DOJ-OGR-00002764.jpg
725 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
725 KB
Summary
This legal document is a court ruling from March 18, 2021, addressing disputes over redactions in the Government's brief for case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. The Court evaluates the Defendant's objections and the Government's requests by balancing third-party privacy interests against the public's right to access, citing precedents like 'United States v. Amodeo'. The Court ultimately justifies some redactions based on privacy concerns while agreeing with the Defendant's objections to others.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Defendant | Defendant |
Mentioned throughout as the party making objections to redactions and proposing additional redactions.
|
| Amodeo | Party in a cited case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Amodeo' ('Amodeo II').
|
| Lugosch | Party in a cited case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of'.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Second Circuit | Court |
Cited as the court that has admonished on how to weigh privacy interests in a balancing equation.
|
| Government | Government agency |
A party in the case, whose brief is the subject of redaction requests and objections.
|
| Pyramid Co. | Company |
Mentioned in the case citation 'Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of'.
|
Relationships (1)
The document describes the opposing positions of the Defendant and the Government regarding redactions in the Government's brief, with the Court ruling on their respective objections and requests.
Key Quotes (4)
"should weigh heavily in a court’s balancing equation."Source
— Second Circuit
(Quoted from United States v. Amodeo, regarding the consideration of third-party privacy interests.)
DOJ-OGR-00002764.jpg
Quote #1
"weigh[s] more heavily against access than conduct affecting a substantial portion of the public."Source
— Second Circuit
(Quoted from United States v. Amodeo, describing the weight given to private 'family affairs' of a third party.)
DOJ-OGR-00002764.jpg
Quote #2
"craving for that which is sensational and impure."Source
— Second Circuit
(Quoted from Amodeo II, describing what the disclosure of certain private information would cater to, justifying redactions.)
DOJ-OGR-00002764.jpg
Quote #3
"necessary to preserve higher values and only if the sealing order is narrowly tailored to achieve that aim."Source
— Court in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co.
(Quoted from Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. to state the standard for approving redaction requests for a judicial document.)
DOJ-OGR-00002764.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,148 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 168 Filed 03/18/21 Page 3 of 5
Defendant’s objections relate to her contention that some of the information contained in the
redactions has been made public by other means. Notwithstanding this, the redactions to which
the Defendant objects relate to the privacy interests of third parties, which the Second Circuit has
admonished “should weigh heavily in a court’s balancing equation.” United States v. Amodeo
(“Amodeo II”), 71 F.3d 1044, 1050 (2d Cir. 1995). At least some of the redactions to which the
Defendant objects relate to private “family affairs” of a third party, a factor that “weigh[s] more
heavily against access than conduct affecting a substantial portion of the public.” Id. at 1051.
And though the Defendant contends that some of the information contained in the redactions is
public, she furnishes no evidence to that effect. As a result, the Court concludes that the
significant privacy interests at stake justify the limited and narrowly tailored redactions
contained in Exhibit 5.
redactions has been made public by other means. Notwithstanding this, the redactions to which
the Defendant objects relate to the privacy interests of third parties, which the Second Circuit has
admonished “should weigh heavily in a court’s balancing equation.” United States v. Amodeo
(“Amodeo II”), 71 F.3d 1044, 1050 (2d Cir. 1995). At least some of the redactions to which the
Defendant objects relate to private “family affairs” of a third party, a factor that “weigh[s] more
heavily against access than conduct affecting a substantial portion of the public.” Id. at 1051.
And though the Defendant contends that some of the information contained in the redactions is
public, she furnishes no evidence to that effect. As a result, the Court concludes that the
significant privacy interests at stake justify the limited and narrowly tailored redactions
contained in Exhibit 5.
In addition, the Court adopts the Defendant’s proposed additional redactions to pages
129–134 of the Government’s brief. Those portions of the transcript, which were redacted in the
civil matter, concern privacy interests and their disclosure would merely serve to cater to a
“craving for that which is sensational and impure.” Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1051 (citation
omitted). The Court thus concludes that such redactions are justified.
129–134 of the Government’s brief. Those portions of the transcript, which were redacted in the
civil matter, concern privacy interests and their disclosure would merely serve to cater to a
“craving for that which is sensational and impure.” Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1051 (citation
omitted). The Court thus concludes that such redactions are justified.
On the other hand, the Court agrees with the Defendant’s objections to the redactions
contained in pages 1–128 of the Government’s brief. To provide some context, the redacted
portions of the brief relate to sealed proceedings that took place before different judges relating
to the issuance of grand jury subpoenas in connection with the present case. See Dkt. No. 51.
Because the Government’s brief is a judicial document and because the presumption of access
attaches, the Government’s redaction requests must be “necessary to preserve higher values and
only if the sealing order is narrowly tailored to achieve that aim.” Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of
contained in pages 1–128 of the Government’s brief. To provide some context, the redacted
portions of the brief relate to sealed proceedings that took place before different judges relating
to the issuance of grand jury subpoenas in connection with the present case. See Dkt. No. 51.
Because the Government’s brief is a judicial document and because the presumption of access
attaches, the Government’s redaction requests must be “necessary to preserve higher values and
only if the sealing order is narrowly tailored to achieve that aim.” Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of
3
DOJ-OGR-00002764
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document