DOJ-OGR-00009537.jpg
537 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
4
Organizations
3
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal correspondence / court filing (letter to judge)
File Size:
537 KB
Summary
This document is a letter dated January 13, 2022, from the U.S. Attorney's Office (SDNY) to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the case *United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell*. The Government argues that a motion filed by Counsel for Juror 50 to intervene and obtain jury selection materials should be filed publicly without redactions, countering the defendant's objection that it is not a judicial document. The document references a previous court order from January 12, 2022, and cites legal precedent regarding public access to judicial documents.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Alison J. Nathan | Judge |
Recipient of the letter; United States District Court Judge.
|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant |
Defendant in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell; opposes public filing of Juror 50's motion.
|
| Juror 50 | Juror |
Subject of the motion to intervene regarding jury selection materials.
|
| Counsel for Juror 50 | Attorney |
Filed a motion to intervene and obtain jury selection materials.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| U.S. Department of Justice |
Header of the document.
|
|
| United States Attorney Southern District of New York |
Sender of the letter.
|
|
| United States District Court Southern District of New York |
Court handling the case.
|
|
| Second Circuit |
Cited as legal authority (Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga).
|
Timeline (3 events)
January 12, 2022
Court Order directing parties to submit proposed redactions.
SDNY
Judge Alison J. Nathan
January 13, 2022
Submission of letter regarding Juror 50's motion redactions.
SDNY
US Attorney
Judge Alison J. Nathan
Locations (3)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Jurisdiction of the court and attorney's office.
|
|
|
Address of the US Attorney: One Saint Andrew's Plaza, New York, New York 10007.
|
|
|
Address of the Court: 40 Foley Square, New York, New York 10007.
|
Relationships (2)
Maxwell opposes the public filing of Juror 50's motion.
Case title 'United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell'; Government calls defendant's argument 'meritless'.
Key Quotes (4)
"The Government respectfully submits that no redactions are necessary, and accordingly the motion should be publicly filed."Source
DOJ-OGR-00009537.jpg
Quote #1
"The defendant opposes any public filing of Juror 50’s motion, arguing that it is not a judicial document. This argument is meritless."Source
DOJ-OGR-00009537.jpg
Quote #2
"Juror 50’s motion to intervene is quite obviously 'relevant to the performance of a judicial function and useful in the judicial process.'"Source
DOJ-OGR-00009537.jpg
Quote #3
"Counsel for Juror 50 has filed a motion to intervene, and to obtain a copy of certain materials relating to jury selection."Source
DOJ-OGR-00009537.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,404 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 617 Filed 02/24/22 Page 1 of 3
U.S. Department of Justice
United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
Southern District of New York
The Silvio J. Mollo Building
One Saint Andrew's Plaza
New York, New York 10007
One Saint Andrew's Plaza
New York, New York 10007
January 13, 2022
By Email
The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
United States Courthouse
40 Foley Square
New York, New York 10007
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
United States Courthouse
40 Foley Square
New York, New York 10007
Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
Dear Judge Nathan:
Counsel for Juror 50 has filed a motion to intervene, and to obtain a copy of certain materials relating to jury selection. The motion was submitted by email to Chambers. In an Order dated January 12, 2022, the Court directed the parties “to submit via email any proposed redactions on or before January 13, 2022, justifying any such request by reference to the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006).” The Government respectfully submits that no redactions are necessary, and accordingly the motion should be publicly filed.
The defendant opposes any public filing of Juror 50’s motion, arguing that it is not a judicial document. This argument is meritless. Juror 50’s motion to intervene is quite obviously “relevant to the performance of a judicial function and useful in the judicial process.” United States
1
DOJ-OGR-00009537
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document