Document 332

Case 1:18-cr-00333-JEB Document 332 Filed 02/06/18 Page 1 of 15 COMPOSITE EXHIBIT A NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT AND ADDENDUM DOJ-OGR-00004648 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 332 Filed 09/01/21 Page 1 of 3 U.S Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of New York The Silvio J. Mollo Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, New York 10007 September 1, 2021 BY ECF The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) Dear Judge Nathan: The Government respectfully submits this letter in response to the Court's Order dated August 23, 2021, which directed the Government to propose and justify any requests for redaction of the Court's temporarily sealed August 13, 2021 Opinion and Order and the underlying motion papers. (Dkt. No. 325). After reviewing the Court's August 13 Opinion and Order, the Government agrees with the defense that no redactions are necessary to that document and accordingly has no objection to the public filing of that document in its entirety. After reviewing the underlying motion papers, the Government respectfully submits that portions of those papers should be redacted. With respect to Ms. Maxwell's Second Ex Parte and In Camera Motion for an Order Authorizing a Subpoena Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(c)(3) (the "Motion"), the Government respectfully submits that limited redactions are appropriate to protect the privacy interests of victims who have not identified themselves on the record in this case and the privacy interests of third parties referenced in the Motion. With respect to Exhibit 1 to the Motion, the Government respectfully submits that the journal entries and photographs contained in Exhibits A, B, and C to Exhibit 1 should be redacted in their entirety to protect the privacy DOJ-OGR-00005024 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 332 Filed 09/01/21 Page 2 of 3 Page 2 interests of the victims who provided those materials to their attorneys, the victims who are depicted in those photographs, the third parties who are referenced in the journal entries, and the third parties who are depicted in those photographs. The Government does not seek any redactions of Exhibit 2 to the Motion. With respect to Exhibits 3 and 4 to the Motion, the Government respectfully submits that limited redactions are appropriate to protect the privacy interests of victims who have not identified themselves on the record in this case and of third parties referenced in the Motion. Simultaneously with the filing of this letter, the Government is submitting to the Court under seal its proposed redactions to the Motion, Exhibit 1, Exhibit 3, and Exhibit 4. The Government's proposed redactions are consistent with the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Although the Motion and Exhibits are judicial documents subject to the common law presumption of access, the proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to protect the privacy interests of victims—including two victims who have not identified themselves on the record in this case and who have not publicly identified themselves as victims referenced in the Indictment in this case—and third parties referenced in the documents. The Court has accepted other filings under seal or in redacted form in this case to protect such privacy interests. (See, e.g., Dkt. No. 168, 232, 284, 290). The Government notes that it does not seek to redact the names and identifying information of individuals who have previously been mentioned by name without redaction in public filings in this case. Rather, the Government only seeks to redact the names and identifying information of victims and third parties who have not previously been referenced in public filings in this case. Similarly, the Government seeks to redact photographs and documents that have not previously been filed publicly in this case and which constitute the personal property of victims and third DOJ-OGR-00005025 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 332 Filed 09/01/21 Page 3 of 3 Page 3 parties. Accordingly, the Government respectfully requests that the Court direct the defense to file the Motion and Exhibits 1, 3, and 4 thereto with the Government's proposed narrowly tailored redactions. Respectfully submitted, AUDREY STRAUSS United States Attorney By: s/ Maurene Comey Alison Moe Lara Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York Cc: Defense counsel (By ECF) DOJ-OGR-00005026 --- PAGE BREAK --- U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of New York The Silvio J. Mollo Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, New York 10007 July 28, 2020 VIA ECF The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) Dear Judge Nathan: The Government respectfully submits this letter with respect to the protective order to be entered in the above-captioned case, and to respond to the defendant's letter and submission of July 27, 2020 (the "Defendant Letter" or "Def. Ltr.") (Dkt. 29). The Government and defense counsel have conferred regarding a protective order several times via telephone and email between July 9, 2020, and today, including as recently as this morning. The Government and defense counsel have come to an agreement on much of the proposed protective order. However, the parties disagree as to two inclusions sought by the defendant which the Government objects to and for which, as detailed herein, the Government submits there is no legal basis. Accordingly, the Government respectfully requests that the Court enter its proposed protective order (the "Government Proposed Order"), which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, and which differs from the defendant's proposed order in those two respects, as further described below. A. The Defendant's Request to be Permitted to Publicly Name and Identify Victims As detailed herein, the Government seeks to protect the identities of victims, consistent with their significant privacy interests and the well-established law in this Circuit, and proposes a protective order consistent with those very significant interests. In contrast, the defendant insists that the protective order be modified such that she and her counsel would be permitted to "publicly reference[e]" individuals, by name, who have "spoken on the public record to the media or in public fora, or in litigation - criminal or otherwise - relating to Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell."1 1 Specifically, the defendant's proposed protective order differs from the Government's in that it adds a sentence, in its paragraph 6 (which is paragraph 5 of the Government Proposed Order), stating the following: "Nor does this Order prohibit Defense Counsel from publicly referencing individuals who have spoken on the record to the media or in public fora, or in litigation - criminal or otherwise - relating to Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell." The defendant also either adds or otherwise - relating to Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell." App.056