Document 3065978

Case 21-770, Document 3-2, 03/24/2021, 3065978, Page18 of 25 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 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 21-770, Document 3-2, 03/24/2021, 3065978, Page23 of 25 |02/23/2021|160|THIRD MOTION for Bond . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Sternheim, Bobbi) (Entered: 02/23/2021)| |02/24/2021|161|ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: On February 23, 2021, Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell filed a third motion for release on bail. Dkt. No. 160. The Government's response is due March 9, 2021, and the Defendants reply due March 16, 2021. SO ORDERED. (Responses due by 3/9/2021. Replies due by 3/16/2021.) (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 2/24/2021) (lnl) (Entered: 02/24/2021)| |02/26/2021|162|LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSA Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, Lara Pomerantz, and Andrew Rohrbach dated February 26, 2021 re: Cover Letter for Government Opposition to Defense Pretrial Motions . Document filed by USA. (Comey, Maurene) (Entered: 02/26/2021)| |03/01/2021|163|LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated March 1, 2021 re: Extension of Time to File Reply to Government Opposition to Defense Pretrial Motions . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 03/01/2021)| |03/01/2021|164|MEMO ENDORSEMENT 163 LETTER MOTION To request a 10-day extension of time until Monday, March 15, 2021 to file our reply re: 163 LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated March 1, 2021 re: Extension of Time to File Briefing Schedule...ENDORSEMENT...The Defendant's request is GRANTED. Her reply to the Government's Omnibus Memorandum in Opposition to the Defendants Pretrial Motions is now due on March 15, 2021. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 3/1/21) (jw) (Entered: 03/01/2021)| |03/01/2021||Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings as to Ghislaine Maxwell: Defendant Replies due by 3/15/2021 (jw) (Entered: 03/01/2021)| |03/09/2021|165|LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSA Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, and Lara Pomerantz dated March 9, 2021 re: Opposition to Third Bail Motion Document filed by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Pomerantz, Lara) (Entered: 03/09/2021)| |03/15/2021|166|LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated March 15, 2021 re: Pretrial Motion Replies (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 03/15/2021)| |03/16/2021|167|LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Bobbi C. Sternheim dated 03/16/2021 re: Letter regarding Reply to Bail Motion (Sternheim, Bobbi) (Entered: 03/16/2021)| |03/18/2021|168|ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. On February 26, 2021, the Government filed its omnibus memorandum of law opposing Defendants' twelve pretrial motions. It filed the brief, along with the corresponding exhibits, under temporary seal pending the Court's resolution of its request to redact sensitive or confidential information. See Dkt. No. 162. On March 9, 2021, the Defendant objected to certain of the redactions that the Government had proposed, and she proposed additional redactions. Having considered the parties' respective positions, the Court will grant the Government's requests for redactions and sealing, as well as the Defendant's additional redaction requests, with the exceptions discussed below. Finally, the Court denies the Governments request to file Exhibit 11 entirely under seal. While portions of that transcript have been redacted, other portions are part of the public record. See Giuffre v. Maxwell, Case No. 15-cv-7433, Dkt. No. 1212-1. In light of this, the Court sees no basis to file the transcript entirely under seal rather than by redacting the relevant portions. In light of the above, the Government is hereby ORDERED to either docket on ECF their brief and the corresponding exhibits, consistent with this Order, or to file a letter with the Court justifying more tailored redaction and sealing requests regarding pages 1128 and 187188 and Exhibits 8 and 9 by no later than March 22, 2021. The parties are further ORDERED to meet, confer, and jointly propose redactions to the Defendant's cover letter objecting to the Government's proposed redactions by March 22, 2021. Finally, the parties are ORDERED to meet, confer, and propose redactions to Exhibit 11 of the Government's submission by March 22, 2021 (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 3/18/21)(jw) (Entered: 03/18/2021)| DOJ-OGR-00000899