This document is a docket sheet from a legal case involving Ghislaine Maxwell, dated March 24, 2021, detailing court filings from December 10 to December 18, 2020. The entries primarily concern the filing of a conference transcript, Maxwell's renewed application for bail, and the court's orders regarding the redaction of sensitive information from these filings. The court, citing precedents like Lugosch and Amodeo, granted Maxwell's proposed redactions to protect the privacy interests of individuals mentioned in the bail application materials.
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Alison J. Nathan | Judge |
Mentioned as the presiding judge who signed orders on 12/8/2020 and 12/14/2020.
|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant |
The subject of the proceedings, including a conference transcript, a renewed application for bail, and various court ...
|
| Kristen Carannante | Court Reporter/Transcriber |
Listed as the court reporter for the conference held on 7/14/2020.
|
| McGuirk, Kelly |
Name associated with the entry of the transcript and notice of filing on 12/10/2020.
|
|
| Christian R. Everdell |
Submitted a letter on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell regarding her renewed bail application.
|
|
| Andrew Rohrbach | Attorney |
Filed a notice of attorney appearance for the USA on 12/17/2020.
|
| Nixon |
Mentioned in the case citation Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc.
|
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| PACER | government agency |
Mentioned as the system through which transcripts can be obtained after the restriction period.
|
| Pyramid Co. of Onondaga | company |
Party in the case Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, cited by the court.
|
| Warner Commc'ns, Inc. | company |
Party in the case Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., cited by the court.
|
| USA | government agency |
The opposing party in the case, for whom Andrew Rohrbach is appearing.
|
| Second Circuit | court |
The court that articulated the three-part test in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga.
|
"judicial documents"Source
"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
"'relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process,' thereby qualifying as a "judicial document""Source
Complete text extracted from the document (4,797 characters)
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document