← Back to home

Document 289

AI Analysis

Summary: This is a court filing by Ghislaine Maxwell's attorney, Jeffrey S. Pagliuca, responding to the government's request to keep Exhibits A and B to Maxwell's May 12, 2021 letter sealed. Maxwell's team argues that the exhibits are 'judicial documents' subject to public access rights and should be unsealed. The exhibits relate to a journal entry produced by Accuser-2 in civil discovery.
Significance: This document is potentially important because it reveals a dispute between the government and Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team over the sealing of certain exhibits, and it highlights the tension between the need for public access to judicial documents and the government's interest in maintaining secrecy.
Key Topics: Request to unseal Exhibits A and B to Ms. Maxwell's May 12, 2021 Letter Public access rights to judicial documents Ghislaine Maxwell's Sixth Amendment right to a public trial
Key People:
  • Ghislaine Maxwell - Defendant in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell
  • Alison J. Nathan - United States District Judge presiding over the case
  • Jeffrey S. Pagliuca - Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell
  • Accuser-2 - Witness in the case, victim of alleged misconduct by Ghislaine Maxwell
Document Type
Letter
Date
May 21, 2021
Pages
2
Folder
IMAGES002

Full Text

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 289 Filed 05/21/21 Page 1 of 2 Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C Jeffrey S. Pagliuca 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 PH 303.831.7364 Fx 303.832.2628 www.hmflaw.com jpagliuca@hmflaw.com 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 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 289 Filed 05/21/21 Page 2 of 2 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-Enterprise II), 478 U.S. 1, 7 (1986). Respectfully Submitted, Jeffrey S. Pagliuca CC: Counsel of Record (via ECF) DOJ-OGR-00004248

Individual Pages

Page 1 - DOJ-OGR-00004247
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 289 Filed 05/21/21 Page 1 of 2 Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C Jeffrey S. Pagliuca 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 PH 303.831.7364 Fx 303.832.2628 www.hmflaw.com jpagliuca@hmflaw.com 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
Page 2 - DOJ-OGR-00004248
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 289 Filed 05/21/21 Page 2 of 2 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-Enterprise II), 478 U.S. 1, 7 (1986). Respectfully Submitted, Jeffrey S. Pagliuca CC: Counsel of Record (via ECF) DOJ-OGR-00004248