Case 21-770, Document 3-2, 03/24/2021, 3065978, Page10 of 25
| | | defense counsel's letter, filed July 27, 2020 Document filed by USA. (Moe, Alison) (Entered: 07/27/2020) |
| 07/27/2020 | 32 | MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Ghislaine Maxwell on 31 LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Alison Moe dated July 27, 2020 re: requesting until 5 p.m. tomorrow to respond to defense counsel's letter, filed July 27, 2020. ENDORSEMENT: The Government's response to the Defense's letter is due by 5 p.m. on July 28, 2020. The Defense may file a reply by 5 p.m. on July 29, 2020. Before the Government's response is filed, the parties must meet and confer by phone regarding this issue, and any response from the Government must contain an affirmation that the parties have done so. SO ORDERED. (Responses due by 7/28/2020. Replies due by 7/29/2020) (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 7/27/2020) (lnl) (Entered: 07/27/2020) |
| 07/28/2020 | 33 | LETTER RESPONSE to Motion by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Alex Rossmiller dated July 28, 2020 re: 29 LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated July 27, 2020 re: Proposed Protective Order .. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (proposed protective order)) (Rossmiller, Alex) (Entered: 07/28/2020) |
| 07/28/2020 | 34 | AFFIDAVIT of Alex Rossmiller by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell. (Rossmiller, Alex) (Entered: 07/28/2020) |
| 07/29/2020 | 35 | LETTER REPLY TO RESPONSE to Motion by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated July 29, 2020 re 29 LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated July 27, 2020 re: Proposed Protective Order .. (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 07/29/2020) |
| 07/30/2020 | 36 | PROTECTIVE ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell...regarding procedures to be followed that shall govern the handling of confidential material. SO ORDERED: (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 7/30/2020)(bw) (Entered: 07/31/2020) |
| 07/30/2020 | 37 | MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. Both parties have asked for the Court to enter a protective order. While they agree on most of the language, two areas of dispute have emerged. First, Ms. Maxwell seeks language allowing her to publicly reference alleged victims or witnesses who have spoken on the public record to the media or in public fora, or in litigation relating to Ms. Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein. Second, Ms. Maxwell seeks language restricting potential Government witnesses and their counsel from using discovery materials for any purpose other than preparing for the criminal trial in this action. The Government has proposed contrary language on both of these issues. For the following reasons, the Court adopts the Government's proposed protective order Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(d)(1), "[a]t any time the court may, for good cause, deny, restrict, or defer discovery or inspection, or grant other appropriate relief." The good cause standard "requires courts to balance several interests, including whether dissemination of the discovery materials inflicts hazard to others... whether the imposition of the protective order would prejudice the defendant," and "the public's interest in the information." United States v. Smith, 985 F. Supp. 2d 506, 522 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). The party seeking to restrict disclosure bears the burden of showing good cause. Cf. Gambale v. Deutsche Bank AG, 377 F.3d 133, 142 (2d Cir. 2004). First, the Court finds that the Government has met its burden of showing good cause with regard to restricting the ability of Ms. Maxwell to publicly reference alleged victims and witnesses other than those who have publicly identified themselves in this litigation. As a general matter, it is undisputed that there is a strong and specific interest in protecting the privacy of alleged victims and witnesses in this case that supports restricting the disclosure of their identities. Dkt. No. 29 at 3 (acknowledging that as a baseline the protective order should "prohibit[] Ms. Maxwell, defense counsel, and others on the defense team from disclosing or disseminating the identity of any alleged victim or potential witness referenced in the discovery materials"); see also United States v. Corley, No. 13-cr-48, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 194426, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2016). The Defense argues this interest is significantly diminished for individuals who have spoken on the public record about Ms. Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein, because they have voluntarily chosen to identify themselves. But not all accusations or public statements are equal. Deciding to participate in or contribute to a criminal investigation or prosecution is a far different matter than simply making a public statement "relating to" Ms. Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein, particularly since such a
DOJ-OGR-00000886
Full Text
Case 21-770, Document 3-2, 03/24/2021, 3065978, Page10 of 25
| | | defense counsel's letter, filed July 27, 2020 Document filed by USA. (Moe, Alison) (Entered: 07/27/2020) |
| 07/27/2020 | 32 | MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Ghislaine Maxwell on 31 LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Alison Moe dated July 27, 2020 re: requesting until 5 p.m. tomorrow to respond to defense counsel's letter, filed July 27, 2020. ENDORSEMENT: The Government's response to the Defense's letter is due by 5 p.m. on July 28, 2020. The Defense may file a reply by 5 p.m. on July 29, 2020. Before the Government's response is filed, the parties must meet and confer by phone regarding this issue, and any response from the Government must contain an affirmation that the parties have done so. SO ORDERED. (Responses due by 7/28/2020. Replies due by 7/29/2020) (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 7/27/2020) (lnl) (Entered: 07/27/2020) |
| 07/28/2020 | 33 | LETTER RESPONSE to Motion by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Alex Rossmiller dated July 28, 2020 re: 29 LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated July 27, 2020 re: Proposed Protective Order .. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (proposed protective order)) (Rossmiller, Alex) (Entered: 07/28/2020) |
| 07/28/2020 | 34 | AFFIDAVIT of Alex Rossmiller by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell. (Rossmiller, Alex) (Entered: 07/28/2020) |
| 07/29/2020 | 35 | LETTER REPLY TO RESPONSE to Motion by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated July 29, 2020 re 29 LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated July 27, 2020 re: Proposed Protective Order .. (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 07/29/2020) |
| 07/30/2020 | 36 | PROTECTIVE ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell...regarding procedures to be followed that shall govern the handling of confidential material. SO ORDERED: (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 7/30/2020)(bw) (Entered: 07/31/2020) |
| 07/30/2020 | 37 | MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. Both parties have asked for the Court to enter a protective order. While they agree on most of the language, two areas of dispute have emerged. First, Ms. Maxwell seeks language allowing her to publicly reference alleged victims or witnesses who have spoken on the public record to the media or in public fora, or in litigation relating to Ms. Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein. Second, Ms. Maxwell seeks language restricting potential Government witnesses and their counsel from using discovery materials for any purpose other than preparing for the criminal trial in this action. The Government has proposed contrary language on both of these issues. For the following reasons, the Court adopts the Government's proposed protective order Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(d)(1), "[a]t any time the court may, for good cause, deny, restrict, or defer discovery or inspection, or grant other appropriate relief." The good cause standard "requires courts to balance several interests, including whether dissemination of the discovery materials inflicts hazard to others... whether the imposition of the protective order would prejudice the defendant," and "the public's interest in the information." United States v. Smith, 985 F. Supp. 2d 506, 522 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). The party seeking to restrict disclosure bears the burden of showing good cause. Cf. Gambale v. Deutsche Bank AG, 377 F.3d 133, 142 (2d Cir. 2004). First, the Court finds that the Government has met its burden of showing good cause with regard to restricting the ability of Ms. Maxwell to publicly reference alleged victims and witnesses other than those who have publicly identified themselves in this litigation. As a general matter, it is undisputed that there is a strong and specific interest in protecting the privacy of alleged victims and witnesses in this case that supports restricting the disclosure of their identities. Dkt. No. 29 at 3 (acknowledging that as a baseline the protective order should "prohibit[] Ms. Maxwell, defense counsel, and others on the defense team from disclosing or disseminating the identity of any alleged victim or potential witness referenced in the discovery materials"); see also United States v. Corley, No. 13-cr-48, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 194426, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2016). The Defense argues this interest is significantly diminished for individuals who have spoken on the public record about Ms. Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein, because they have voluntarily chosen to identify themselves. But not all accusations or public statements are equal. Deciding to participate in or contribute to a criminal investigation or prosecution is a far different matter than simply making a public statement "relating to" Ms. Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein, particularly since such a
DOJ-OGR-00000886
--- PAGE BREAK ---
Case 21-770, Document 3-2, 03/24/2021, 3065978, Page15 of 25
temporarily sealed while the Court resolves the redaction request. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 12/1/2020)(bw) (Entered: 12/01/2020)
12/01/2020 78 LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, and Lara Pomerantz dated December 1, 2020 re: Joint Letter regarding Conditions of Confinement Document filed by USA. (Pomerantz, Lara) (Entered: 12/01/2020)
12/02/2020 79 MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Ghislaine Maxwell on re: 78 LETTER by USA addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, and Lara Pomerantz dated December 1, 2020 re: Joint Letter regarding Conditions of Confinement. ENDORSEMENT: MDC legal counsel shall submit their letter to the Court by December 4, 2020. Upon review of that letter, the Court will determine whether any additional information is required, either orally or in writing. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 12/2/2020)(bw) (Entered: 12/02/2020)
12/02/2020 80 LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, and Lara Pomerantz dated December 2, 2020 re: Defense Requests for Sealing Document filed by USA. (Comey, Maurene) (Entered: 12/02/2020)
12/03/2020 81 ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. 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 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: (i) determine whether the documents in question are "judicial documents;" (ii) assess the weight of the common law presumption of access to the materials; and (iii) balance competing considerations against the presumption of access. Id. at 11920. "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.'" Id. at 120 (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1050 (2d Cir. 1995) ("Amodeo II")). The proposed redactions satisfy this test. First, the Court finds that the Defendant's letter motions 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 Lugosch test. United States v. Amodeo ("Amodeo I"), 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995). And while the Court assumes that the common law presumption of access attaches, in balancing competing considerations against the presumption of access, the Court finds that the arguments the Defendant has put forth—including, most notably, the privacy interests of the individuals referenced in the letters—favor her proposed and tailored redactions. The Defendant is hereby ORDERED to docket the redacted versions of the two letters by December 4, 2020. For the reasons outlined in the Government's letter dated December 2, 2020, Dkt. No. 80, the Court DENIES the Defendant's request for an in camera conference. In order to protect the privacy interests referenced in the Defendant's November 25, 2020 letter, the Court will permit the Defendant to make her submission in writing and to propose narrowly tailored redactions. The parties are hereby ORDERED to meet and confer and to jointly prepare a briefing schedule for the Defendant's forthcoming renewed motion for release on bail. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 12/3/2020)(bw) (Entered: 12/03/2020)
12/03/2020 82 SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (jus) (Entered: 12/03/2020)
12/03/2020 83 SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (jus) (Entered: 12/03/2020)
12/03/2020 84 SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (jus) (Entered: 12/03/2020)
DOJ-OGR-00000891
Individual Pages
Page 10 - DOJ-OGR-00000886
Page 15 - DOJ-OGR-00000891
Case 21-770, Document 3-2, 03/24/2021, 3065978, Page15 of 25
temporarily sealed while the Court resolves the redaction request. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 12/1/2020)(bw) (Entered: 12/01/2020)
12/01/2020 78 LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, and Lara Pomerantz dated December 1, 2020 re: Joint Letter regarding Conditions of Confinement Document filed by USA. (Pomerantz, Lara) (Entered: 12/01/2020)
12/02/2020 79 MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Ghislaine Maxwell on re: 78 LETTER by USA addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, and Lara Pomerantz dated December 1, 2020 re: Joint Letter regarding Conditions of Confinement. ENDORSEMENT: MDC legal counsel shall submit their letter to the Court by December 4, 2020. Upon review of that letter, the Court will determine whether any additional information is required, either orally or in writing. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 12/2/2020)(bw) (Entered: 12/02/2020)
12/02/2020 80 LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, and Lara Pomerantz dated December 2, 2020 re: Defense Requests for Sealing Document filed by USA. (Comey, Maurene) (Entered: 12/02/2020)
12/03/2020 81 ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. 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 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: (i) determine whether the documents in question are "judicial documents;" (ii) assess the weight of the common law presumption of access to the materials; and (iii) balance competing considerations against the presumption of access. Id. at 11920. "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.'" Id. at 120 (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1050 (2d Cir. 1995) ("Amodeo II")). The proposed redactions satisfy this test. First, the Court finds that the Defendant's letter motions 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 Lugosch test. United States v. Amodeo ("Amodeo I"), 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995). And while the Court assumes that the common law presumption of access attaches, in balancing competing considerations against the presumption of access, the Court finds that the arguments the Defendant has put forth—including, most notably, the privacy interests of the individuals referenced in the letters—favor her proposed and tailored redactions. The Defendant is hereby ORDERED to docket the redacted versions of the two letters by December 4, 2020. For the reasons outlined in the Government's letter dated December 2, 2020, Dkt. No. 80, the Court DENIES the Defendant's request for an in camera conference. In order to protect the privacy interests referenced in the Defendant's November 25, 2020 letter, the Court will permit the Defendant to make her submission in writing and to propose narrowly tailored redactions. The parties are hereby ORDERED to meet and confer and to jointly prepare a briefing schedule for the Defendant's forthcoming renewed motion for release on bail. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 12/3/2020)(bw) (Entered: 12/03/2020)
12/03/2020 82 SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (jus) (Entered: 12/03/2020)
12/03/2020 83 SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (jus) (Entered: 12/03/2020)
12/03/2020 84 SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (jus) (Entered: 12/03/2020)
DOJ-OGR-00000891