DOJ-OGR-00002204.jpg
640 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
640 KB
Summary
This is a court order issued by District Judge Alison J. Nathan on December 23, 2020, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The order grants the Defendant's request to file certain materials related to her bail application with redactions, as the Government did not oppose them. The Court found that the proposed redactions satisfy the legal test for balancing the public's right to access against privacy interests and judicial efficiency.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant |
Named as the Defendant in the case United States of America v. Ghislaine Maxwell.
|
| ALISON J. NATHAN | District Judge |
The judge presiding over the case and author of this ORDER.
|
| Lugosch |
Mentioned as a party in the case citation Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga.
|
|
| Amodeo |
Mentioned as a party in the case citation United States v. Amodeo.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK | government agency |
The court where the case is being heard.
|
| The Government | government agency |
Refers to the prosecution (United States of America) in the case.
|
| Second Circuit | government agency |
The appellate court whose test is being applied by the District Court.
|
| Pyramid Co. of Onondaga | company |
Mentioned as a party in the case citation Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga.
|
Timeline (3 events)
2020-12-07
The Court issued a previous order (Dkt. No. 89) related to the case.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
2020-12-18
The Defendant, Ghislaine Maxwell, filed her reply to the Government's opposition to her renewed application for bail.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
2020-12-23
The court order (Document 101) was electronically filed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
The jurisdiction of the United States District Court hearing the case.
|
Relationships (2)
The document identifies the United States of America as the plaintiff and Ghislaine Maxwell as the Defendant in case 20-CR-330.
Alison J. Nathan is the District Judge presiding over the case in which Ghislaine Maxwell is the Defendant.
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 sealed or redacted.)
DOJ-OGR-00002204.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 United States v. Amodeo
(Quoted to explain the factors considered when balancing the presumption of public access to court documents.)
DOJ-OGR-00002204.jpg
Quote #2
"relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process,"Source
— ALISON J. NATHAN
(The Court's finding that the Defendant's submissions qualify as a 'judicial document'.)
DOJ-OGR-00002204.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,740 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 101 Filed 12/23/20 Page 1 of 2
USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #:
DATE FILED: 12/23/20
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #:
DATE FILED: 12/23/20
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
United States of America,
-v-
Ghislaine Maxwell,
Defendant.
20-CR-330 (AJN)
ORDER
ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:
On December 18, 2020, the Defendant filed her reply to the Government’s opposition to her renewed application for bail. In accordance with this Court’s December 7, 2020 Order, see Dkt. No. 89, she filed these materials under seal and proposed narrowly tailored redactions on those materials. The Government did not file any opposition to the Defendant’s proposed redactions.
The Court will adopt the Defendant’s proposed redactions after applying the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Under this test, the Court must: (i) determine whether the documents in question are “judicial documents;” (ii) assess the weight of the common law presumption of access to the materials; and (iii) balance competing considerations against the presumption of access. Id. at 119–20. “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.’” Id. at 120 (quoting United States v. Amodeo (“Amodeo II”), 71 F.3d 1044, 1050 (2d Cir. 1995)).
The proposed redactions satisfy this test. The Court finds that the Defendant’s submissions are “relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process,” thereby qualifying as a “judicial document” for purposes of the first element of the
1
DOJ-OGR-00002204
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document