101.pdf

Type: pdf
Source set: house-oversight-doj
Pages: 2
Text status: Searchable text available
OCR confidence: 0.9340272595356551

Extracted text

Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 101 Filed 12/23/20 Page 1 of 2 USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #; UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DATE FILED: | SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK United States of America, _y_ 20-CR-330 (AJN) Ghislaine Maxwell, ORDER Defendant. ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: On December 18, 2020, the Defendant filed her reply to the Government’s opposition to her renewed application for bail. In accordance with this Court’s December 7, 2020 Order, see Dkt. No. 89, she filed these materials under seal and proposed narrowly tailored redactions on those materials. The Government did not file any opposition to the Defendant’s proposed redactions. The Court will adopt the Defendant’s proposed redactions after applying 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;” (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.’” /d. at 120 (quoting United States v. Amodeo (“Amodeo IT’), 71 F.3d 1044, 1050 (2d Cir. 1995)). The proposed redactions satisfy this test. The Court finds that the Defendant’s submissions are “relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process,” thereby qualifying as a “judicial document” for purposes of the first element of the DOJ-OGR- 00002204

Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 101 Filed 12/23/20 Page 2 of 2 Lugosch test. United States v. Amodeo (“Amodeo I’), 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995). And the Court also finds that the common law presumption of access attaches. /d. at 146; see also Nixon v. Warner Commce’ns,…

Open in the interactive archive →