DOJ-OGR-00002344.jpg
626 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court order
File Size:
626 KB
Summary
This is a court order from Judge Alison J. Nathan in the case of USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell, dated February 4, 2021. The order approves the Defendant's and Government's requests to redact sensitive information from several pre-trial motions filed on January 25, 2021. The judge cites the 'Lugosch' test as the legal standard for balancing public access against the need for confidentiality.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant |
Subject of the criminal case and filer of pre-trial motions.
|
| Alison J. Nathan | District Judge |
Presiding judge issuing the order regarding redactions.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States District Court Southern District of New York |
Venue of the legal proceedings.
|
|
| United States of America |
The Government prosecuting the case.
|
|
| Second Circuit |
Referenced for legal precedent (Lugosch v. Pyramid Co.).
|
Timeline (2 events)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Jurisdiction of the court.
|
Relationships (1)
Defendant vs Plaintiff in Case 20-CR-330
Key Quotes (3)
"The Court will adopt the Defendant’s proposed redactions as to Motions 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 10, and 11"Source
DOJ-OGR-00002344.jpg
Quote #1
"as to Motion 3, the Court adopts the Defendant’s original redactions and the additional redactions that the Government proposed."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002344.jpg
Quote #2
"The Court’s reasoning is guided by the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga"Source
DOJ-OGR-00002344.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,694 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 132 Filed 02/04/21 Page 1 of 2
USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #:
DATE FILED: 2/4/21
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #:
DATE FILED: 2/4/21
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:
On January 25, 2021, the Defendant filed twelve pre-trial motions. Four of those were
filed on the public docket, but the Defendant filed the other eight under temporary seal because
pending the Court’s resolution of her request to redact sensitive or confidential information. See
Dkt. No. 127. The Government responded that it did not oppose the Defendant’s proposed
redactions, but with respect to her motion to suppress under the Due Process Clause (Motion 3),
the Government requested a limited set of additional redactions in order to be consistent with the
other proposed redactions. Dkt. No. 128.
filed on the public docket, but the Defendant filed the other eight under temporary seal because
pending the Court’s resolution of her request to redact sensitive or confidential information. See
Dkt. No. 127. The Government responded that it did not oppose the Defendant’s proposed
redactions, but with respect to her motion to suppress under the Due Process Clause (Motion 3),
the Government requested a limited set of additional redactions in order to be consistent with the
other proposed redactions. Dkt. No. 128.
The Court will adopt the Defendant’s proposed redactions as to Motions 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 10,
and 11; as to Motion 3, the Court adopts the Defendant’s original redactions and the additional
redactions that the Government proposed. The Court’s reasoning 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
and 11; as to Motion 3, the Court adopts the Defendant’s original redactions and the additional
redactions that the Government proposed. The Court’s reasoning 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
1
DOJ-OGR-00002344
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document