289.pdf
- Type
- pdf
- Source set
- house-oversight-doj
- Pages
- 2
- Text status
- Searchable text available
- OCR confidence
- 0.915216338945294
Original source
Extracted text
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 289 Filed 05/21/21 Pagelof2 Uy Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.c Jeffrey S. Pagliuca HA. D DON a OS 150 East 10th Avenue FOREMAN Denver, Colorado 80203 PH 303.831.7364 Fx 303.832.2628 www.hmflaw.com [email protected] May 21, 2021 VIA ECF The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 Re: — Reply to Government Letter dated May 14 Regarding Proposed Redactions to Ms. Maxwell’s May 12, 2021 Letter (DE 283), United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) Dear Judge Nathan, On May 14, 2021, the government requested that Exhibits A and B to Ms. Maxwell’s May 12, 2021 Letter Response to the Government’s Letters dated May 4, and May 6, 2021 regarding F.R. Crim. P. 17(c) subpoena remain sealed. Ms. Maxwell respectfully disagrees, for the following reasons: Exhibit A, a journal entry, was produced to Ms. Maxwell by Accuser-2 in civil discovery. The document production was not subject to any protective order and this exhibit was not produced to Ms. Maxwell by the government. As detailed in Ms. Maxwell’s Response to the Government’s Letters dated May 4, and May 6, 2021 regarding F.R. Crim. P. 17(c) subpoena, Accuser-2 has publicly discussed her journal, generally, and this entry specifically. Exhibit B appears to be a different copy of Exhibit A. The government has offered no reason why either Exhibit should remain sealed. The Exhibits are “judicial documents” presumptively subject to the public access rights under both DOJ-OGR-00004247
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 289 _ Filed 05/21/21 Page 2of2 The Honorable Alison J. Nathan May 21, 2021 Page 2 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-Enter…
Open in the interactive archive →