DOJ-OGR-00019733.jpg

1.42 MB
View Original

Extraction Summary

7
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
8
Events
3
Relationships
3
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Legal document
File Size: 1.42 MB
Summary

This document is a docket summary from a legal case involving defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, dated January 12, 2021. It details a series of court filings and orders from December 2020 concerning Maxwell's renewed motion for bail and the redaction of related documents. The court applies a three-part test from the Second Circuit case *Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga* to approve proposed redactions from both the defense and the government, ultimately culminating in a December 28, 2020 order denying Maxwell's motion for release on bail.

People (7)

Name Role Context
Ghislaine Maxwell Defendant
Mentioned throughout the document as the defendant in the case, filing motions for bail and proposing redactions.
Alison J. Nathan Judge
Mentioned as the judge signing orders on 12/18/2020 and 12/23/2020.
Comey, Maurene
Listed in parentheses in the entry for the MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition by USA, likely related to the attached exh...
Christian R. Everdell
Mentioned as the author of a LETTER to Judge Alison J. Nathan on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell, and associated with a R...
Lugosch Party in a cited case
Mentioned in the case name Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, which established a three-part test used by the court.
Amodeo Party in a cited case
Mentioned in the case names United States v. Amodeo ("Amodeo II") and United States v. Amodeo ("Amodeo I"), cited as ...
Nixon Party in a cited case
Mentioned in the case name Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., cited as legal precedent.

Organizations (4)

Name Type Context
USA Government agency
The prosecution, referred to as 'the Government', filing a MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition to Ghislaine Maxwell's bai...
Second Circuit Court
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which articulated the three-part test in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of ...
Pyramid Co. of Onondaga Company
A party in the cited case Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga.
Warner Commc'ns, Inc. Company
A party in the cited case Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc.

Timeline (8 events)

2020-12-08
Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell filed a renewed motion for release on bail.
2020-12-18
USA filed a MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition to Ghislaine Maxwell's Renewed Bail Motion.
2020-12-18
The Government was ordered by Judge Alison J. Nathan to docket redacted documents and corresponding exhibits.
Judge Alison J. Nathan USA
2020-12-18
Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell filed her reply to the Government's opposition to her renewed application for bail.
2020-12-23
Judge Alison J. Nathan issued an order regarding Ghislaine Maxwell, adopting her proposed redactions and ordering her to docket the redacted documents.
Judge Alison J. Nathan Ghislaine Maxwell
2020-12-23
A letter from Christian R. Everdell on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell was filed.
2020-12-23
A REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support was filed by Ghislaine Maxwell regarding her Renewed Motion for Bail.
2020-12-28
The Court issued an Opinion and Order denying Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell's renewed motion for release on bail.

Locations (1)

Location Context
Southern District of New York, mentioned in the citation for the case Under Seal v. Under Seal.

Relationships (3)

Ghislaine Maxwell Adversarial (Legal) USA
Ghislaine Maxwell is the Defendant, and the USA (the Government) is the prosecution opposing her motions for bail.
Christian R. Everdell Professional (Legal) Ghislaine Maxwell
Christian R. Everdell filed a letter and a reply memorandum on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell, indicating he is her legal counsel.
Ghislaine Maxwell Legal Judge Alison J. Nathan
Judge Alison J. Nathan is the presiding judge in Ghislaine Maxwell's case, issuing orders related to her motions.

Key Quotes (3)

"judicial documents;"
Source
— Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga (The first part of a three-part test to determine if documents should be redacted or sealed.)
DOJ-OGR-00019733.jpg
Quote #1
"Such countervailing factors include but are not limited to 'the danger of impairing law enforcement or judicial efficiency' and 'the privacy interests of those resisting disclosure.'"
Source
— Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga (quoting United States v. Amodeo) (Describing factors that can overcome the presumption of public access to judicial documents.)
DOJ-OGR-00019733.jpg
Quote #2
"relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process,"
Source
— Second Circuit in United States v. Amodeo (The court's finding that the submissions from both the Government and the Defendant meet this standard, qualifying them as judicial documents.)
DOJ-OGR-00019733.jpg
Quote #3

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document