168.pdf

Type

pdf

Source set

house-oversight-doj

Pages

5

Text status

Searchable text available

OCR confidence

0.9373892213204938

Original source

Extracted text

Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 168 Filed 03/18/21 Page1of5 USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED || UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOC #: SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DATE FILED:__ 9/18/21     United States of America, _y_ 20-CR-330 (AJN) Ghislaine Maxwell, ORDER Defendant.   ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: On February 26, 2021, the Government filed its omnibus memorandum of law opposing Defendants’ twelve pre-trial motions. It filed the brief, along with the corresponding exhibits, under temporary seal pending the Court’s resolution of its request to redact sensitive or confidential information. See Dkt. No. 162. On March 9, 2021, the Defendant objected to certain of the redactions that the Government had proposed, and she proposed additional redactions. Having considered the parties’ respective positions, the Court will grant the Government’s requests for redactions and sealing, as well as the Defendant’s additional redaction requests, with the exceptions discussed below. To begin with, the Court’s reasoning 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;” (ii) assess the weight of the common law presumption of access to the materials; and (ii1) 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- 00002762 

Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 168 Filed 03/18/21 Page 2of5 The proposed redactions mostly satisfy this test. First, the Government’s brief in opposition to the Defendant’s pre-trial motions is a “judicial document” for purposes of the first element o…

Open in the interactive archive →