DOJ-OGR-00001847.jpg
657 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court order
File Size:
657 KB
Summary
This is a court order filed on December 3, 2020, by Judge Alison J. Nathan in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The order addresses a request by Maxwell's defense counsel to seal letters related to a renewed motion for bail. The court approves the defense's proposed redactions, noting that the Government does not oppose them, based on legal standards regarding judicial documents and privacy interests.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant |
Subject of the criminal case and the bail motion discussed in the order.
|
| Alison J. Nathan | District Judge |
Judge issuing the order regarding sealing and redactions.
|
| Counsel for Defendant | Legal Defense |
Filed letters requesting an in camera conference and sealing of documents.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States District Court Southern District of New York |
The court handling the case.
|
|
| United States of America |
The government entity prosecuting the case.
|
|
| Second Circuit |
Referenced for legal precedent (Lugosch case).
|
|
| Pyramid Co. of Onondaga |
Referenced in legal citation Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga.
|
Timeline (3 events)
2020-11-25
Counsel for Ghislaine Maxwell filed a letter request for an in camera conference regarding bail and requested to seal the letter.
USDC SDNY
2020-11-30
Defense counsel filed a second letter proposing redactions rather than full sealing.
USDC SDNY
Defense Counsel
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location of the court.
|
Relationships (2)
Case caption: United States of America -v- Ghislaine Maxwell
Alison J. Nathan is the District Judge presiding over Maxwell's case.
Key Quotes (3)
"The Government has indicated that it does not oppose the redactions."Source
DOJ-OGR-00001847.jpg
Quote #1
"After due consideration, the Court will adopt the Defendant’s proposed redactions, which are consented to by the Government."Source
DOJ-OGR-00001847.jpg
Quote #2
"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
DOJ-OGR-00001847.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,800 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 81 Filed 12/03/20 Page 1 of 2
USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #:
DATE FILED: 12/3/20
USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #:
DATE FILED: 12/3/20
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 November 25, 2020, counsel for Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell filed a letter request seeking an in camera conference for the presentation of a renewed motion for release on bail and a request to seal the November 25, 2020 letter in its entirety. The Court required justification for the sealing request. On November 30, 2020, the defense counsel filed a second letter no longer fully pressing the unsupported request to file the letter entirely under seal and instead proposing redactions to both the November 25th and November 30th letters. The Government has indicated that it does not oppose the redactions. Dkt. No. 80.
After due consideration, the Court will adopt the Defendant’s proposed redactions, which are consented to by the Government. The Court’s decision 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 enforcement or judicial efficiency’ and ‘the privacy interests of those resisting disclosure.’” Id. at 120 (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1050 (2d Cir. 1995) (“Amodeo II”)).
1
DOJ-OGR-00001847
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document