EFTA00032667.pdf
106 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court order
File Size:
106 KB
Summary
This is a court order from Judge Alison J. Nathan in the case of USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell, dated April 16, 2021. The order addresses the sealing and redaction of twelve reply briefs filed by the Defendant; it mandates the immediate filing of unredacted briefs 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 11, and 12, and sets a deadline of April 20, 2021, for justifications regarding redactions in the remaining briefs. The Judge emphasizes that a protective order alone is insufficient to justify sealing judicial documents.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant |
Subject of the criminal case and the order regarding filing of briefs.
|
| Alison J. Nathan | District Judge |
Judge issuing the order regarding sealing and redactions.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States District Court Southern District of New York |
Court where the case is being heard.
|
|
| United States of America |
Plaintiff/Government in the case.
|
Timeline (2 events)
2021-04-16
Court Order issued regarding the unsealing/docketing of reply briefs.
New York, New York
Judge Alison J. Nathan
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location of the court and where the order was signed.
|
Relationships (1)
Case caption: United States of America v. Ghislaine Maxwell
Key Quotes (3)
"The mere existence of a confidentiality agreement or a protective order covering judicial documents is insufficient to overcome the presumption of access."Source
EFTA00032667.pdf
Quote #1
"The Defendant is ORDERED to docket Reply Briefs 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 11, and 12 on ECF today"Source
EFTA00032667.pdf
Quote #2
"If either side is seeking these or any other redactions to the remaining reply briefs, they must file a letter indicating the redactions they request and providing specific justifications"Source
EFTA00032667.pdf
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,474 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 205 Filed 04/16/21 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
United States of America,
—v—
Ghislaine Maxwell,
Defendant.
USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #:
DATE FILED: 4/16/21
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #:
DATE FILED: 4/16/21
20-CR-330 (AJN)
ORDER
ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:
On March 15, 2021, the Defendant filed under seal her reply briefs to the Government
memorandum of law opposing Defendants’ twelve pre-trial motions. She filed the briefs, along
with the corresponding exhibits, temporarily under seal in order to permit the Government and
the Court to review certain proposed redactions. Of the twelve reply briefs, Reply Briefs 2, 4, 7,
8, 9, 11, and 12 did not contain any redaction or sealing requests. Reply Briefs 1, 3, 5, 6, and 10
contain limited proposed redactions. Reply Briefs 3, 6, and 10 also contain exhibits that the
Defendant proposes be filed under seal.
memorandum of law opposing Defendants’ twelve pre-trial motions. She filed the briefs, along
with the corresponding exhibits, temporarily under seal in order to permit the Government and
the Court to review certain proposed redactions. Of the twelve reply briefs, Reply Briefs 2, 4, 7,
8, 9, 11, and 12 did not contain any redaction or sealing requests. Reply Briefs 1, 3, 5, 6, and 10
contain limited proposed redactions. Reply Briefs 3, 6, and 10 also contain exhibits that the
Defendant proposes be filed under seal.
As set forth in the Defendant’s cover letter, the premise of the proposed redactions is that
the materials were produced in discovery and subject to the protective order that has been
entered in this case. The mere existence of a confidentiality agreement or a protective order
covering judicial documents is insufficient to overcome the presumption of access. See Aioi
Nissay Dowa Ins. Co. v. Prosight Specialty Mgmt. Co., Inc., 12-cv-3274 (JPO), 2012 WL
3583176, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2012). And the Court did not receive specific requests or
justifications to redact or seal any of the materials.
the materials were produced in discovery and subject to the protective order that has been
entered in this case. The mere existence of a confidentiality agreement or a protective order
covering judicial documents is insufficient to overcome the presumption of access. See Aioi
Nissay Dowa Ins. Co. v. Prosight Specialty Mgmt. Co., Inc., 12-cv-3274 (JPO), 2012 WL
3583176, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2012). And the Court did not receive specific requests or
justifications to redact or seal any of the materials.
1
EFTA00032667
EFTA00032667
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 205 Filed 04/16/21 Page 2 of 2
The Defendant is ORDERED to docket Reply Briefs 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 11, and 12 on ECF
today, as she did not propose any redactions to these and the Government has not voiced any
opposition to these being filed without redactions.
today, as she did not propose any redactions to these and the Government has not voiced any
opposition to these being filed without redactions.
If either side is seeking these or any other redactions to the remaining reply briefs, they
must file a letter indicating the redactions they request and providing specific justifications for
the sealing requests or redactions, in line with the principles set forth in Lugosch. By April 20,
2021, the parties shall confer and submit a letter informing the Court whether any redactions are
being sought. If no redactions are being sought, the Defendant is ORDERED to docket the
remaining reply briefs on ECF by April 20, 2021.
must file a letter indicating the redactions they request and providing specific justifications for
the sealing requests or redactions, in line with the principles set forth in Lugosch. By April 20,
2021, the parties shall confer and submit a letter informing the Court whether any redactions are
being sought. If no redactions are being sought, the Defendant is ORDERED to docket the
remaining reply briefs on ECF by April 20, 2021.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 16, 2021
New York, New York
New York, New York
ALISON J. NATHAN
United States District Judge
United States District Judge
2
EFTA00032668
EFTA00032668
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document