DOJ-OGR-00019725.jpg

Case 21-58, Document 3-2, 01/12/2021, 3011691, Page10 of 20

(Entered: 07/27/2020)

07/27/2020 | 32 | MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Ghislaine Maxwell on 31 LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Alison Moe dated July 27, 2020 re: requesting until 5 p.m. tomorrow to respond to defense counsel's letter, filed July 27, 2020. ENDORSEMENT: The Government's response to the Defense's letter is due by 5 p.m. on July 28, 2020. The Defense may file a reply by 5 p.m. on July 29, 2020. Before the Government's response is filed, the parties must meet and confer by phone regarding this issue, and any response from the Government must contain an affirmation that the parties have done so. SO ORDERED. (Responses due by 7/28/2020. Replies due by 7/29/2020.) (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 7/27/2020) (lnl) (Entered: 07/27/2020)

07/28/2020 | 33 | LETTER RESPONSE to Motion by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Alex Rossmiller dated July 28, 2020 re: 29 LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated July 27, 2020 re: Proposed Protective Order .. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (proposed protective order)) (Rossmiller, Alex) (Entered: 07/28/2020)

07/28/2020 | 34 | AFFIDAVIT of Alex Rossmiller by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell. (Rossmiller, Alex) (Entered: 07/28/2020)

07/29/2020 | 35 | LETTER REPLY TO RESPONSE to Motion by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated July 29, 2020 re 29 LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated July 27, 2020 re: Proposed Protective Order .. (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 07/29/2020)

07/30/2020 | 36 | PROTECTIVE ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell...regarding procedures to be followed that shall govern the handling of confidential material. SO ORDERED: (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 7/30/2020)(bw) (Entered: 07/31/2020)

07/30/2020 | 37 | MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. Both parties have asked for the Court to enter a protective order. While they agree on most of the language, two areas of dispute have emerged. First, Ms. Maxwell seeks language allowing her to publicly reference alleged victims or witnesses who have spoken on the public record to the media or in public fora, or in litigation relating to Ms. Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein. Second, Ms. Maxwell seeks language restricting potential Government witnesses and their counsel from using discovery materials for any purpose other than preparing for the criminal trial in this action. The Government has proposed contrary language on both of these issues. For the following reasons, the Court adopts the Government's proposed protective order Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(d)(1), "[a]t any time the court may, for good cause, deny, restrict, or defer discovery or inspection, or grant other appropriate relief." The good cause standard "requires courts to balance several interests, including whether dissemination of the discovery materials inflicts hazard to others... whether the imposition of the protective order would prejudice the defendant," and "the public's interest in the information." United States v. Smith, 985 F. Supp. 2d 506, 522 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). The party seeking to restrict disclosure bears the burden of showing good cause. Cf. Gambale v. Deutsche Bank AG, 377 F.3d 133, 142 (2d Cir. 2004). First, the Court finds that the Government has met its burden of showing good cause with regard to restricting the ability of Ms. Maxwell to publicly reference alleged victims and witnesses other than those who have publicly identified themselves in this litigation. As a general matter, it is undisputed that there is a strong and specific interest in protecting the privacy of alleged victims and witnesses in this case that supports restricting the disclosure of their identities. Dkt. No. 29 at 3 (acknowledging that as a baseline the protective order should "prohibit[] Ms. Maxwell, defense counsel, and others on the defense team from disclosing or disseminating the identity of any alleged victim or potential witness referenced in the discovery materials"); see also United States v. Corley, No. 13-cr-48, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 194426, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2016). The Defense argues this interest is significantly diminished for individuals who have spoken on the public record about Ms. Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein, because they have voluntarily chosen to identify themselves. But not all accusations or public statements are equal. Deciding to participate in or contribute to a criminal investigation or prosecution is a far different matter than simply making a public statement "relating to" Ms. Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein, particularly since such a statement might have occurred decades ago and have no relevance to the charges in

DOJ-OGR-00019725