EFTA00030910.pdf
132 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
3
Organizations
2
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court order
File Size:
132 KB
Summary
Court order from Judge Alison J. Nathan dated December 3, 2020, in the case of USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The court approves the defendant's proposed redactions for letters dated November 25 and 30 regarding a renewed bail motion, citing the privacy interests of individuals mentioned in the letters. The court denies the request for an in camera conference but allows written submissions with tailored redactions and orders the parties to schedule briefing for the renewed bail motion.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant |
Subject of the criminal case and the bail motion discussed in the order.
|
| Alison J. Nathan | District Judge |
Judge presiding over the case who issued the order.
|
| Counsel for Defendant | Defense Attorneys |
Filed letters requesting in camera conference and sealing/redactions.
|
| Individuals referenced in the letters | Third Parties |
Unnamed individuals whose privacy interests justified the redactions.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States District Court Southern District of New York |
Court where the case is being heard.
|
|
| United States of America |
Plaintiff/Government in the criminal case.
|
|
| Second Circuit Court of Appeals |
Referenced regarding legal precedents (Lugosch, Amodeo).
|
Timeline (2 events)
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location of the court and where the order was signed.
|
|
|
Jurisdiction of the court.
|
Relationships (1)
Defendant vs Plaintiff in criminal case 20-CR-330
Key Quotes (3)
"the Court finds that the arguments the Defendant has put forth—including, most notably, the privacy interests of the individuals referenced in the letters—favor her proposed and tailored redactions."Source
EFTA00030910.pdf
Quote #1
"the Court DENIES the Defendant’s request for an in camera conference."Source
EFTA00030910.pdf
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
EFTA00030910.pdf
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (3,225 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 81 Filed 12/03/20 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
United States of America,
—v—
Ghislaine Maxwell,
Defendant.
—v—
Ghislaine Maxwell,
Defendant.
20-CR-330 (AJN)
ORDER
ORDER
ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:
On November 25, 2020, counsel for Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell filed a letter request seeking an in camera conference for the presentation of a renewed motion for release on bail and a request to seal the November 25, 2020 letter in its entirety. The Court required justification for the sealing request. On November 30, 2020, the defense counsel filed a second letter no longer fully pressing the unsupported request to file the letter entirely under seal and instead proposing redactions to both the November 25th and November 30th letters. The Government has indicated that it does not oppose the redactions. Dkt. No. 80.
After due consideration, the Court will 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 119–20. “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”)).
On November 25, 2020, counsel for Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell filed a letter request seeking an in camera conference for the presentation of a renewed motion for release on bail and a request to seal the November 25, 2020 letter in its entirety. The Court required justification for the sealing request. On November 30, 2020, the defense counsel filed a second letter no longer fully pressing the unsupported request to file the letter entirely under seal and instead proposing redactions to both the November 25th and November 30th letters. The Government has indicated that it does not oppose the redactions. Dkt. No. 80.
After due consideration, the Court will 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 119–20. “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”)).
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 81 Filed 12/03/20 Page 2 of 2
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 forth—including, most notably, the privacy interests of the individuals referenced in the letters—favor 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.
Dated: December 3, 2020
New York, New York
ALISON J. NATHAN
United States District Judge
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 forth—including, most notably, the privacy interests of the individuals referenced in the letters—favor 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.
Dated: December 3, 2020
New York, New York
ALISON J. NATHAN
United States District Judge
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document