DOJ-OGR-00020653.jpg

1.31 MB

Extraction Summary

5
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
5
Events
3
Relationships
3
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Court docket / legal record (sdny cm/ecf)
File Size: 1.31 MB
Summary

This document is a page from the SDNY court docket for the case USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell, dated April 16, 2021. It lists filings including the Government's opposition to various defense motions to dismiss and suppress evidence, an order by Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the unsealing of reply briefs, and a defense reply memorandum. The document also references the underlying indictment charging Maxwell with facilitating Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse of minors between 1994 and 1997.

People (5)

Name Role Context
Ghislaine Maxwell Defendant
Subject of the motions, orders, and indictment mentioned in the docket.
Jeffrey Epstein Financier / Co-conspirator
Mentioned in the Opinion & Order as the person whose sexual abuse of minors Maxwell allegedly facilitated.
Lara Pomerantz Attorney
Listed as attorney for the USA filing the Memorandum in Opposition.
Alison J. Nathan Judge
Signed the Order regarding sealing and redactions.
Christian Everdell Attorney
Filed the Reply Memorandum of Law in Support.

Organizations (4)

Name Type Context
USA
Plaintiff/Government filing opposition to motions.
SDNY
Southern District of New York (Court jurisdiction).
Aioi Nissay Dowa Ins. Co.
Cited in legal precedent.
Prosight Specialty Mgmt. Co., Inc.
Cited in legal precedent.

Timeline (5 events)

04/16/2021
Filing of Government Memorandum in Opposition to defense motions.
SDNY
04/16/2021
Judge issues order regarding sealing and redactions of reply briefs.
SDNY
Judge Alison J. Nathan
1994 to 1997
Period of alleged sexual abuse of minor victims by Jeffrey Epstein facilitated by Maxwell.
Unspecified
April 20, 2021
Deadline set by Judge Nathan for parties to confer and submit a letter regarding redactions.
SDNY
Defense Government
June 2020
Grand jury returned a six-count indictment charging Ghislaine Maxwell.
SDNY
Ghislaine Maxwell Grand Jury

Locations (1)

Location Context
Southern District of New York (Court location).

Relationships (3)

Ghislaine Maxwell Associate/Facilitator Jeffrey Epstein
Indictment charges Maxwell with 'facilitating the late financier Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse of minor victims'
Lara Pomerantz Attorney USA
Listed as attorney for USA filing the memorandum.
Christian Everdell Defense Attorney Ghislaine Maxwell
Filed Reply Memorandum on behalf of Maxwell.

Key Quotes (3)

"facilitating the late financier Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse of minor victims from around 1994 to 1997."
Source
DOJ-OGR-00020653.jpg
Quote #1
"The mere existence of a confidentiality agreement or a protective order covering judicial documents is insufficient to overcome the presumption of access."
Source
DOJ-OGR-00020653.jpg
Quote #2
"Evidence Obtained from the Governments Subpoena to REDACTED"
Source
DOJ-OGR-00020653.jpg
Quote #3

Full Extracted Text

Complete text extracted from the document (4,565 characters)

Case 22-1426, Document 57, 02/28/2023, 3475900, Page35 of 208
A-31
2/22/23, 1:25 PM SDNY CM/ECF NextGen Version 1.6
04/16/2021 204 MEMORANDUM in Opposition by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell re 139 MOTION to Suppress Under the Fourth Amendment, Martindell, and the Fifth Amendment All Evidence Obtained from the Governments Subpoena to REDACTED and to Dismiss Counts Five And Six., 123 MOTION to Dismiss Counts One through Four of the Superseding Indictment for Lack of Specificity., 135 MOTION to Dismiss Counts Five and Six of the Superseding Indictment Because the Alleged Misstatements are Not Perjurious as a Matter of Law., 121 MOTION to Dismiss Either Count One Or Count Three of the Superseding Indictment as Multiplicitous., 125 MOTION to Dismiss the Superseding Indictment as it was Obtained in Violation of the Sixth Amendment., 147 MOTION for Bill of Particulars and Pretrial Disclosures., 119 MOTION for Separate Trial on Counts Ghislaine Maxwell (1) Count 5s-6s,5-6 ., 133 MOTION to Suppress Under the Due Process Clause All Evidence Obtained from the Governments Subpoena to REDACTED and to Dismiss Counts Five and Six., 145 MOTION to Strike Surplusage from Superseding Indictment., 143 MOTION to Dismiss Counts One Through Four of the Superseding Indictment as Time-Barred., 137 MOTION to Dismiss Counts One Through Six of the Superseding Indictment for Pre-Indictment Delay., 141 MOTION to Dismiss the Superseding Indictment for Breach of Non-Prosecution Agreement.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12) (Pomerantz, Lara) (Entered: 04/16/2021)
04/16/2021 205 ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: On March 15, 2021, the Defendant filed under seal her reply briefs to the Government memorandum of law opposing Defendants' twelve pre-trial motions. She filed the briefs, along with the corresponding exhibits, temporarily under seal in order to permit the Government and the Court to review certain proposed redactions. Of the twelve reply briefs, Reply Briefs 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 11, and 12 did not contain any redaction or sealing requests. Reply Briefs 1, 3, 5, 6, and 10 contain limited proposed redactions. Reply Briefs 3, 6, and 10 also contain exhibits that the Defendant proposes be filed under seal. As set forth in the Defendant's cover letter, the premise of the proposed redactions is that the materials were produced in discovery and subject to the protective order that has been entered in this case. The mere existence of a confidentiality agreement or a protective order covering judicial documents is insufficient to overcome the presumption of access. See Aioi Nissay Dowa Ins. Co. v. Prosight Specialty Mgmt. Co., Inc., 12-cv-3274 (JPO), 2012 WL 3583176, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2012). And the Court did not receive specific requests or justifications to redact or seal any of the materials. The Defendant is ORDERED to docket Reply Briefs 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 11, and 12 on ECF today, as she did not propose any redactions to these and the Government has not voiced any opposition to these being filed without redactions. If either side is seeking these or any other redactions to the remaining reply briefs, they must file a letter indicating the redactions they request and providing specific justifications for the sealing requests or redactions, in line with the principles set forth in Lugosch. By April 20, 2021, the parties shall confer and submit a letter informing the Court whether any redactions are being sought. If no redactions are being sought, the Defendant is ORDERED to docket the remaining reply briefs on ECF by April 20, 2021. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 4/16/2021) (ap) (Entered: 04/16/2021)
04/16/2021 206 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support as to Ghislaine Maxwell re: 143 MOTION to Dismiss Counts One Through Four of the Superseding Indictment as Time-Barred. . (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 04/16/2021)
04/16/2021 207 OPINION & ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. In June 2020, a grand jury returned a six-count indictment charging Ghislaine Maxwell with facilitating the late financier Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse of minor victims from around 1994 to 1997. The Government filed a first (S1) superseding indictment shortly thereafter, which contained only small, ministerial corrections. The S1 superseding indictment included two counts of enticement
https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?211087015221896-L_1_0-1 31/113
DOJ-OGR-00020653

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document