Epstein Project

EFTA00030910.pdf

Type
pdf
Source set
data-set-8

Original source

Extracted text

Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 81 Filed 12/03/20 Par" 1 rtf 9 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 
United States of America, 
—v—
Ghislaine Maxwell, 
Defendant. 
USDC SONY 
DOCUMENT 
ELECTRONICALLY FILED 
DOC  
DATE FILED: 12/3/20 
20-CR-330 (MN) 
ORDER 
ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: 
On November 25, 2020, counsel for Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell filed a letter request 
seeking an in camera conference for the presentation of a renewed motion for release on bail and 
a request to seal the November 25, 2020 letter in its entirety. The Court required justification for 
the sealing request. On November 30, 2020, the defense counsel filed a second letter no longer 
fully pressing the unsupported request to file the letter entirely under seal and instead proposing 
redactions to both the November 25th and November 30th letters. The Government has 
indicated that it does not oppose the redactions. Dkt. No. 80. 
After due consideration, the Court will adopt the Defendant's proposed redactions, which 
are consented to by the Government. The Court's decision 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 
enforcement or judicial efficiency' and `the privacy interests of those resisting disclosure.' Id. 
at 120 (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1050 (2d Cir. 1995) ("Anrodeo II")). 
EFTA00030910


Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 81 Filed 12/03/20 Page 2 of 2 
The proposed redactions satisfy this test. First, the Court finds that the Defendant's letter 
motions are "relevant to the …

Open in the interactive archive →