DOJ-OGR-00002344(1).jpg
626 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
626 KB
Summary
This is a court order issued by Judge Alison J. Nathan on February 4, 2021, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The order rules on the defendant's pre-trial motions concerning the redaction of sensitive information, adopting most of the proposed redactions from both the defendant and the government. The Court's decision is based on a three-part legal test established by the Second Circuit for balancing the presumption of public access against competing considerations.
People (3)
| 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 the plaintiff in the case citation Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, which established a legal test us...
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK | government agency |
The court where the case is being heard and that issued this order.
|
| United States of America | government agency |
The plaintiff in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, referred to as 'the Government'.
|
| Pyramid Co. of Onondaga | company |
Named as the defendant in the case citation Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga.
|
| Second Circuit | government agency |
The appellate court that articulated the three-part test guiding the Court's reasoning on redactions.
|
Timeline (2 events)
2021-01-25
The Defendant, Ghislaine Maxwell, filed twelve pre-trial motions. Eight of these were filed under temporary seal.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
2021-02-04
The Court filed an ORDER regarding the Defendant's pre-trial motions and proposed redactions.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
The jurisdiction of the United States District Court handling 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 (AJN).
Alison J. Nathan is the District Judge presiding over the case in which Ghislaine Maxwell is the Defendant.
Key Quotes (2)
"judicial documents;"Source
— Second Circuit (via Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga)
(The first part of a three-part test the Court must use to determine whether to allow redactions.)
DOJ-OGR-00002344(1).jpg
Quote #1
"Such countervailing factors include but are not limited to ‘the danger of impairing law"Source
— Second Circuit (via Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga)
(Describing factors that can be balanced against the presumption of public access to judicial documents.)
DOJ-OGR-00002344(1).jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,694 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 132 Filed 02/04/21 Page 1 of 2
USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #:
DATE FILED: 2/4/21
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #:
DATE FILED: 2/4/21
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 January 25, 2021, the Defendant filed twelve pre-trial motions. Four of those were filed on the public docket, but the Defendant filed the other eight under temporary seal because pending the Court’s resolution of her request to redact sensitive or confidential information. See Dkt. No. 127. The Government responded that it did not oppose the Defendant’s proposed redactions, but with respect to her motion to suppress under the Due Process Clause (Motion 3), the Government requested a limited set of additional redactions in order to be consistent with the other proposed redactions. Dkt. No. 128.
The Court will adopt the Defendant’s proposed redactions as to Motions 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 10, and 11; as to Motion 3, the Court adopts the Defendant’s original redactions and the additional redactions that the Government proposed. The Court’s reasoning is guided by 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
1
DOJ-OGR-00002344
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document