415.pdf
- Type
- pdf
- Source set
- house-oversight-doj
- Pages
- 3
- Text status
- Searchable text available
- OCR confidence
- 0.9369967632881395
Original source
Extracted text
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 415 Filed 11/04/21 Pagelof3 U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of New York The Silvio J. Mollo Building One Saint Andrew’s Plaza New York, New York 10007 November 4, 2021 BY ECF The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) Dear Judge Nathan: The Government respectfully submits this letter in response to the Court’s Order dated November 3, 2021 (the “Order,” Dkt. No. 413), directing the Government to respond to the defendant’s November 3, 2021 motion for reconsideration regarding the disclosure of juror names (Dkt. No. 407). The Government respectfully submits that the defendant’s motion for reconsideration should be denied. The standard for granting reconsideration “‘is strict, and reconsideration will generally be denied unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked—amatters, in other words, that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court.’” Boyd v. United States, No. 12 Civ. 474 (JSR), 2015 WL 1345809, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 20, 2015) (quoting Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995)); see also §.D.N.Y. Local Criminal Rule 49.1(d). “The major grounds justifying reconsideration are an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” United States v. Sanchez, No. 08 Cr. 789 (RJS), 2020 WL 4742915, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 6, 2020) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). DOJ-OGR-00006172
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 415 Filed 11/04/21 Page2of3 Page 2 The defendant cannot meet this strict standard. On October 27, 2021, after receiving the parties’ proposed joint questionnaire discussing the parties’ respective positions on the issue of juror…
Open in the interactive archive →