stein-investigation conclusion-9449f83f E6 mma Colton DOJ Brass Vowed Full Transparency on Epstein Before Turning Up Empty-Handed Fox News July PM https://w.foxne)-6.1 ws.com epstein-before-tur ning-up-empty-handed https4.5 per3.3 V8SV-KSRT Hannah Rabinowitz et al House Speaker Johnson Joins Growing Number of Republicans Pressing ump Administration fo More Transparency on Epstein Case CNN July PM https politics/epstein files-trump-bondi https://perma.cc/7SCN-LGVZ Case Document Filed Page of II Motion to Unseal the Maxw ell Grand Jury Materials On July the Deputy Attorney Genera 223DAG filed a thre e-and-a-half-page motion to unseal the grand jury transcripts in is case Dk 223Motion to Unseal The motion a5 e5 On July the DOJ and FBI issued a memorandum describing an exhaustive review undertaken of investiga tive holdings relating to Jeffrey Epstein the 223Memorandum The Memorandum de tailed the steps taken by the DOJ and FBI to deter4 min6 whether eviden ce existed at could predicate investigatio5.7 into5.7 uncha4.5 rged third5.7 rties As th6 Memorandu6 concluded no such evidence was uncovered during the review Since July there has be en extensive public intere st in the basis for Memorandum 2s conclusions While the DOJ and FBI continue to adhere to the conclusions reached5.4 in the Memo5.4 randum tr ansparency to the American public is of the u6 tmo6 st importanc4.8 to th6 is Ad6 minis5.2 tr ation.6 Given the public inte4.8 st in the4.8 investigative work conducted by the DOJ and FBI into Epstein the OJ moves the ourt to unseal the underl ying grand jury transcripts in United States Maxwell and United States Epstein subject to appropriate redactions of victim related and other personal iden5.7 tifyin5.7 infor3.7 atio5.7 Id citation omitted The motion noted that the Second Circ uit has recognized that in 223special circu5.5 stances releas4.7 of grand ry records ma be appropriate even wh ere not authorized by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure Id at citing In re Petition of Craig F.3d 2d Cir In re Craig On July after the case was reassigned to this judge Dkt the Court issued an order stating that it required further information to resolve the motion Dkt It ordered the Government by July to file a memo randum addressing the fa ctors identified in In The same day the DAG filed a similar mo tion on the docket of Epstein 2s case See ited States Eps5 ein Cr RMB S.D.N.Y uly Dkt On July the White House press secretar announced that the President had directed the AG move forward with requesting grand juri es late4.7 to the Eps5.1 ein iles eal eir relevant documents White House MAGA Minute July https://w.whitehouse https://perma.cc/Q7.4 3BJ-V24S Case Document Filed Page of re Craig to disclose whether it had gi ven notice of its motion to Ma xwell 2s victims4.9 and to ile under seal the grand jury transcri pts unredacted and as redacted for proposed public release and other grand jury material including exhibits Id at The order authorized Maxwell and her victims to file by August letters addressing the Government 2s motion On July the Government submitted a memorandum re sponding to the July order It represented that it had now given notice of its fi ling to all but one victim and sought leave to file a supplemental submission responding to the victims submissions Dkt 223Gov 2t Mem The overnment also filed unde seal the grand jury mate5 ria5 Court had requested On July the Court directed the Governme nt to file a letter stating whether as its July memorandum sugge sted it was moving to unseal the grand jury exhibits along with the transc4.7 rip5.9 and entifyi ng the portions of the grand jury tr anscripts and exhibits that as proposed for public release are not alr eady matters of public record Dkt On August the Government submitted a le tter seeking leave to advise the Court by August of its4.7 position th respect to unseal ing grand ry exhibits Dkt It also filed under seal a document indicating the portions of the gra nd jury transcripts that are not publ-5.4 On August Maxwell filed a letter opposing unsealing the gr and jury transcripts Dkt That day and the next the Court docketed a total of six letters th at representatives of In a ter der the Cou5.8 prov5.8 ided victims wi logistica4.9 struc4.9 tions the sub6.1 mis5.3 sion and redaction of their letters Dkt The July filing and all ensuing Gove rnment filings were filed by both the DAG and the United ate4.8 Attorn6 ey for th6 is str4 Case Document Filed Page of victims and other witnesses had sub5.4 mitted to the4.2 Governmen5.4 wh ich the Government in turn furnish5.8 ed to the Court Dkts On August the Government clarified that it was moving to unseal the Maxwell grand jury exhibits subject to appropriate redactions in additi on to the transcripts kt It also submitted a sealed letter that identified the4.6 porti ons of those exhibits that were not already publ-5.4 I Grand Jury Secrecy pplicable gal Principles4.5 A Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure The policy that ceed5.9 ings befo5.9 re a grand ry shall enerally remain s5 cret is er than our Nation itself In re Biaggi F.2d 2d Cir quoting Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co United States U.S The rule of secrecy 223contributes the success and juries and to the ecti on of those who appear before them In re Craig F.3d at The purposes served by grand jury secrecy include to prev)5.6 ent the escape of those whose indictment may be contemplated to insu)6.3 re the utmo6.3 st eedom to gra nd jury in its deliberations and to prevent persons subject to indictment or their fr iends f4 o6 impo6 tun6 ng the grand6 jurors5.2 to prevent subornation of perjury or tampering with the witnesses who may testify for3.8 the4.6 grand5.8 jury and later a ppea4.5 at the tria4.7 of those indicte4.7 by it to encourage free and untrammeled disclosures by persons who have infor3.8 ation with respe4.6 ct to th mmission crimes and to ect the innocent accused who exonerated fro5.6 disclosu5.6 re the fact that he has been under investigation and from the expense of standing trial when there was probability of guilt.5.6 The Court erein5.9 after fers to the and jury transcripts and exhibits together as rand jury mate4.7 ria4.7 Case Document Filed Page of Id quoting United Sta5.4 Procter Gamble Co U.S alterations in original see also In re Biaggi F.2d at The rule of secrecy is today embodied in Rule which bars disclosure of grand jury matters by persons privy to them grand jurors attorneys Governme4.5 nt court rep5.7 rters operators of recording de vices and interpreters Fed Crim Rule defines narrow exceptions It thorizes sclo5.7 res to other Government personnel assisting in the enforcement of federal crimina9.6 law id at A to another federal grand jury id at to law enfo5.9 cemen5.9 ationa4.7 ecur3.9 ity ficials,5.6 where disclosures volve foreign-intelligence or counter-intellig ence information and assist in the performance of official duties id at and to persons as authorized by a court in th district where the grand jury convened id at provided the disc losur3.9 is limina4.7 or connection with a ju dicial proceeding id at-3 the request of a defendan5.7 who shows at a ound may is to dismiss i ndictment ecause of a matter that occu5.9 rred before the grand jury id at ii at the4.6 request of the government when sought by a foreign court or prosecutor for use in off4.1 al imin6.1 al inv6.1 estig6.1 ation,6.1 id at i the requ5.4 est government if it shows that the matter may disclose a violation of State Indian trib5.6 al for3.6 ign imina4.4 law prov5.6 ided tha5 the disclosu6.2 re to appro6.2 ria5.1 e5 such government official for the purpose of enforcing that law id at iv or the request of the government if it shows that the matter may disclose a violation of military criminal law7.5 under the Uniform Code of Milita4.7 ry Jus5.1 tice,5.9 provided that the4.7 disc losur3.8 is to an appropria4.6 te military5.8 official for the purpose of enforcing that law id at The 223Special Circums4.3 tances Doctrine The Second Circuit has recognized that in pecial circumstances the disclosure of grand jury materials may be a ppro5.6 riate even where it is autho5.6 ized by Rule The Second Circuit developed this doctr ine in three cases where disclo sure was sought of grand jury matters claimed to be of unusual historical or public interest See In re aggi F.2d at In re Craig F.3d at Laws Comm for Inquiry Inc Garland F.4th Case Document Filed Page of 2d Cir Lawyer4.7 Committe4.3 for The doctrine is based on the district court 2s supervisory authority over the grand juries it empanels In re Craig F.3d at It today is recognized in the Sec ond and Seventh Circuits but not elsewhere The Second Circuit has set out a 223non-exhaustive list of nine factors that a trial court might want to consider hen confronted with these highly discretionary and fact-sensitive 221special circumstan5.8 ces motions.5.8 Id at T6 hese are i the entity of par3.9 seek5.9 ing disclosur3.9 ii whether the defendant to the grand jury proceeding or the government opposes the dis5.5 closu6.3 i why disclosure is being ought in the particular case iv what specific information is being sought for disclosure Most Circuits to address the issue have held at the only justificati ons for disclosing grand jury matters are thos4.5 set out in Rule See e.g McKeever Barr F.3d D.C Cir cert denied Ct In re Grand Jury F.2d 6th Cir United States McDougal F.3d 8th Cir Pitch United States F.3d 11th Cir en banc cert d5 nied Ct The Seventh Circuit is in accord with th Second Circuit that a district court may order the releas5.1 grand ry materials upon a showing of special circu5.4 stances See Carlson United States F.3d 7th Cir The Firs Circuit has held that a district court may autho6.2 ize disclosu6.2 re of grand jury materials base on their historical or public interest but has left open whether a court could so 223when the fair administration of justice in a proceed6.1 is at issue.6.1 Lepore United States F.4th 1st Cir Before the D.C Circuit 2s deci sion finding Rule to supply the only bases for disclosure district courts in that Circu it had con6 sidered an6 d1 sometime4.8 granted 227petitions to disclose grand jury materials of histor ical importance citing the Seco nd Circuit 2s preceden5.5 ts recognizing their authority to permit such disclosures Compare In re Petition of Kutler Supp 2d D.D.C granting request to disclose President Nixon 2s gra nd jury testimony about Watergate due to its hi storical importance and re Applica5.7 tion to Unse4.5 al Dockets elated to the Independent Counsel 2s Inve stigation of President Clinton Supp 3d D.D.C ordering disclosure of some grand jury materials related to the investigation of President Clinton 2s business dealings and hi relationship with a White House intern with In Shepard Supp 2d D.D.C denying as overbroad request for disclosure of all testimony and materials asso ciated with every witn ess before three Watergate grand juries and In re Nichter Supp 2d D.D.C enying disclosure of certain grand jury records abou5.4 Watergate ecause at east one subject of the te stimony was still alive Case Document Filed Page of how ago the grand ju ry pro5.8 ceedings too5.8 place vi the current status)4.9 of th princip5.6 ls of the and jury ceedings4.8 that of their fa5 milie5 vii extent to which the4.6 desi red material 227eithe permissibly impermissibly 227has been previously made public vi er witne4.7 sses5.1 to the4.7 gran5.9 jury proceedings who might be fected disclosu6 re r4 still live4.8 and ix the tiona4.7 need inta4.7 ining secre4.7 cy in the par3.9 ticu5.9 ar ase in estion.5.9 Id The doctrine is to be applied only in 223excepti onal circu5.6 stances and it does not justify granting 223garden variety pe titions for disclosure unauthorized by Rule Id at citation omitted burden is on the re questor to demonstrate that disclosure is appropriate and 223the baseline presumption is against disclosure Lawyers Committee F.4th at alteration in original 223The discretion of a trial court in eciding whether to make public the ordinarily secret oceed5.6 ings of a and jury inv5.7 stigation is of the adest and most sensitive exercises of ca reful judgment that a trial judge can make In re Craig F.3d at ee a6 so Lawyers4.5 Committee4.1 for F.4th at IV Discussion6.7 A The Gover4.4 ment 2s sis for Cla5.6 ming al Circu6.8 tances No Rule exception authorizes the disc losure the Government proposes here of subject to redactions all test imony and exhibits before the tw grand juries that indicted Ghislain5.8 M5 axwell The4.6 Governmen5.8 2s tion unseal does not contend ot herwise It does not argue at ese materials would ai federal state military tribal or foreign law enforcement or would be relevant to national security offici als another grand jur or another judicial proceed5.5 ing Nor does Government or Maxwel argue at the materials cou5.7 rev5.7 eal a Case Document Filed Page of ground to dismiss the indictment ag ainst her And any such motion to dismiss on this basis today would very likely be futile because Maxwell 2s onviction at trial renders all the most serious errors in grand jury oceed5.7 ings armless See Midland Asphalt Corp United States U.S 223Only a defect so fundamental that it causes the grand jury no longer to be a gran5.8 jury or indictmen5.8 no longer be an indictment ves rise to the constitu5.7 tion5.7 al right not to be tried United States Mechanik U.S The Government instead invokes the 223special circumstances doctrin5.3 on the ground that there is an 223abundant public in terest in obtaining additional information about Epstein and Maxwell 2s crimes and the DOJ and FBI 2s inve stigation into them Gov 2t Mem at ee also id at It states that 223attenti on giv5.4 to the Epstein and Maxwell cases has4.6 recen5.4 tly tensified in the wake of the July Memorandum anno uncing the conclusions of the Government 2s review into the investigation id at and that release of the Maxwell nd jury mate4.6 ria4.6 is essential to the goal of 223transparency to th American public which of the utmost importance to this Administration Motion to Unseal at 223Public officials lawmakers pundits and ordinary citizens it states 223remain deeply interested an concerned about the Epstein matter Id at And the Maxwell gr and jury ter3.9 als the overnment represents are 223critical pieces of an important moment in our nation 2s history a nd 223the time for the public to guess at what they contain should end Id at quoting In re Petition of Nat Sec A6 chive Supp 3d S.D.N.Y A district court in the outhern Dis4.7 rict of Flo5.8 a recen5.8 tly denied the vernmen5.8 2s motion to unseal grand jury materials relating the Govern5.9 ment 2s inve4.7 tiga4.7 ti on of stein in that district finding that no Rule exception applied See Order Den Pet to Unseal Grand Jury Trs In re Grand Jury WPB WPB Misc S.D Fla July Dkt Because the Eleventh Circuit doe not recognize the 223special circu5.4 stan5.4 ces doctrine that argumen6.1 disc4.9 losure was not available to the Govern ment in that district Case Document Filed Page of The Government 2s invocation of special circ umstances how7.4 ever fails at the threshold Its tire pre4.7 mise that the Maxwell grand jury materials ould bring to light meaningful new information about Epstein 2s and Maxwell 2s crimes or the Gove rnment 2s investigation into them monstr4.1 ably alse.6.1 The Court ter rec4.6 eivin5.8 the Gover3.8 ment 2s motion to unseal ordered it to provide mate4.9 ria4.9 to substantia4.9 te its aim tha4.9 the a xwell and jury6.1 mate4.9 ria4.9 contained undisclosed information of significant histor ical or public interest Spec ifically the Co urt ordered the Government to submit the grand ju ry transcripts and exhibits for in camera review with the portions the Government proposed to redact highlighted And it or dered the Government to file a submis5.2 sio6 n1 identifyin6 the por4 tion6 of the tran scripts and exhibits if any that are not today matters of public record incl-8.8 uding based on Maxwell 2s month long jury trial on the charges returned by the grand jury The Government 2s submissions in response to the Court 2s orders were telling They belied the overnmen6 claim in its5.2 motion to seal that Maxwell and jury ter4.1 als contain significant undisclosed info6.1 rma4.9 tion abo6.1 Epste4.9 2s and Maxwell 2s crimes or the investigatio5.6 into em Two eatures of thes4.5 materials wh ich were not disclosed in the Government 2s motion are noteworthy The Court repor ts these here at a leve of generality that does not dis5 close the bstance and jury oceedings.5.8 First the grand juries in this case were not us ed for investigative purposes They did not hear testimony from any firsthand witness to any event at issue They did not hear testimony from any tim eyewitn5.9 ess suspec4.7 or even a cords cus4.9 ian The gra4.5 nd juries instead for the quotidian purpose of returning an indictment Case Document Filed Page of Each grand jury received evidence on a singl day On that day it heard testimony from one person a law enforcement ag ent who acting as a summary witn ess testified to information obtained in the Government 2s i nvestigation to support the charge in the proposed indictment The agent responding to tightly structured ques5.3 tions from an Assistant United States Attorney 223AUSA provided highly abbrev iated hearsay accounts of the stat ements of select itnesses e.g the ctims on who5.6 counts in the proposed indictmen5.3 were based The agent led the jury through a PowerPoint of exhibits e.g photographs and business reco rds At the end of the testimony the agent testified that he or she had not disclosed all that he or she knew but had only respon5.6 ded to the SA 2s questions Afte rwards each grand jury ted to retu5.6 rn the proposed indictment Under federal law is entirely permissibl for the government to us hearsay evidence in its presentation to the grand jury nited States Garcia F.3d 2d Cir quoting United States Ruggiero F.2d 2d Cir ee also United States Dukagjini F.3d 2d Cir noting the common 223grand jury pr actice improper at trial of a sin5.9 le agen5.9 simply su mmarizing an investig ation by others The first Maxwell grand jury met on June It heard testimony from an FBI special agent The agent 2s testimony lasted approxi mately one hour and minutes spanning double-spaced transcript pages Two exhibits we re put before the gra nd jury a PowerPoint containing slides referred to during the agen 2s testimony and the pr oposed indictment of Maxwell he same grand jury briefly met ag ain on July for the purpose of returning the superseding indictment which corrected two typographical errors in the indictment Compare Dkt with Dkt The grand jury not receiv5.5 additional evidence.5.5 The second Maxwell grand jury met on March It heard testimony from a New York Police Department detective The detective 2s testimony lasted approximately an hour and minutes not includ5.6 ing a brief recess and spa nned5.4 double-spaced transcrip5.4 pages Nearly two-thirds of the testimony consis ted of reading into the record the special agent 2s June testimony Six exhibits were put before the grand jury the tran script of the June grand jury testimony the PowerPoint put before the June grand jury a new PowerPoint with further exh5.9 bits the two earlier indictmen5.8 of M5 axwell and the proposed superseding indic5.2 tmen6.4 Case Document Filed Page of Second the evidence before the Maxwell grand juries is oday with only very minor exceptions a matter of public ecord The Government admitted as much in response to the Court 2s order 223The enclosed annotated transcri pts show that much of the information provided during the course of the grand jury stimony6 227with th6 excep6 tion of the identities certain witnesses was made ublic4.7 ly available Max5.9 well or has othe4.7 ise been ublic4.8 ly reported through the public statemen ts of victims and witnesses Dkt at And because the Government proposes to red act the witnesses identities the exception it noted does not reflect information that the public ould lear were the grand jury transcripts unsealed The Court 2s review confirmed that unsealing the grand jury materials would not reveal new information of any consequence In respons to the Court 2s order the Government supplied the Court with a binder highligh ting any information that the overnment had been unable to deter3.7 mine public Only scatte red words clauses and occasi onal sentences are highlighted These items are few and far between The highlighted snippets upply at most tertiary details about the same conduct that was th focus of Maxwell 2s month-long tr ial The same is so for the exhibits put before the grand juri es Save inconsequential portions of a few exhibits these were rece4.7 ived in idence Maxwell tria4.7 Some were reproduced in th Maxwell ind5.9 ctments.5.9 A member the pub5.6 lic familiar with the Ma ell trial r4 eco6 rd ho reviewed the grand jury materials that the overnment proposes to un seal would thus learn ne xt to nothing new The materials do not identify any person other th an Epstein and Maxwell as having had sexual contact with a minor They do not discuss or id entify any client of Epst ein 2s or Maxw7.7 ell 2s They do not reveal any heretofore unknown means or methods of Epstein 2s or Maxw7.2 ell 2s crimes And the Government 2s highlightin is significantly over-inclusive On the Court 2s review of the trial record a number of items highlighted in fact were covered by testimony at Maxwell 2s trial Case Document Filed Page of They do not reveal new venues at which their crim es occurred They do not reveal new sources of their wealth They do not explore the circum stances of Epstein 2s deat They do not reveal the path of the Governme nt 2s investigation Insofa4.7 as motion to unseal implies tha4.7 th and jury ter4.1 als are an untapped mine lode of und5.8 isclosed info5.8 rma4.6 tion abo5.8 Epste4.6 Maxwell confede4.6 ate4.6 they def3.8 itiv5.8 ely not that A 223public official 223lawmaker 223pundit or 223ordinary citiz en 223deeply interested and concerned about the Epstein matt er Motion to Unseal at a nd who reviewed these materials expecting based on the Government 2s representations to learn ne information about Epstein 2s and Maxwell 2s crimes the i nvestigation into them would co me away feeling disappointed and misled There is no 223there there This case is thus a far cr from every reported case a pplying the Second Circuit 2s 223special circumstan5.5 ces doctrine In each such case the petition to unseal,5.3 whether granted or denied sought unique undisclosed information That information generally consisted of firsthand testimony fro a public figure or a witne ss to an important event See e.g In re Biaggi F.2d at granting petition to unseal grand jury testimony of New York City mayoral candidate Mario Biaggi In re Craig F.3d at denying petition to unseal grand jury testimony of Harry Dext er White an Assistant Secret ary of the Treasury accused of being a Communist spy In re Petition of Nat 2l Sec Archive Supp 3d S.D.N.Y In re National Security Archive granting petition to unseal grand jury records lead6 ing to th6 in6 dictment o6 Julius and hel Rosenberg for cons5.1 piracy to mmit espionage In re Petition of Am Hist Ass 2n for Order Directing Re lease of Grand Jury Minutes Supp S.D.N.Y In re AHA granting in part and denying in part petition to unseal transcri pts of grand jury testim ony regarding alleged espionage Case Document Filed Page of by State Department of ficial Alger Hiss ee also note supra citing simila4.3 D.D.C cases None of these cases involved the secondhand summary-witness testimony of la enforcement agents None involved testimony th at by the time of the motion ha already come to light as a result of trial testimony by percip ient witnesses on the indictment returned by the grand jury The Government has not cited any case find ing ch materials to presen5.8 a 223special circu6.1 stanc4.9 tha4.9 jus5.3 tif4.1 ies exce4.9 ptiona4.9 step of unsealing grand jury mate rials T6 here is none The one colorable argument under that doctrine fo unsealing in this case in fact is that doing so would expose as disingenuous the Gove rnment 2s public explanations for moving to unseal A member of the public appreciating th at the Maxwell grand ju ry materials do not contribute anything to public know ledge might conclude that the Government 2s motion for their unsealing was aimed not at 223transparency but at diversion 227aimed not at full disclosure but at the illus4.7 on of such And there is precedent In re Biaggi the fountainhead of the Second Circuit 2s ecial circumstances4.7 doctrine 227permitting a court to or der the release of grand jury testimony to correct a ovant 2s misleading public characterization of it In re Biaggi arose from a motion by a mayoral candidate Mario Biaggi to reveal his earlier grand jury testimony ostensibly to rebu a news report that he had invoked the Fifth Amendment F.2d at Denying he had done so Biaggi asked on television and later in a motion that the court exam ine his testimony and publicly confirm that he had claimed no constitutional privileges Id at The Government moved for disclosure of Biaggi 2s testimony redacted to protect othe rs names and the district cour granted that motion Biaggi appealed seeking disclosure of his testimony without redactions Id The Second Circuit per Chief Judge Friendly authorized disclosure of the testimony empha sizing that Biaggi and the Government had waived objections to disclosure and that others interests could be protected by Case Document Filed Page of redactions Id at And once Biaggi 2s tes4.8 tim ony been released the Circu5.5 elaborated in a supplemental opin ion In demanding that a cour review his testimony Biaggi had mis5.1 lead5.9 ingly imp5.9 lied5.9 to the pub5.9 lic that had answered every question before the grand jury In fact Biaggi had re fused to answer questions Id at In these 223special circu5.4 stances the Circuit stat ed 223the public interest requir ed disclosure of Biaggi 2s testimony other words to put th lie to Biaggi 2s false account Id This Court gave careful consideration to uns ling5.9 the Maxwell grand jury mate4.7 ria4.7 a simila4.6 tio5.8 nale But with the Gover3.8 ment having now conceded that the information it proposes to release is redundant of the public re cord 227that this informat7.4 ion was 223made publicly available at Maxwell 2s trial or otherwise been publicly reported 227the public interest in testing the overnment 2s bona fides does not requ-3.6 ire the extraordinary step of unsealing grand jury records Dkt at ithout any need to revi ew the grand jury mate rials the public can evalua5 te itse5 the Governmen6.2 2s a sser4.1 ed bas5.3 es for makin6.1 this tio6.1 The Court erefo5.7 den5.7 es the Government 2s motion to unseal at the threshold Contrary to the Government 2s depiction th Maxwell grand jury testimony is not a matter significant historical or public interest Fa from it It consists of gard en-variety summary testimony by two law enfor3.7 ent ents.5.7 And the inf3.7 rma4.5 tion it ontains is already almost entirely a matte4.8 of longstanding public record principa lly as a result of live testim ony by percipient witnesses at the Maxwell trial Application6.8 of the In re Craig Factors In cases involving grand jury testimony of significant historical or public interest In Craig supplies a framew7.6 ork for evaluating whether disclosure on balance is warranted It identifies n-exclus5 ive facto5.8 at may weigh g1 ainst d6 lo6 sure inc4.8 uding the in6 tere4.8 sts of the defendan5.4 and witnesses Because secondhan5.4 testimony at issu5.6 here is redundan5.6 of Case Document Filed Page of public-record trial testimony of firs thand witnesses and thus is not of significant historical or public interest there is arguably no charter for even undertaking the In re Craig inquiry After all the 223special circums4.9 ances4.9 exception to Rule ly pplies in ception5.8 al circumstances not to 223garden va riety grand jury testimony In re Craig F.3d at citation omitted see also Gov 2t Mem at acknowledging the extr aordinary nature of its5.5 requ6.3 est Nonetheless5.3 for comp6.1 teness the ourt eva4.9 uates the Government 2s motion in light of the non-exhaustive factors listed in In re Craig The Court also addresses two other factors implica4.7 ted the tion5.9 the rspec4.7 tives Ep stein 2s and M5 axwell 2s tims as exp5.8 essed in letters to the4.6 Court and the syste4.6 mic interest in grand jury secrecy As this assessment show7.5 the Government has failed by a wide marg6 in to carry its burden These factors considered together favor denial of it motion to u6 n1 seal.6 Identity the Party Seeking Disclosure This factor ordinarily carries 223great weight and 223the government 2s position should be paid considerable heed In re Craig F.3d at But the Gove rnment 2s position is 223not dispositive Id 223Government support cannot 221conf er disclosure nor can government oppositio6.1 eclud6.1 Id And courts in this strict applying the In re Craig factors have ruled against the overnment 2s position See In re National Security Archive Supp 3d at ordering over Governme nt 2s objection disclosure of testimony of two witnesses before and6.2 jury at dicted Juliu and Ethel osenberg for espionage In re AHA Supp 2d at ordering over Government 2s objection disclosure of testimony before grand juries that investig5.7 ated and5.7 or indicted Alger Hiss for espionage This factor favors dis4.9 clo5.7 sure But two eason5.8 the Court accords this facto5.5 limited weight Case Document Filed Page of First as the Second Circuit has explained th vernmen5.9 2s position is main5.9 ly relev5.9 ant because it reflects wheth5.2 there is an ongoing need for jury secrecy See In re Craig F.3d at where 223the government supports a motion for disclosure that should serve as a prelimin6.1 ary indica4.9 tion at the eed secr4.1 ecy not espec4.4 ally strong5.6 But the ral infirmity of this motion to unseal does not concern an ongoing need for secrecy in this case The infirmity is that as the Government has con ceded,5.6 the Maxwell grand jury materials do not reveal information outside the public domain Second any argument that th Government 2s motion to unseal merits substantial deference is weakened by a host of irregularities with respe4.3 to tha4.3 motio5.5 That motion was not made nor has it been joined in by any me mber of the Government 2s trial team 227the DOJ lawyers es5 umably mos5 miliar with the M5 a xwell case and the broader Epstein-Maxwell investigation The motion was filed by the DAG alone without any sign atory from the U.S Attorney 2s Office in this District nd it wa made under circumstances suggestive of haste rather than reflective deliberation T6 he motion wa three-and-a-half pages in length there were no supporting materials filed under eal or otherwise the motion did not disclose or reflect awareness of the summary witness nature of the Maxwell gr and jury testimony and the motion was made without advance notice to Epstein 2s and Maxwell 2s vict ims a fact which as reviewed below has alarmed numerous victims Only afte the Court inquired on that point was notice to victims given See Dkt Dkt at Finally the Government 2s highlighting of the grand jury transcripts did no5 suggest close familiarit with the Maxwell trial record becau5.3 se a number of details that it iden tified as non-public in fact had been testified to during the trial note supra Case Document Filed Page of Whether Defendant to the Gra5.4 nd Jury Proceedings the Governmen6.6 Opposes Disclosure Maxwell opposes disclosure because among other reasons her case remains on direct appeal at 223Because is ongoing litig5.7 ation in a criminal cas4.9 involv5.7 ng a liv5.7 ing defendant with existing legal remedies the government 2s motion should be denied This factor thus weighs agai nst unsealing The Court howev er assigns limited weight to this facto5.5 ecause ell who does not have a legal righ5.6 to access grand ry materials has not seen5.7 it Her opp5.7 osition is therefore fair ly viewed as precautionary.5.3 Had Maxwell been aware that the grand jury materials are duplicat ive of information in the public record her position might have been different Why Disclosure Is Bein6.3 Sought in the Particular Case This factor addresses the pres ent-day significance of the grand jury materials at issue whether their disclosure would a dvance the public interest This factor so decisively weighs against unsealing that it al one would require denying the Government 2s motion Arguments to disclose grand jury testimony on ac count of historical or public interest are 223totally app5.8 opriate and5.8 some times may even be weighty In re Craig F.3d at But for the reasons reviewed abo5.4 ve the gran5.4 jury mate rials here are neither of historical nor public interest importance This evidence was put before the grand juries in June and March in a case that remains on direct appeal Cf In re Nation5.9 Secur5.1 ity Archive Supp 3d at grand jury testimony re garding Julius and Ethel Rosenberg In re AHA Supp at grand jury testimony reg5.4 rding Alger Hiss And it is of present-day public importance because it consists of summar testimony by law enforcement agents recounting information th at today is a matter of public record on account of the month long trial on the charges re turned by the grand jury Cf In re Biaggi F.2d at grand jury Case Document Filed Page of testimony of mayoral candidate ex posing as false his representati on to the public that he had answered all questions before grand jury And the Government 2s sta ted rationale for its motion bears no resemblance to any 223grounds that justify disclosure under the ex isting exceptions listed in Rule In re Craig F.3d at In arguing that this factor favors disclosure the Governme nt makes broad proclamations about the public 2s interest in learning more about the Ep stein-Maxwell investigation See Gov 2t Mem at 223Many questions remain unanswered and the pub5.9 lic4.7 2s tere4.7 st rema4.7 ins quoting In re AHA Supp 2d at That interest is unde niable But the Government has failed to connect it to6 the ter4 at sue which ould not answer any of the public 2s questions This factor decisively we ighs against unsealing What Specific Information Is Being Sought for Disclosure 223The specificity of the data sought is significant in at least two ways In re Craig F.3d at First there are obvious diffe rences between releasing one witness 2s testimony the ll transcrip5.8 or merely the minu5.8 es of the ceeding second it is high5.5 relevant whether the disclosure is general or limited to a specified number of people under special circumstances Id at citation omitted Here the overnment does not seek tailored disclosure of discrete items within a grand jury record Nor does it seek leav to disseminate grand jury mate rials to a specified audience It seek5.4 disclosure to the public at large of the entire pro5.6 ceed5.6 ings before the Maxwell grand jury subject only to redactions aimed at protecting privacy This factor weighs against unsealing The overnment has identified no information of consequence within the grand jury record that is not already public And under In re Craig the blanket quality of the motion to unseal weighs ag ainst unsealing Case Document Filed Page of How Long Ago the Grand Jury Proceedings Took Place The Second Circuit has instructed The timing of the reque4.9 st main6.1 of th mo6 st cru6 cia4.8 ele4.8 ents me matter4 in several ys First if historical in teres4.9 a specific cas4.9 has persis4.9 ted over a number of years that serves as an important indication th at the public 2s interest in release of the information is substantial Hence th hypotheticals involving John Wilkes Booth and Aaron Burr Second the passage of time erodes many of the justifications for continued secrecy See Douglas Oil Co Petrol Stops Northwest U.S noting that th interests in grand jury secrecy are reduced after the grand jury has ended its activities Thir)3.7 the passag5.7 of time4.5 eventually and inevitably br ings about the death of th principal parties involved in the4.7 inves5.1 igations,5.9 as well tha4.7 of the4.4 immediate milies And the continued existence and vulnerability of such parties is of itself a factor that a court should consider Id at footnote added This factor presents countervailing cons iderations On the one hand years have passed since Maxwell and Epstein committed the crimes for which they were charged The conduct for which Maxwell was co nvicted spanned to On the other hand the grand juries that indi cted Maxwell met appr oximately five years ago Maxwell 2s trial occurred under four years ago Her conviction remains on direct appeal And numerous victims of Epstein and Maxwell ar still alive.5.6 These circumstan5.6 ces arkly contras4.8 with most precedents in this line cas which invo5.2 lved testimo5.2 ny decades earlier See e.g id at testimony In re Nation5.9 Secur5.1 ity Archive Supp 3d at testimony In r4 AHA Supp 2d at testimony ee also note supra citin5.6 simila4.4 D.D.C cases But see In re Biaggi F.2d at testimony less than two yea4.5 ear3.7 lier The Circuit in illustrating earli er in its opinion why historical or public interest considerations could justify the release of gra nd infor3.8 atio5.8 stated the exten5.8 tha4.6 the hn Wilke4.6 Booth or Aaron Burr conspiracies for example led to grand jury inve tig6.3 ations sto6.3 ica5.1 interest might by now overwhelm any continued need for ecrecy.6 Id at Case Document Filed Page of This factor on balance weighs against unsealing Current Status of the Principals the Grand6.5 Jury and That of Their Families This factor is aimed primarily at protecting the reputations and interests of unindicted individuals about whom unsealed grand jury testimony would re veal damaging information not previously disclosed See In re Craig F.3d at There is no such person or information here Insofar as Maxwell was the subject of the grand jury testimony this factor suggests considering here 223the conti nued existence and vu lnerab6.1 ility of her and her family Id Maxwell is alive and so theoreti cally could be harmed by the disclosu re of adverse testimony But here the grand jur4 y1 mate4.8 ria4.8 being cumu6 lative o6 th public trial idence do not add anything to the formidable public recor3.7 inculpa4.5 tin5.7 her A nd no family member of hers has expressed a position on the motion to unseal Gov 2t Mem at This factor is neutral Extent to Which the Desired teria5.6 Has reviously een Made Public 223The ten6.1 to which grand ry mate4.9 ria4.9 in a particular case has been made public is clearly relevant because even partial previ ous disclosure often underc uts many of the reasons for sec4.8 ecy.6 See In re raig F.3d at Here as expl ained substantially all the infor3.6 ation testif3.6 ied to the summa4.4 witness4.8 in the and5.7 juries has een revealed5.7 at Maxwell 2s trial And the Govern ment proposes to redact victim id entities consistent with the approach that it took at trial This factor is consistent with unsealing Whether tnesses to the Grand Jury Proceedings Who Might be Affected Disclosure Are Still Alive Both law force4.6 ent ents who stif3.8 ied ill aliv5.9 Gov 2t at The Government however proposes to redact th eir names This actor is neutral Case Document Filed Page of Additional Need for Maintaining Secrecy in the Case in Question6.6 The Government identifies under this factor the privacy interests of victims and third parties r4 efe4.8 r4 enced in the grand jury mate4.8 ria4.8 Id The Government proposes to redact their names and other personally iden tifying information On the Court 2s review the proposed redactions ould satisfactorily do so This factor is neutral Perspectives of Epstein6.5 and Maxwell 2s Victims4.5 The Court has received and reviewed with care and great respect letters on behalf of numerous victims of Ep stein and Maxwell See Dkts Their letters address whether the Maxwell grand jury mate4.4 ria4.4 should be disclosed They also express broader concerns about recen5.9 Governmen5.9 actio5.9 ns with resp5.9 ect to Ma xwell and the stein5.8 Max5.8 w3 ell investigation.5.8 The letters in the main urge broad disclosure of the Gove rn6 ment 2s inve4.8 tiga4.8 tive reco6 rds regarding stein and Maxwell onsistent with this view they generally support release of the Maxwell grand jury materials pr ed that efo5.7 re releas4.9 a ny records be rigorously redacted to protect identities and privacy See e.g Dkt at are in full agreement with the public disclosure of the grand jury transcrip5.9 furthe4.7 state that all stein5.7 related5.7 information and documents in th possession and control of law en forcement prosecutorial and other government agents and enti ties should be fully disclosed This factor therefore favors unsealing But there is an important qualification The victims5.1 inte4.7 rest in rev5.9 ing the gra4.7 nd jury materials appears to be premised on the understandable but mistaken beli ef that these materials woul reveal new information See e.g id at 223Unsealing the grand jury anscrip5.6 wo uld allow addition5.8 al imp5.8 rtan5.8 info5.8 ation to emerge id at 223The instant mo tion for unsealing will help expose the magnitude and abhorrence of Epstein 2s and Maxw ell 2s crimes The Govern ment had after all pub5.7 lic4.5 ly portray5.8 ed ese as 223critical pieces of an impo5.8 ta nt moment in our nation history Motion to Case Document Filed Page of Unseal at Had the Governme nt 2s motion made clear that th ese records are redundant of the evidence at Maxwell 2s public tr ial the victims responses to the motion to unseal might well have been different Various letters also express alarm or dismay at other recently re ported or anticipated Government actions regarding Maxw7.7 ell These concerns however are operly rected to the political branches The Court has no6 consid6 ered them in reso6 lving th6 mo6 tion to un6 sea4.8 The Systemic Interest in Grand Jury Secrecy5.2 A final consideration is systemic 223The proper functioning of our grand jury system depends upon the secrecy of grand jury proceedings Douglas Oil Co U.S at For that reason the Supreme Court has instructed lower courts 223consider ing the effects of disclosure on grand jury proceed5.6 gs to ass4.8 223the poss4.8 ble effect upo5.6 the functio5.6 ning of ture grand juries mindful that 223persons called upon to testify will consider th likelihood that their testimony may one day be disclo sed to outside parties Id at see Procter Gamble Co U.S at 223The grand jury as a public institution serving the co mmunity might suffer if those testifying today knew that secrecy of their tes5 imo ny would be lifted tomorrow Baker U.S Steel Corp F.2d 2d Cir similar These include the Government 2s decision while pursuing release of the grand jury materials to not publicly releas further records from its investig ation of Epstein and Maxwell ee e.g Dkt at noting 223the much larger volume of information available in the 221more than gigabytes of data and physical evidence in the Government 2s possess ion that should be disclosed as well its 223sugges tion that no further criminal in vestigations are forthcoming id at its not having given noti ce to ctims for3.8 it filed the instan6 mo6 tion to unsea4.8 id at its transfer of Maxwell to a lower security prison which a le tter states 223has further eroded the victims confiden5.7 ce that their safety and dignity are priorities id the poss5 ility tha4.6 Maxwell might receive clemency id at and the DAG 2s deci sion to meet with Maxwell though she were a credible authority which one letter states has pu blicly 223legitimized her id see a6 so id at Case Document Filed Page of That admonition requires courts applying the Second Circuit 2s 223special circumstances exception to grand jury secrecy to invoke it only in rare 223excepti onal circumstances mindful of the precedent that unsealing would set In re Craig F.3d at The exception after all derives from a district court 2s supe rvisory authority over grand juries id at which carr3.9 es with it duty sa feguard 223the traditional func tioning of the institution United States Williams U.S A pplying the exception casually or promiscuously as the Government 2s motion to unseal th summary-witness grand jury te stimony here invites would risk 223unraveling the foundations of secrec upon which the grand jury is premised In re Craig F.3d at and eroding confidence by persons called to testify before 223future grand juries Douglas Oil Co U.S at that the general ru le of secrecy still holds This factor weighs heavily against unseal ing Granting the Government 2s motion would bloat the ecial circumstances5 doc4.6 trin5.8 which to date as warra nted disclosure in only a tiny number of cases all involving unique testimony by firsthand witnesses to events of obvious public or historical moment And it is no answer to argue that rele asing grand ry mate5.1 ria5 because they are redund5.4 ant of the idence at Ma xwell 2s trial would be innocuous The same could be said for almost any grand jury test imony by summary witnesses or others given in support of charges at later oceed5.7 ed to trial Case Document Filed Page of Case Document Filed Page CONCLUSION For the reasons above the Court denies the Governments motion to unseal the grand jury materials in this case The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion at docket SO ORDERED P!fd United States District Judge Dated August New York New York
