← Back to home

Document 3065965

AI Analysis

Summary: The document contains court orders and filings related to Ghislaine Maxwell's renewed bail motion, including the court's decision to adopt proposed redactions to certain documents. The court applied the Lugosch test to determine whether the documents were 'judicial documents' and whether the redactions were justified. The court ultimately denied Maxwell's renewed bail motion.
Significance: This document is potentially important as it relates to the bail application of Ghislaine Maxwell and the handling of sensitive information in court documents.
Key Topics: Ghislaine Maxwell's renewed bail motion Redactions to court documents Application of the Lugosch test for judicial documents
Key People:
  • Ghislaine Maxwell - Defendant
  • Alison J. Nathan - Judge
  • Christian R. Everdell - Defense Attorney
  • Maurene Comey - Government Attorney
Document Type
Court Filing
Date
March 24, 2021
Pages
1
Folder
IMAGES007

Full Text

Case 21-58, Document 20-2, 03/24/2021, 3065965, Page17 of 24 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-00019762