Epstein Project

EFTA00029844.pdf

Type
pdf
Source set
data-set-8

Original source

Extracted text

H A D D O N 
MORGAN 
FOREMAN 
March 9, 2021 
The Hon. Alison J. Nathan 
United States District Court Judge 
Southern District of New York 
500 Pearl Street 
New York, NY 10007 
Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, r c 
Laura A. Menninger 
ISO East 10th Avenue 
Denver, Colorado 80203 
PH 303.831.7364 EX 303.832.2628 
www.hmflaw.com 
[email protected] 
Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (MN) 
Objection to Proposed Redactions of Government's Omnibus Response & 
Exhibit 5 
Dear Judge Nathan: 
On behalf of defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, we respectfully oppose certain of the redactions 
proposed by the government to their Omnibus Memorandum in Opposition to the Defendant's 
Pre-Trial Motions ("Response"), submitted to the Court on February 26, 2021. 
Specifically, we oppose the redactions proposed by the government contained on pages 1-128 
and 187-88 of the Response as well as certain of the redactions in Exhibit 5. We believe 
additional redactions are appropriate to pages 129-134 of the Response. We hereby attach our 
proposed redactions to pages 129-134, 187-88 and Exhibit 5. 
The Response and its Exhibits are clearly "judicial documents" presumptively subject to the 
public access rights under both the common law and First Amendment. Lugosch v. Pyramid 
Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119 (2d Cir. 2006); Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 49 (2d 
Cir. 2019). Ms. Maxwell also specifically asserts her right to an open and public trial 
pursuant to the Sixth Amendment. Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court (Press-Enterprise 
II), 478 U.S. 1, 7 (1986). 
Objections to Redactions Proposed on Pages 1-128 
The government's proposed redactions on pages 1-128 all relate to materially inaccurate 
statements made by a prosecutor for the government to Chief Judge McMahon. They also 
relate to a sealed proceeding in which the government circumvented decades-old precedent in 
this Circuit which held that civil litigation materials subject to a protective order cannot be 
obtai…

Open in the interactive archive →