081.pdf

Type: pdf
Source set: house-oversight-doj
Pages: 2
Text status: Searchable text available
OCR confidence: 0.9403558402084238

Extracted text

Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 81 Filed 12/03/20 Pageateat2. USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: | UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DATE FILED: 12/3/20 _ SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK United States of America, _y_ 20-CR-330 (AJN) Ghislaine Maxwell, ORDER Defendant. 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: (1) determine whether the documents in question are “Judicial documents;” (11) assess the weight of the common law presumption of access to the materials; and (i11) balance competing considerations against the presumption of access. /d. 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.’” Jd. at 120 (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1050 (2d Cir. 1995) (“Amodeo IT’)). DOJ-OGR-00001847

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 performance of …

Open in the interactive archive →