DOJ-OGR-00002872.jpg
630 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court order
File Size:
630 KB
Summary
A court order filed on March 29, 2021, by Judge Alison J. Nathan in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The Judge orders that specific pages (129–134) of the Government's brief be unredacted because the information is already public record in a superseding indictment. The Judge also addresses proposed redactions related to the civil case Giuffre v. Maxwell, requiring separate justification for maintaining those seals.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Alison J. Nathan | District Judge |
Author of the court order presiding over the case.
|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant |
Defendant in the criminal case 20-CR-330.
|
| Virginia Giuffre | Plaintiff (referenced) |
Mentioned in the case citation 'Giuffre v. Maxwell'.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States District Court Southern District of New York |
The court issuing the order.
|
|
| United States of America |
The government entity prosecuting the case (The Government).
|
|
| Cornell Univ. |
Mentioned in a case citation used as legal precedent.
|
Timeline (1 events)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Jurisdiction of the court.
|
Relationships (2)
Case caption: United States of America -v- Ghislaine Maxwell
Reference to case 'Giuffre v. Maxwell, Case No. 15-cv-7433'
Key Quotes (3)
"Once information has become part of the public record, any interests that might have supported keeping it confidential largely dissipate."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002872.jpg
Quote #1
"The Court ORDERS that the information contained on pages 129–134 of the Government’s brief be unredacted."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002872.jpg
Quote #2
"In light of the presumption of access, however, the Court requires a separate justification..."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002872.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,707 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 189 Filed 03/29/21 Page 1 of 2
USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #:
DATE FILED: 3/29/21
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #:
DATE FILED: 3/29/21
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
United States of America,
-v-
Ghislaine Maxwell,
Defendant.
20-CR-330 (AJN)
ORDER
ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:
The Court is in receipt of the Government’s letter responding to its March 18, 2021 order
regarding redactions to its omnibus memorandum of law in opposition to the Defendant’s twelve
pretrial motions. Dkt. No. 170.
regarding redactions to its omnibus memorandum of law in opposition to the Defendant’s twelve
pretrial motions. Dkt. No. 170.
As the Government now indicates, the information that the Defendant sought to redact on
pages 129–134 of the brief is already part of the public record in this case. S1 Superseding
Indictment, Dkt. No. 17, at 16–17. Once information has become part of the public record, any
interests that might have supported keeping it confidential largely dissipate. See United States v.
Nejad, No. 18-CR-224 (AJN), 2021 WL 681427, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 22, 2021); Cunningham
v. Cornell Univ., No. 16-CV-6525 (PKC), 2019 WL 10892081, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2019).
In light of this fact and because the Court has been provided no further explanation for the
request to keep this redacted, the Court ORDERS that the information contained on pages 129–
134 of the Government’s brief be unredacted.
pages 129–134 of the brief is already part of the public record in this case. S1 Superseding
Indictment, Dkt. No. 17, at 16–17. Once information has become part of the public record, any
interests that might have supported keeping it confidential largely dissipate. See United States v.
Nejad, No. 18-CR-224 (AJN), 2021 WL 681427, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 22, 2021); Cunningham
v. Cornell Univ., No. 16-CV-6525 (PKC), 2019 WL 10892081, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2019).
In light of this fact and because the Court has been provided no further explanation for the
request to keep this redacted, the Court ORDERS that the information contained on pages 129–
134 of the Government’s brief be unredacted.
With respect to the proposed redactions to pages 118–119 and Exhibit 11, the Court now
understands that the parties seek redactions on the basis that the material has been maintained
under seal in Giuffre v. Maxwell, Case No. 15-cv-7433 (S.D.N.Y.). In light of the presumption
of access, however, the Court requires a separate justification, and must engage in its own
understands that the parties seek redactions on the basis that the material has been maintained
under seal in Giuffre v. Maxwell, Case No. 15-cv-7433 (S.D.N.Y.). In light of the presumption
of access, however, the Court requires a separate justification, and must engage in its own
1
DOJ-OGR-00002872
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document