DOJ-OGR-00015122.jpg
511 KB
Extraction Summary
1
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
0
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
511 KB
Summary
This legal document, filed on August 6, 2025, by Neil S. Binder of the law firm Binder & Schwartz, is a submission to the court in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The document argues that grand jury transcripts should remain sealed or be released with significant redactions to protect innocent third parties from reputational harm, especially given what is described as relentless and inaccurate press coverage. The core argument is that the privacy interests of these nonparties outweigh the public's interest in disclosure.
People (1)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Neil S. Binder | Submitter of the document |
Signed the document under 'Respectfully submitted'.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| BINDER & SCHWARTZ | law firm |
Appears in the letterhead at the top of the document.
|
| The Court | government agency |
Referenced as the body that should order transcripts to remain under seal or be redacted.
|
| The government | government agency |
Mentioned as having failed to meet its high burden to show why unsealing grand jury materials is merited.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2025-08-06
Filing of Document 804 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, arguing for the sealing or redaction of court records.
The court handling Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE
Key Quotes (3)
"In a case such as this one, where the press and public have been relentless in their coverage of every detail and lacking in their regard of factual accuracy, even the stray mention of a third-party’s name has the potential to cause extreme reputational harm that could never be remedied."Source
— Neil S. Binder
(Justifying the need for sealing or redacting court documents to prevent harm to third parties.)
DOJ-OGR-00015122.jpg
Quote #1
"The government has not—and cannot—meet its high burden to show why unsealing grand jury materials that mention innocent third parties... is merited."Source
— Neil S. Binder
(Arguing that the government has failed to provide sufficient reason to unseal sensitive materials.)
DOJ-OGR-00015122.jpg
Quote #2
"...the privacy interests of a nonparty outweigh the public’s historical interest in the disclosure."Source
— Neil S. Binder
(Providing the core legal argument for why redactions should be made.)
DOJ-OGR-00015122.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,163 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 804 Filed 08/06/25 Page 27 of 27
BINDER & SCHWARTZ
In a case such as this one, where the press and public have been relentless in their coverage of every detail and lacking in their regard of factual accuracy, even the stray mention of a third-party’s name has the potential to cause extreme reputational harm that could never be remedied. The government has not—and cannot—meet its high burden to show why unsealing grand jury materials that mention innocent third parties such as [REDACTED] who were not the subject of any charges in relation to this case, is merited. And it certainly cannot meet such a burden with respect to any materials that [REDACTED].
Accordingly, the Court should order that the transcripts remain under seal, or, if the Court orders them unsealed, ensure they are released only with appropriate redactions that go beyond merely proper names but also include any surrounding context that may be used to identify the nonparties, as the privacy interests of a nonparty outweigh the public’s historical interest in the disclosure.
Accordingly, the Court should order that the transcripts remain under seal, or, if the Court orders them unsealed, ensure they are released only with appropriate redactions that go beyond merely proper names but also include any surrounding context that may be used to identify the nonparties, as the privacy interests of a nonparty outweigh the public’s historical interest in the disclosure.
Respectfully submitted,
[Signature]
Neil S. Binder
5
DOJ-OGR-00015122
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document