DOJ-OGR-00020658.jpg
1.21 MB
Extraction Summary
8
People
5
Organizations
2
Locations
2
Events
3
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court docket / case log (sdny cm/ecf)
File Size:
1.21 MB
Summary
This document is a court docket log (SDNY CM/ECF) from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, covering filings between April 22 and April 23, 2021. It details procedural exchanges regarding electronic devices in the courtroom (denied), suppression motions, adjournment requests, and proposed redactions to protect third-party privacy (granted). The document lists key legal teams for both the defense (Boies Schiller Flexner) and the prosecution (AUSAs Comey, Moe, Pomerantz, Rohrbach), and includes Judge Alison J. Nathan's rulings on these procedural matters.
People (8)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant |
Subject of the court proceedings and letters filed.
|
| Alison J. Nathan | Judge |
Presiding judge issuing endorsements and receiving letters.
|
| Sigrid McCawley | Attorney |
Boies Schiller Flexner LLP; filed request regarding electronic devices.
|
| Jeffrey S. Pagliuca | Attorney |
Counsel for Maxwell; filed response regarding suppression motions.
|
| Maurene Comey | AUSA (Prosecutor) |
Filed letters for USA regarding adjournment, orders, and redactions.
|
| Alison Moe | AUSA (Prosecutor) |
Listed on letters filed by USA.
|
| Lara Pomerantz | AUSA (Prosecutor) |
Listed on letters filed by USA.
|
| Andrew Rohrbach | AUSA (Prosecutor) |
Listed on letters filed by USA.
|
Organizations (5)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Boies Schiller Flexner LLP |
Law firm representing the defense (associated with Sigrid McCawley).
|
|
| USA |
United States of America (Prosecution/Government).
|
|
| SDNY |
Southern District of New York (Court jurisdiction).
|
|
| Second Circuit |
Court of Appeals mentioned in legal citation.
|
|
| DOJ-OGR |
Department of Justice - Office of Government Information Services (indicated by footer stamp).
|
Timeline (2 events)
Relationships (3)
LETTER by Boies Schiller Flexner LLP as to Ghislaine Maxwell... from Sigrid McCawley
LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell... from Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
LETTER by USA... from AUSAs Maurene Comey
Key Quotes (4)
"Because remote access is available for tomorrow and because no electronic devices may be used in the courtroom or overflow rooms... that request is denied."Source
DOJ-OGR-00020658.jpg
Quote #1
"The Court grants the Government's redaction requests."Source
DOJ-OGR-00020658.jpg
Quote #2
"The Court concludes that these are judicial documents and that the First Amendment and common law presumptions of access attach."Source
DOJ-OGR-00020658.jpg
Quote #3
"the need to protect the privacy interests of third parties referenced in the documents, favor the narrowly tailored redactions."Source
DOJ-OGR-00020658.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (4,047 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 57, 02/28/2023, 3475900, Page40 of 208
A-36
A-36
2/22/23, 1:25 PM SDNY CM/ECF NextGen Version 1.6
04/22/2021 233 LETTER by Boies Schiller Flexner LLP as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Sigrid McCawley dated 04-22-2021 re: Request to Bring Electronic Devices Document filed by Boies Schiller Flexner LLP. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Electronic Device Form)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 04/22/2021)
04/22/2021 234 LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Jeffrey S. Pagliuca dated April 22, 2021 re: Response to Dkt. No. 227, Governments April 21, 2021 Letter re Ms. Maxwells Motions to Suppress (Pagliuca, Jeffrey) (Entered: 04/22/2021)
04/22/2021 235 LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, Lara Pomerantz, and Andrew Rohrbach dated April 22, 2021 re: Response to Defense Request for Adjournment Document filed by USA. (Comey, Maurene) (Entered: 04/22/2021)
04/22/2021 236 LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, Lara Pomerantz, and Andrew Rohrbach dated April 22, 2021 re: Response to the Court's April 22, 2021 Order Document filed by USA. (Pomerantz, Lara) (Entered: 04/22/2021)
04/22/2021 237 MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Ghislaine Maxwell on 233 LETTER by Boies Schiller Flexner LLP as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Sigrid McCawley dated 04-22-2021 re: Request to Bring Electronic Devices Document. ENDORSEMENT: Because remote access is available for tomorrow and because no electronic devices may be used in the courtroom or overflow rooms, Dkt. No. 214, to the extent the request is for tomorrow's arraignment, that request is denied. Counsel may renew their application in advance of future proceedings. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 4/22/2021) (lnl) (Entered: 04/23/2021)
04/23/2021 238 SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (jus) (Entered: 04/23/2021)
04/23/2021 239 LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Alison Moe, Maurene Comey, Lara Pomerantz, and Andrew Rohrbach dated April 23, 2021 re: in response to the Court's April 16, 2021 Order. Document filed by USA. (Moe, Alison) (Entered: 04/23/2021)
04/23/2021 240 LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, Lara Pomerantz, and Andrew Rohrbach dated April 23, 2021 re: Proposed Redactions Document filed by USA. (Comey, Maurene) (Entered: 04/23/2021)
04/23/2021 241 MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Ghislaine Maxwell on 240 LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, Lara Pomerantz, and Andrew Rohrbach dated April 23, 2021 re: Proposed Redactions. ENDORSEMENT: The Court grants the Government's redaction requests. Its conclusion 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. The Court concludes that these are judicial documents and that the First Amendment and common law presumptions of access attach. But in balancing competing considerations against the presumption of access, the Court finds that the specific arguments the Government has put forward in this letter, including the need to protect the privacy interests of third parties referenced in the documents, favor the narrowly tailored redactions. See United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1050 (2d Cir. 1995). The Defendant and Boies Schiller are hereby ORDERED to docket the respective documents with the Government's
https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?211087015221896-L_1_0-1 36/113
DOJ-OGR-00020658
DOJ-OGR-00020658
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document