Amodeo
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1995-01-01 | Legal case | United States v. Amodeo, 44 F.3d 141 (2d Cir. 1995) | 2d Cir. | View |
DOJ-OGR-00001864.jpg
This legal document, dated November 25, 2020, is a letter to Judge Alison J. Nathan arguing for the sealing of information related to Ms. Maxwell's bail application. The author contends that the privacy of Ms. Maxwell's sureties (co-signers) and other third parties outweighs the public's right to access, citing fears of harassment and legal precedent from cases like U.S. v. Amodeo and U.S. v. Nejad. The filing requests an in-camera conference to discuss the redaction of the sureties' names and other confidential materials.
DOJ-OGR-00001768.jpg
This legal document is a letter dated August 24, 2020, from Jeffrey S. Pagliuca to Judge Alison J. Nathan. Pagliuca argues on behalf of his client, Ms. Maxwell, for a limited request to present sealed materials to other judicial officers, asserting that the materials are judicial documents and that disclosure would not compromise grand jury secrecy. The letter contends that the government has failed to provide a sufficient reason to prevent this limited disclosure.
DOJ-OGR-00001735.jpg
The Government argues against a criminal defendant's request to use criminal discovery materials in civil cases, citing a lack of precedent and the need to maintain grand jury secrecy. The document references several cases to support the separation of criminal and civil proceedings and refutes the defendant's claims of impropriety regarding how the Government obtained materials.
DOJ-OGR-00000762.jpg
This legal document is a letter from the U.S. Government to Judges Berman and Engelmayer, filed on August 5, 2025. The Government responds to a court order demanding information about the potential unsealing of grand jury materials from the Epstein and Maxwell cases. The Government acknowledges the public's strong right of access to trial exhibits, noting that exhibits from the Maxwell trial were already made public, but requests an extension until August 8, 2025, to provide its final position on unsealing the grand jury exhibits.
DOJ-OGR-00020568.jpg
This legal document is a court docket summary from July 2022, detailing filings and orders from February 2022 in the case of Ghislaine Maxwell. The entries, primarily orders from Judge Alison J. Nathan, concern procedural matters like redactions and amicus briefs. The most significant action is the Court's order for an evidentiary hearing to investigate whether 'Juror 50' failed to truthfully disclose a history of sexual abuse during jury selection, a matter which could impact the validity of the trial's verdict.
DOJ-OGR-00020467.jpg
This document is a court docket summary from February 2022 for the case of Ghislaine Maxwell, presided over by Judge Alison J. Nathan. It details several procedural orders regarding motions for a new trial, redactions to protect juror privacy, and the filing of an amicus brief. The most significant entry is an order granting an evidentiary hearing to investigate whether Juror 50 failed to truthfully disclose a history of sexual abuse during jury selection, while denying a broader hearing involving other jurors.
DOJ-OGR-00002205.jpg
This is a court order from United States District Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated December 23, 2020. The order directs the defendant to file redacted documents and exhibits by the end of that day, citing legal precedents that balance the presumption of public access with the need to protect third-party privacy interests.
DOJ-OGR-00002204.jpg
This is a court order issued by District Judge Alison J. Nathan on December 23, 2020, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The order grants the Defendant's request to file certain materials related to her bail application with redactions, as the Government did not oppose them. The Court found that the proposed redactions satisfy the legal test for balancing the public's right to access against privacy interests and judicial efficiency.
DOJ-OGR-00001971.jpg
This document is a court order dated December 14, 2020, issued by United States District Judge Alison J. Nathan. The order directs the Defendant to docket redacted documents and exhibits, affirming that the redactions are appropriately tailored to protect individual privacy interests. The Court's decision is based on balancing competing considerations against the common law presumption of access, citing legal precedents like *United States v. Amodeo* and *Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc.*.
DOJ-OGR-00019579.jpg
This legal document is a letter dated August 24, 2020, from Jeffrey S. Pagliuca to The Honorable Alison J. Nathan. The letter argues that his client, Ms. Maxwell, has demonstrated good cause to present a discrete set of sealed materials to judicial officers, countering that any argument of compromising grand jury secrecy is 'absurd'. Pagliuca asserts that the government has failed to provide a valid reason for withholding this information from other judicial officers.
DOJ-OGR-00019552.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan, arguing against a criminal defendant's request to use discovery materials in a civil case. The Government contends there is no precedent for such use and defends the secrecy of grand jury investigations and subpoenas against the defendant's accusations of impropriety. It cites several cases to support maintaining protective orders and separating criminal and civil proceedings.
DOJ-OGR-00009166.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a court filing arguing against a defendant's motion. The defendant seeks to strike a motion to intervene filed by 'Juror 50', claiming it is inappropriate and not a 'judicial document' deserving public access. The author of this filing refutes these claims, arguing that the defendant's cited legal precedents are inapplicable and that Juror 50's motion is relevant to the judicial process and should not be struck.
DOJ-OGR-00009062.jpg
This legal document is a filing on behalf of Ms. Maxwell arguing that the court should strike all filings made by 'Juror No. 50.' The argument posits that the juror, as a non-party, lacks standing and that the filings are an improper attempt at discovery, not 'judicial documents' entitled to public access. Alternatively, it requests that the juror's filings remain sealed pending the outcome of Ms. Maxwell's motion for a new trial, which is based on the same juror's alleged dishonesty during jury selection.
DOJ-OGR-00008999.jpg
This document is page 3 of a legal memorandum dated January 13, 2022, addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan. The author argues that pleadings filed by 'Juror 50' do not meet the legal standard for 'judicial documents' and therefore should not be subject to public access. The argument relies on precedent from Second Circuit cases, including United States v. Amodeo and Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, and notes that Ms. Maxwell intends to move to strike the pleadings, which would further support their exclusion from public view.
DOJ-OGR-00008914.jpg
This legal document is a court order from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on February 11, 2022. The Court denies two separate requests: first, it denies Juror 50's motion to intervene in the criminal case, and second, it denies the Defendant's requests to either strike or seal Juror 50's motion. The Court's reasoning relies on legal precedent, stating that motions to strike are disfavored and that Juror 50's motion qualifies as a judicial document subject to the presumption of public access.
DOJ-OGR-00008910.jpg
This legal document, dated February 11, 2022, is a court ruling from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The Court denies Juror 50's motion to intervene and also denies the Defendant's request to seal that motion, citing the public's right to access judicial documents. The document then details the Court's analysis of a separate request from the Defendant to temporarily seal documents related to a motion for a new trial, outlining the three-part legal test from the Second Circuit used to evaluate such requests.
DOJ-OGR-00019733.jpg
This document is a docket summary from a legal case involving defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, dated January 12, 2021. It details a series of court filings and orders from December 2020 concerning Maxwell's renewed motion for bail and the redaction of related documents. The court applies a three-part test from the Second Circuit case *Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga* to approve proposed redactions from both the defense and the government, ultimately culminating in a December 28, 2020 order denying Maxwell's motion for release on bail.
DOJ-OGR-00010755.jpg
This legal document argues against a defendant's request to seal a motion for a new trial, which was based on a juror's alleged failure to properly answer a questionnaire. The author asserts the public's common law right of access to judicial documents, citing legal precedents like 'Amodeo' and 'Lugosch' to argue that the defendant has not met the high standard for secrecy. The document suggests that limited redactions, rather than a complete seal, would be a more appropriate course of action.
DOJ-OGR-00009697.jpg
This document is page 5 of a Table of Authorities from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on March 11, 2022. It lists numerous legal cases, from 1976 to 2021, that are cited as precedent within the main document. Each entry includes the case name, its legal citation, and the page numbers where it is referenced.
DOJ-OGR-00002764.jpg
This legal document is a court ruling from March 18, 2021, addressing disputes over redactions in the Government's brief for case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. The Court evaluates the Defendant's objections and the Government's requests by balancing third-party privacy interests against the public's right to access, citing precedents like 'United States v. Amodeo'. The Court ultimately justifies some redactions based on privacy concerns while agreeing with the Defendant's objections to others.
DOJ-OGR-00005575.jpg
This legal document is a page from a government filing arguing in favor of a limited sealing request to protect the identities of minor victims. The government asserts that this request is minimally burdensome and legally sound, citing precedents where victim privacy outweighs public access, especially for evidence not yet shared in open court. It directly refutes the defense's claim that the request violates Second Circuit law by distinguishing the cases the defense relies upon.
DOJ-OGR-00002762.jpg
This is a court order issued by Judge Alison J. Nathan in the criminal case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell in the Southern District of New York, filed on March 18, 2021. The order addresses disputes between the Government and the Defendant regarding requests to redact and seal information in pre-trial motions. The Court outlines the three-part legal test from the Second Circuit it will use to rule on these requests, balancing the presumption of public access against factors like judicial efficiency and privacy interests.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity