DOJ-OGR-00002765.jpg
756 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court order / legal filing
File Size:
756 KB
Summary
This document is page 4 of a court order filed on March 18, 2021, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The Court denies the Government's broad requests to redact pages 1–128 and seal Exhibits 8 and 9, citing a lack of non-conclusory basis for how disclosure would imperil the investigation. The Court sets a deadline of March 22, 2021, for the Government to submit a letter justifying more tailored redactions and agrees with the Defendant regarding objections to redactions on pages 187–188.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Defendant | Defendant |
Objected to redactions in the Government's brief; implied to be Ghislaine Maxwell based on case number 1:20-cr-00330-...
|
| The Government | Prosecution |
Requested redactions and sealing of documents; ordered to justify specific redactions by March 22, 2021.
|
| The Court | Judge/Judiciary |
Issued the order denying certain redaction requests and setting deadlines.
|
Timeline (2 events)
2021-03-22
Deadline for the Government to file a letter justifying specific redactions.
Court Filing
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Jurisdiction mentioned in case citations.
|
Relationships (1)
Court agrees with Defendant's objections to Government's redactions; adversarial legal proceedings.
Key Quotes (5)
"disclosing the details of the Government’s efforts to obtain evidence will undoubtedly hamper the investigation, as the individuals and entities under investigation would be put on notice."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002765.jpg
Quote #1
"the Court denies the Government’s redaction requests in pages 1–128 and denies its request to file Exhibits 8 and 9 under seal"Source
DOJ-OGR-00002765.jpg
Quote #2
"The Court will give the Government an opportunity to seek more tailored redactions if it wishes and to specifically justify the ongoing need to redact the requested information and documents."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002765.jpg
Quote #3
"the Court agrees with the Defendant’s objections to the redactions contained in pages 187–188 of the Government’s brief."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002765.jpg
Quote #4
"The information does not in itself contain any personally identifying information"Source
DOJ-OGR-00002765.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,239 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 168 Filed 03/18/21 Page 4 of 5
Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 124 (2d Cir. 2006). Courts have noted that "disclosing the details of
the Government’s efforts to obtain evidence will undoubtedly hamper the investigation, as the
individuals and entities under investigation would be put on notice.” United States v. Madoff,
626 F. Supp. 2d 420, 427–28 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). And the Government’s interest in protecting an
ongoing investigation from the “danger of impairing law enforcement” may be a countervailing
factor that outweighs the presumption of access. See Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 120. But the
Government advances no non-conclusory basis as to why its investigation at this stage of the
matter would be imperiled by the disclosure of the information regarding how it obtained the
information in question, and the requested redactions are far from narrowly tailored. As a result,
the Court denies the Government’s redaction requests in pages 1–128 and denies its request to
file Exhibits 8 and 9 under seal, since those documents relate to this very issue and the same
reasoning applies to them. The Court will give the Government an opportunity to seek more
tailored redactions if it wishes and to specifically justify the ongoing need to redact the requested
information and documents. By March 22, 2021, the Government may file a letter with the
Court—under seal, if necessary—justifying the specific redaction and sealing requests.
Alternatively, by that date the Government can indicate that it will not seek to renew the request.
the Government’s efforts to obtain evidence will undoubtedly hamper the investigation, as the
individuals and entities under investigation would be put on notice.” United States v. Madoff,
626 F. Supp. 2d 420, 427–28 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). And the Government’s interest in protecting an
ongoing investigation from the “danger of impairing law enforcement” may be a countervailing
factor that outweighs the presumption of access. See Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 120. But the
Government advances no non-conclusory basis as to why its investigation at this stage of the
matter would be imperiled by the disclosure of the information regarding how it obtained the
information in question, and the requested redactions are far from narrowly tailored. As a result,
the Court denies the Government’s redaction requests in pages 1–128 and denies its request to
file Exhibits 8 and 9 under seal, since those documents relate to this very issue and the same
reasoning applies to them. The Court will give the Government an opportunity to seek more
tailored redactions if it wishes and to specifically justify the ongoing need to redact the requested
information and documents. By March 22, 2021, the Government may file a letter with the
Court—under seal, if necessary—justifying the specific redaction and sealing requests.
Alternatively, by that date the Government can indicate that it will not seek to renew the request.
Furthermore, the Court agrees with the Defendant’s objections to the redactions
contained in pages 187–188 of the Government’s brief. While the Court previously had granted
the request to redact the same information, see Dkt. No. 99, the Court no longer sees a basis for
keeping this information under seal in light of the strong presumption of access. The information
does not in itself contain any personally identifying information, and the Court concludes that
any minimal threat of interference with the Government’s investigation through the disclosure of
this information is outweighed by the presumption of access that attaches to those portions. As
contained in pages 187–188 of the Government’s brief. While the Court previously had granted
the request to redact the same information, see Dkt. No. 99, the Court no longer sees a basis for
keeping this information under seal in light of the strong presumption of access. The information
does not in itself contain any personally identifying information, and the Court concludes that
any minimal threat of interference with the Government’s investigation through the disclosure of
this information is outweighed by the presumption of access that attaches to those portions. As
4
DOJ-OGR-00002765
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document