DOJ-OGR-00001864.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 90 Filed 12/07/20 Page 3 of 4

The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
November 25, 2020
Page 3

Here, that lower presumption is far outweighed by the significant privacy interests implicated by the materials at issue. See United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1050 (2d Cir. 1995) (“[t]he privacy interests of innocent third parties . . . should weigh heavily in a court’s balancing equation”). If Ms. Maxwell’s sureties are publicly identified, they will be harassed simply for their association with and support of her. Indeed, some of Ms. Maxwell’s closest friends and family have already suffered significant consequences. For example, [REDACTED]

The sureties are legitimately scared that they and their children will suffer the same consequences, and may not be able to come forward at all, if the Court does not allow their letters and their identities to be sealed. See id. at 1051 (“[C]ourts have the power to insure that their records are not used to gratify private spite or promote public scandal[.]”). These individuals are entitled to the same privacy as Ms. Maxwell’s accusers, no longer minors, who have been permitted to remain anonymous even though many have revealed their identities.

The presumption of public access is also outweighed by Ms. Maxwell’s privacy interest in details regarding her financial condition, as well as the privacy interests of third parties that would be implicated if Ms. Maxwell’s assets were publicly disclosed. See id. (personal financial records traditionally considered private, not public).

Similar privacy interests led the court to permit the redaction of bail submission materials in United States v. Nejad (“Sadr”), Case 1:18-cr-00224-AJN (S.D.N.Y.). Like this case, Sadr involved a defendant with meaningful assets and a bail package with numerous co-signers. At the initial bail hearing, Judge Carter ordered both defense counsel and the government to redact attachments to their submissions because they contained “sensitive private information with respect to a whole series of individuals.” (Id., Dkt. 21 at 25.) The privacy interests at stake here are significantly higher, given the documented threats against Ms. Maxwell and harassment of her family and friends.

For the reasons set forth above, we believe that portions of the Motion, and certain materials submitted in support thereof and in opposition thereto, should be filed under seal. We respectfully request an in camera conference to address these issues and other confidentiality concerns related to the Motion. We have consulted with the government, which consents to the redaction and sealed filing of (1) the names and identifying information of any proposed cosigners, (2) any discovery materials designated confidential under the Protective Order in this case, and (3) any information derived from confidential discovery materials in this case. The government does not consent to the in camera conference.

DOJ-OGR-00001864