Document 3011673

Case 21-58, Document 1-2, 01/12/2021, 3011673, Page10 of 19 this case. These individuals still maintain a significant privacy interest that must be safeguarded. The exception the Defense seeks is too broad and risks undermining the protections of the privacy of witnesses and alleged victims that is required by law. In contrast, the Government's proffered language would allow Ms. Maxwell to publicly reference individuals who have spoken by name on the record in this case. It also allows the Defense to "reference[e] the identities of individuals they believe may be relevant... to Potential Defense Witnesses and their counsel during the course of the investigation and preparation of the defense case at trial." Dkt. No. 33-1, 5. This proposal adequately balances the interests at stake. And as the Government's letter notes, Dkt. 33 at 4, to the extent that the Defense needs an exception to the protective order for a specific investigative purpose, they can make applications to the Court on a case-by-case basis. Second, restrictions on the ability of potential witnesses and their counsel to use discovery materials for purposes other than preparing for trial in this case are unwarranted. The request appears unprecedented despite the fact that there have been many high-profile criminal matters that had related civil litigation. The Government labors under many restrictions including Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Privacy Act of 1974, and other policies of the Department of Justice and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, all of which the Court expects the Government to scrupulously follow. Furthermore, the Government indicates that it will likely only provide potential witnesses with materials that those witnesses already have in their possession. See Dkt. No. 33 at 6. And of course, those witnesses who do testify at trial would be subject to examination on the record as to what materials were provided or shown to them by the Government. Nothing in the Defense's papers explains how its unprecedented proposed restriction is somehow necessary to ensure a fair trial. For the foregoing reasons, the Court adopts the Government's proposed protective order, which will be entered on the docket. This resolves Dkt. No. 29. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 7/30/2020)(bw) (Entered: 07/31/2020) 08/10/2020 38 LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated August 10, 2020 re: Discovery Disclosure and Access . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 08/10/2020) 08/10/2020 39 AFFIDAVIT of Christian R. Everdell by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 08/10/2020) 08/11/2020 40 MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Ghislaine Maxwell on re: 38 LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated August 10, 2020 re: Discovery Disclosure and Access. ENDORSEMENT: The Government is hereby ORDERED to respond to the Defendant's letter motion by Thursday, August 13, 2020. The Defendant's reply, if any, is due on or before Monday, August 17, 2020. (Responses due by 8/13/2020. Replies due by 8/17/2020) (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 8/11/2020) (ap) (Entered: 08/11/2020) 08/13/2020 41 LETTER RESPONSE in Opposition by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Alex Rossmiller dated August 13, 2020 re: 38 LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated August 10, 2020 re: Discovery Disclosure and Access .. (Rossmiller, Alex) (Entered: 08/13/2020) 08/17/2020 42 LETTER REPLY TO RESPONSE to Motion by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated August 17, 2020 re 38 LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated August 10, 2020 re: Discovery Disclosure and Access .. (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 08/17/2020) 08/17/2020 43 LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Jeffrey S. Pagliuca dated August 17, 2020 re: Request for Permission to Submit Letter Motion in Excess of Three Pages . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Pagliuca, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/17/2020) 08/18/2020 44 ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: On August 17, 2020, the Defendant filed a letter motion seeking a modification of this Court's Protective Order, which the Court entered on July 30, 2020. Defendant also moves to file that letter motion under seal. The Governments opposition to Defendant's letter motion is hereby due Friday, August 21 at 12 p.m. The Defendant's reply is due on Monday, August 24 at 12 p.m. The DOJ-OGR-00019703 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 21-58, Document 1-2, 01/12/2021, 3011673, Page14 of 19 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 (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-00019707 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 21-58, Document 1-2, 01/12/2021, 3011673, Page16 of 19 necessary steps to ensure that the Defendant continues to receive adequate access to her legal materials and her ability to communicate with defense counsel. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 12/8/2020) (ap) (Entered: 12/08/2020) 12/10/2020 93 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings as to Ghislaine Maxwell re: Conference held on 7/14/2020 before Judge Alison J. Nathan. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Kristen Carannante, (212) 805-0300, Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 12/31/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 1/11/2021. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 3/10/2021. (McGuirk, Kelly) (Entered: 12/10/2020) 12/10/2020 94 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT as to Ghislaine Maxwell. Notice is hereby given that an official transcript of a Conference proceeding held on 7/14/2020 has been filed by the court reporter/transcriber in the above-captioned matter. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days.... (McGuirk, Kelly) (Entered: 12/10/2020) 12/14/2020 95 ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: On December 8, 2020, Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell filed her renewed application for bail under seal with proposed redactions, in accordance with this Court's December 7, 2020 Order, see Dkt. No. 89. The Government did not file any opposition to the Defendant's proposed redactions. After due consideration, the Court will adopt the Defendant's proposed redactions. The Court's decision to adopt those redactions 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, 1048 (2d Cir.1995) ("Amodeo II")). The proposed redactions satisfy this test. The Court finds that 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 the Court also finds that the common law presumption of access attaches. Id. at 146; see also Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 602 (1978). Nevertheless, in balancing competing considerations against the presumption of access, the Court finds that the redactions are narrowly tailored to properly guard the privacy interests of the individuals referenced in the Defendant's submission and in the corresponding exhibits The Defendant is hereby ORDERED to docket the redacted documents and corresponding exhibits dated 12/14/2020) (ap) (Entered: 12/14/2020) 12/14/2020 96 LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated December 8, 2020 re: Cover Letter for Renewed Bail Application (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 12/14/2020) 12/14/2020 97 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support by Ghislaine Maxwell re: Renewed Motion for Bail. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P, # 17 Exhibit Q, # 18 Exhibit R, # 19 Exhibit S, # 20 Exhibit T, # 21 Exhibit U, # 22 Exhibit V, # 23 Exhibit W, # 24 Exhibit X)(Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 12/14/2020) 12/17/2020 98 NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE Andrew Rohrbach appearing for USA. (Rohrbach, Andrew) (Entered: 12/17/2020) 12/18/2020 99 ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: On December 16, 2020, the Government filed its opposition to Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell's renewed application for bail. In accordance with this Court's December 7, 2020 Order, see Dkt. No. 89, the Government filed its materials under seal and proposed narrowly tailored redactions on DOJ-OGR-00019709 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 21-58, Document 1-2, 01/12/2021, 3011673, Page17 of 19 those materials. The Defendant did not file any opposition to the Government's proposed redactions. The Court will adopt the Government's proposed redactions after applying 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 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 ("Amodeo II"), 71 F.3d 1044, 1050 (2d Cir. 1995)). The proposed redactions satisfy this test. The Court finds that the Governments submissions 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 the Court also finds that the common law presumption of access attaches. Id. at 146; see also Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 602 (1978). Nevertheless, the proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to serve substantial interests, including, most importantly, third parties' personal privacy interests. See Under Seal v. Under Seal, 273 F. Supp. 3d 460, 467 (S.D.N.Y.2017). The Government is hereby ORDERED to docket the redacted documents and corresponding exhibits by no later than December 18, 2 (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 12/18/2020) (ap) (Entered: 12/18/2020) 12/18/2020 100 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell Renewed Bail Motion. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Comey, Maurene) (Entered: 12/18/2020) 12/23/2020 101 ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: On December 18, 2020, the Defendant filed her reply to the Government's opposition to her renewed application for bail. In accordance with this Court's December 7, 2020 Order, see Dkt. No. 89, she filed these materials under seal and proposed narrowly tailored redactions on those materials. The Government did not file any opposition to the Defendant's proposed redactions. The Court will adopt the Defendant's proposed redactions after applying 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 ("Amodeo II"), 71 F.3d 1044, 1050 (2d Cir. 1995)). The proposed redactions satisfy this test. The Court finds that the Defendant's submissions 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 the Court also finds that the common law presumption of access attaches. Id. at 146; see also Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 602 (1978). As with the redactions to her renewed motion for bail, the proposed redactions here are narrowly tailored to serve substantial interests, including, most importantly, third parties personal privacy interests. See Under Seal v. Under Seal, 273 F. Supp. 3d 460, 467 (S.D.N.Y. 2017). See also Dkt. No. 95. The Defendant is hereby ORDERED to docket the redacted documents and corresponding exhibits by no later than December 23, 2020. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 12/23/2020) (lnl) (Entered: 12/23/2020) 12/23/2020 102 LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated December 18, 2020 re: Cover Letter for Reply Memorandum for Renewed Bail Application (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 12/23/2020) 12/23/2020 103 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support by Ghislaine Maxwell re: Renewed Motion for Bail. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 12/23/2020) 12/28/2020 104 ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. On December 8, 2020, Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell filed a renewed motion for releaseon bail. Dkt. No. 97. In an Opinion and Order concurrently filed under temporary seal, the Court DENIES the Defendant's DOJ-OGR-00019710