DOJ-OGR-00020639.jpg
1.23 MB
Extraction Summary
5
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court docket / case log (sdny cm/ecf)
File Size:
1.23 MB
Summary
This document is a court docket report from December 2020 regarding the case of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 22-1426). It details Judge Alison J. Nathan's orders allowing redacted filings to protect privacy interests, denying an in-camera conference, and setting a briefing schedule for a renewed bail motion. The docket entries list sealed documents, letters from defense counsel Christian Everdell regarding sealing and schedules, and a specific letter regarding Maxwell's confinement conditions at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant |
Inmate Reg. 02879-509, subject of the court orders and letters, currently confined at MDC Brooklyn.
|
| Alison J. Nathan | Judge |
SDNY Judge issuing orders regarding redactions, sealing, and briefing schedules.
|
| Christian R. Everdell | Attorney |
Lawyer for Ghislaine Maxwell, filing letters regarding briefing schedules and sealing.
|
| Sophia Papapetru | Letter Writer (likely legal team) |
Co-author of a letter regarding Maxwell's confinement conditions.
|
| John Wallace | Letter Writer (likely legal team) |
Co-author of a letter regarding Maxwell's confinement conditions.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SDNY |
Southern District of New York (Court)
|
|
| Metropolitan Detention Center |
Detention facility in Brooklyn where Maxwell is confined.
|
|
| Second Circuit |
Court of Appeals cited in legal precedents (Lugosch, Amodeo).
|
|
| Department of Justice |
Implied via 'DOJ-OGR' footer.
|
Timeline (3 events)
12/07/2020
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location of Ghislaine Maxwell's confinement.
|
Relationships (2)
Letters filed by Ghislaine Maxwell... from Christian R. Everdell
Judge issuing orders regarding Defendant Maxwell
Key Quotes (4)
"The Defendant is hereby ORDERED to docket the redacted versions of the two letters by December 4, 2020."Source
DOJ-OGR-00020639.jpg
Quote #1
"The Court DENIES the Defendant's request for an in camera conference."Source
DOJ-OGR-00020639.jpg
Quote #2
"The parties are hereby ORDERED to meet and confer and to jointly prepare a briefing schedule for the Defendant's forthcoming renewed motion for release on bail."Source
DOJ-OGR-00020639.jpg
Quote #3
"Ghislaine Maxwell, Reg. 02879-509., an inmate currently confined at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, New York."Source
DOJ-OGR-00020639.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (4,284 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 57, 02/28/2023, 3475900, Page21 of 208
A-17
A-17
2/22/23, 1:25 PM SDNY CM/ECF NextGen Version 1.6
adopt the Defendant's proposed redactions, which are consented to by the Government.
The Court's decision is guided by the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in
Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Under this test, the
Court must: (i) determine whether the documents in question are "judicial documents;"
(ii) assess the weight of the common law presumption of access to the materials; and (iii)
balance competing considerations against the presumption of access. Id. at 11920. "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.'" Id. at 120 (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1050 (2d Cir.
1995) ("Amodeo II")). The proposed redactions satisfy this test. First, the Court finds that
the Defendant's letter motions are "relevant to the performance of the judicial function
and useful in the judicial process," thereby qualifying as a "judicial document" for
purposes of the first element of the Lugosch test. United States v. Amodeo ("Amodeo I"),
44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995). And while the Court assumes that the common law
presumption of access attaches, in balancing competing considerations against the
presumption of access, the Court finds that the arguments the Defendant has put
forthincluding, most notably, the privacy interests of the individuals referenced in the
lettersfavor her proposed and tailored redactions. The Defendant is hereby ORDERED to
docket the redacted versions of the two letters by December 4, 2020. For the reasons
outlined in the Government's letter dated December 2, 2020, Dkt. No. 80, the Court
DENIES the Defendant's request for an in camera conference. In order to protect the
privacy interests referenced in the Defendant's November 25, 2020 letter, the Court will
permit the Defendant to make her submission in writing and to propose narrowly tailored
redactions. The parties are hereby ORDERED to meet and confer and to jointly prepare a
briefing schedule for the Defendant's forthcoming renewed motion for release on bail. SO
ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 12/3/2020)(bw) (Entered: 12/03/2020)
The Court's decision is guided by the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in
Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Under this test, the
Court must: (i) determine whether the documents in question are "judicial documents;"
(ii) assess the weight of the common law presumption of access to the materials; and (iii)
balance competing considerations against the presumption of access. Id. at 11920. "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.'" Id. at 120 (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1050 (2d Cir.
1995) ("Amodeo II")). The proposed redactions satisfy this test. First, the Court finds that
the Defendant's letter motions are "relevant to the performance of the judicial function
and useful in the judicial process," thereby qualifying as a "judicial document" for
purposes of the first element of the Lugosch test. United States v. Amodeo ("Amodeo I"),
44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995). And while the Court assumes that the common law
presumption of access attaches, in balancing competing considerations against the
presumption of access, the Court finds that the arguments the Defendant has put
forthincluding, most notably, the privacy interests of the individuals referenced in the
lettersfavor her proposed and tailored redactions. The Defendant is hereby ORDERED to
docket the redacted versions of the two letters by December 4, 2020. For the reasons
outlined in the Government's letter dated December 2, 2020, Dkt. No. 80, the Court
DENIES the Defendant's request for an in camera conference. In order to protect the
privacy interests referenced in the Defendant's November 25, 2020 letter, the Court will
permit the Defendant to make her submission in writing and to propose narrowly tailored
redactions. The parties are hereby ORDERED to meet and confer and to jointly prepare a
briefing schedule for the Defendant's forthcoming renewed motion for release on bail. SO
ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 12/3/2020)(bw) (Entered: 12/03/2020)
12/03/2020 82 SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (jus) (Entered: 12/03/2020)
12/03/2020 83 SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (jus) (Entered: 12/03/2020)
12/03/2020 84 SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (jus) (Entered: 12/03/2020)
12/04/2020 85 LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R.
Everdell dated December 4, 2020 re: Briefing Schedule (Everdell, Christian) (Entered:
12/04/2020)
12/04/2020 86 LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R.
Everdell dated 11/25/2020 re: Sealing (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 12/04/2020)
12/04/2020 87 LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R.
Everdell dated 11/30/2020 re: Sealing (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 12/04/2020)
12/07/2020 88 LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Sophia
Papapetru and John Wallace dated 12/4/20 re: This letter is written in response to your
order dated December 2, 2020, concerning Ghislaine Maxwell, Reg. 02879-509., an
inmate currently confined at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, New York.
You expressed various concerns regarding Ms. Maxwells confinement and well-being.
(jw) (Entered: 12/07/2020)
12/07/2020 89 ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell re: 85 Letter filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. The Court is
in receipt of the Defendant's December 4, 2020 letter, Dkt. No. 85, and hereby sets the
following schedule: The Defendants submission is due December 8, 2020; The
Government's response is due December 16, 2020; The Defendant's reply is due
December 18, 2020. After reviewing these submissions, the Court will determine whether
a hearing on the renewed bail motion is necessary. The Court grants the Defendants
request that the Government shall file its submission under seal with proposed redactions.
12/03/2020 83 SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (jus) (Entered: 12/03/2020)
12/03/2020 84 SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (jus) (Entered: 12/03/2020)
12/04/2020 85 LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R.
Everdell dated December 4, 2020 re: Briefing Schedule (Everdell, Christian) (Entered:
12/04/2020)
12/04/2020 86 LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R.
Everdell dated 11/25/2020 re: Sealing (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 12/04/2020)
12/04/2020 87 LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R.
Everdell dated 11/30/2020 re: Sealing (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 12/04/2020)
12/07/2020 88 LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Sophia
Papapetru and John Wallace dated 12/4/20 re: This letter is written in response to your
order dated December 2, 2020, concerning Ghislaine Maxwell, Reg. 02879-509., an
inmate currently confined at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, New York.
You expressed various concerns regarding Ms. Maxwells confinement and well-being.
(jw) (Entered: 12/07/2020)
12/07/2020 89 ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell re: 85 Letter filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. The Court is
in receipt of the Defendant's December 4, 2020 letter, Dkt. No. 85, and hereby sets the
following schedule: The Defendants submission is due December 8, 2020; The
Government's response is due December 16, 2020; The Defendant's reply is due
December 18, 2020. After reviewing these submissions, the Court will determine whether
a hearing on the renewed bail motion is necessary. The Court grants the Defendants
request that the Government shall file its submission under seal with proposed redactions.
https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?211087015221896-L_1_0-1 17/113
DOJ-OGR-00020639
DOJ-OGR-00020639
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document