Her deposition transcript, I believe that is essentially her tell-all. Names, who-what-when-where ... Defendant-Appellant  Ghislaine  Maxwell  appeals  from a July  23,  2020  order  unsealing  certain litigation  materials,  including,  and  related  to,  Maxwell’s  April  2016  deposition  transcript.  She  argues that  the  District  Court  abused its discretion in ordering  the  unsealing  of  the  deposition  materials. Specifically,  she  argues  that  there  is  a lower  presumption  of  access  to  the  deposition  materials  at issue  in  this  case  than  to  the  summary  judgment  materials  we  ordered  unsealed  in  Brown  v.  Maxwell, 929 F.3d  41  (2d  Cir. 2019),  and  that  her  interests  outweigh  the  public’s  interests.  We  assume  the parties’  familiarity  with  the  underlying  facts,  the  procedural  history  of  the  case,  and  the  issues  on appeal.1   When  reviewing  a district  court’s  decision  to  seal  a filing  or  maintain  such  a seal,  “we examine  the  court’s  factual  findings  for  clear  error,  its  legal  determinations  de  novo,  and  its  ultimate decision to seal  or  unseal  for  abuse  of  discretion.”  Brown, 929 F.3d  at  47  (citing  Bernstein v.  Bernstein Litowitz  Berger  & Grossman  LLP, 814 F.3d  132,  139 (2d  Cir. 2016)).  A  district  court  abuses its discretion if  it  “(1)  bases its decision on an error  of  law  or  uses the  wrong  legal  standard;  (2)  bases its decision  on a  clearly  erroneous factual  finding;  or  (3)  reaches a  conclusion that,  though not necessarily  the  product  of  a legal  error  or  a clearly  erroneous  factual  finding,  cannot  be  located within the  range  of  permissible  decisions.”  Klipsch  Grp.  Inc. v. Epro E-Commerce  Ltd., 880 F.3d  620, 627 (2018) (internal quotation marks omitted).