← Back to home

Document 95

AI Analysis

Summary: The court order, issued by Judge Alison J. Nathan, adopts Ghislaine Maxwell's proposed redactions to her bail application, finding them narrowly tailored to protect privacy interests. The court applied the three-part test from Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga to determine the appropriateness of the redactions. The defendant is ordered to docket the redacted documents.
Significance: This document is significant because it reveals the court's decision to adopt Ghislaine Maxwell's proposed redactions to her bail application, balancing the presumption of access against privacy interests.
Key Topics: Ghislaine Maxwell's bail application Redactions to court documents Presumption of access to judicial documents
Key People:
  • Ghislaine Maxwell - Defendant
  • Alison J. Nathan - United States District Judge

Full Text

Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 95 Filed 12/14/20 Page 1 of 2 USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: DATE FILED: 12/14/20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK United States of America, -v- Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. 20-CR-330 (AJN) ORDER ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: 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 119–20. "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. 1 DOJ-OGR-00001970 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 20-3061, Document 95, 10/08/2020, 2948488, Page1 of 5 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse 40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007 Telephone: 212-857-8500 MOTION INFORMATION STATEMENT Docket Number(s): 20-3061 Caption [use short title] United States v. Maxwell Motion for: Leave to File Unredacted Reply Brief Under Seal Set forth below precise, complete statement of relief sought: Seeking leave to file under seal Ms. Maxwell's reply brief. The brief references materials currently under seal and/or shielded by the criminal protective order. MOVING PARTY: Ghislaine Maxwell OPPOSING PARTY: United States of America MOVING ATTORNEY: Adam Mueller OPPOSING ATTORNEY: Lara Pomerantz Haddon, Morgan & Foreman, P.C. Assistant U.S. Attorney, SDNY 150 E. 10th Ave., Denver, CO 80203 1 St. Andrew's Plaza, New York, NY 10007 303-831-7364 amueller@hmflaw.com 212-637-2324 Lara.Pomerantz@usdoj.gov Court-Judge/Agency appealed from: Judge Nathan, S.D.N.Y. Please check appropriate boxes: Has movant notified opposing counsel (required by Local Rule 27.1): Yes No (explain): Opposing counsel's position on motion: Unopposed Opposed Don't Know Does opposing counsel intend to file a response: Yes No Don't Know FOR EMERGENCY MOTIONS, MOTIONS FOR STAYS AND INJUNCTIONS PENDING APPEAL: Has request for relief been made below? Yes No Has this relief been previously sought in this Court? Yes No Requested return date and explanation of emergency: Is oral argument on motion requested? Yes No (requests for oral argument will not necessarily be granted) Has argument date of appeal been set? Yes No If yes, enter date: Signature of Moving Attorney: s/ Adam Mueller Date: 10/08/2020 Service by: CM/ECF Other [Attach proof of service] Form T-1080 (rev. 12-13) DOJ-OGR-00019670 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 95, 02/22/2024, 3611275, Page1 of 1 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE FOR SUBSTITUTE, ADDITIONAL, OR AMICUS COUNSEL Short Title: United States v. Maxwell Docket No.: 22-1426 Substitute, Additional, or Amicus Counsel's Contact Information is as follows: Name: Andrew Rohrbach Firm: United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York Address: 26 Federal Plaza, 37th Floor, New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 637-1944 Fax: E-mail: Andrew.Rohrbach@usdoj.gov Appearance for: United States of America/Appellee Select One: Substitute counsel (replacing lead counsel: ____________________ ) (name/firm) Substitute counsel (replacing other counsel: ____________________ ) (name/firm) Additional counsel (co-counsel with: Danielle Sassoon/U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York ) (name/firm) Amicus (in support of : ____________________ ) (party/designation) CERTIFICATION I certify that: I am admitted to practice in this Court and, if required by Interim Local Rule 46.1(a)(2), have renewed my admission on 12/03/2019 OR I applied for admission on ____________________ . Signature of Counsel: /s/ Andrew Rohrbach Type or Print Name: Andrew Rohrbach DOJ-OGR-00021781 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 95 Filed 12/14/20 Page 2 of 2 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. SO ORDERED. Dated: December 14, 2020 New York, New York ALISON J. NATHAN United States District Judge --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 20-3061, Document 95, 10/08/2020, 2948488, Page2 of 5 20-3061 United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, —against— GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant-Appellant. ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, 20-CR-330 (AJN) Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Unredacted Reply Brief under Seal Defendant-Appellant Ghislaine Maxwell, through her attorneys Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C., moves unopposed for leave to file her unredacted reply brief under seal. As grounds for this request, Ms. Maxwell states: This appeal addresses an order by Judge Nathan declining to modify a criminal protective order. A related case, Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 20-2413, 1 DOJ-OGR-00019671 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 20-3061, Document 95, 10/08/2020, 2948488, Page3 of 5 addresses an order by Judge Preska unsealing certain deposition material. Ms. Maxwell has filed a motion to consolidate both appeals. The unredacted reply brief references material currently under seal and/or shielded by the criminal protective order. To comply with the criminal protective order, Ms. Maxwell can file the unredacted version of the reply only under seal with this Court. In compliance with the criminal protective order, Ms. Maxwell will publicly file on ECF a redacted copy of her reply brief. Counsel for Ms. Maxwell conferred with the government regarding this motion. The government does not oppose this motion. For these reasons, Ms. Maxwell respectfully requests leave to file her unredacted reply brief under seal. October 8, 2020. --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 20-3061, Document 95, 10/08/2020, 2948488, Page4 of 5 Respectfully submitted, s/ Adam Mueller Ty Gee Adam Mueller HADDON, MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Tel 303.831.7364 Fax 303.832.2628 tgee@hmflaw.com amueller@hmflaw.com Counsel for Defendant-Appellant Ghislaine Maxwell 3 DOJ-OGR-00019673 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 20-3061, Document 95, 10/08/2020, 2948488, Page5 of 5 Certificate of Compliance Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32(g) and Rule 27(d)(2)(A), the undersigned counsel hereby certifies that this motion complies with the type-volume limitation of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. As measured by the word processing system used to prepare this motion, there are 168 words in this motion. s/ Adam Mueller Certificate of Service I certify that on October 8, 2020, I filed this Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Unredacted Reply Brief under Seal with the Court via CM/ECF, which will send notification of the filing to all counsel of record. I also certify that I emailed a copy of this motion to all counsel of record. s/ Nicole Simmons 4 DOJ-OGR-00019674

Individual Pages

Page 1 - DOJ-OGR-00001970
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 95 Filed 12/14/20 Page 1 of 2 USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: DATE FILED: 12/14/20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK United States of America, -v- Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. 20-CR-330 (AJN) ORDER ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: 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 119–20. "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. 1 DOJ-OGR-00001970
Page 1 of 5 - DOJ-OGR-00019670
Case 20-3061, Document 95, 10/08/2020, 2948488, Page1 of 5 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse 40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007 Telephone: 212-857-8500 MOTION INFORMATION STATEMENT Docket Number(s): 20-3061 Caption [use short title] United States v. Maxwell Motion for: Leave to File Unredacted Reply Brief Under Seal Set forth below precise, complete statement of relief sought: Seeking leave to file under seal Ms. Maxwell's reply brief. The brief references materials currently under seal and/or shielded by the criminal protective order. MOVING PARTY: Ghislaine Maxwell OPPOSING PARTY: United States of America MOVING ATTORNEY: Adam Mueller OPPOSING ATTORNEY: Lara Pomerantz Haddon, Morgan & Foreman, P.C. Assistant U.S. Attorney, SDNY 150 E. 10th Ave., Denver, CO 80203 1 St. Andrew's Plaza, New York, NY 10007 303-831-7364 amueller@hmflaw.com 212-637-2324 Lara.Pomerantz@usdoj.gov Court-Judge/Agency appealed from: Judge Nathan, S.D.N.Y. Please check appropriate boxes: Has movant notified opposing counsel (required by Local Rule 27.1): Yes No (explain): Opposing counsel's position on motion: Unopposed Opposed Don't Know Does opposing counsel intend to file a response: Yes No Don't Know FOR EMERGENCY MOTIONS, MOTIONS FOR STAYS AND INJUNCTIONS PENDING APPEAL: Has request for relief been made below? Yes No Has this relief been previously sought in this Court? Yes No Requested return date and explanation of emergency: Is oral argument on motion requested? Yes No (requests for oral argument will not necessarily be granted) Has argument date of appeal been set? Yes No If yes, enter date: Signature of Moving Attorney: s/ Adam Mueller Date: 10/08/2020 Service by: CM/ECF Other [Attach proof of service] Form T-1080 (rev. 12-13) DOJ-OGR-00019670
Page 1 - DOJ-OGR-00021781
Case 22-1426, Document 95, 02/22/2024, 3611275, Page1 of 1 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE FOR SUBSTITUTE, ADDITIONAL, OR AMICUS COUNSEL Short Title: United States v. Maxwell Docket No.: 22-1426 Substitute, Additional, or Amicus Counsel's Contact Information is as follows: Name: Andrew Rohrbach Firm: United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York Address: 26 Federal Plaza, 37th Floor, New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 637-1944 Fax: E-mail: Andrew.Rohrbach@usdoj.gov Appearance for: United States of America/Appellee Select One: Substitute counsel (replacing lead counsel: ____________________ ) (name/firm) Substitute counsel (replacing other counsel: ____________________ ) (name/firm) Additional counsel (co-counsel with: Danielle Sassoon/U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York ) (name/firm) Amicus (in support of : ____________________ ) (party/designation) CERTIFICATION I certify that: I am admitted to practice in this Court and, if required by Interim Local Rule 46.1(a)(2), have renewed my admission on 12/03/2019 OR I applied for admission on ____________________ . Signature of Counsel: /s/ Andrew Rohrbach Type or Print Name: Andrew Rohrbach DOJ-OGR-00021781
Page 2 - DOJ-OGR-00001971
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 95 Filed 12/14/20 Page 2 of 2 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. SO ORDERED. Dated: December 14, 2020 New York, New York ALISON J. NATHAN United States District Judge
Page 2 - DOJ-OGR-00019671
Case 20-3061, Document 95, 10/08/2020, 2948488, Page2 of 5 20-3061 United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, —against— GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant-Appellant. ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, 20-CR-330 (AJN) Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Unredacted Reply Brief under Seal Defendant-Appellant Ghislaine Maxwell, through her attorneys Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C., moves unopposed for leave to file her unredacted reply brief under seal. As grounds for this request, Ms. Maxwell states: This appeal addresses an order by Judge Nathan declining to modify a criminal protective order. A related case, Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 20-2413, 1 DOJ-OGR-00019671
Page 3 - DOJ-OGR-00019672
Case 20-3061, Document 95, 10/08/2020, 2948488, Page3 of 5 addresses an order by Judge Preska unsealing certain deposition material. Ms. Maxwell has filed a motion to consolidate both appeals. The unredacted reply brief references material currently under seal and/or shielded by the criminal protective order. To comply with the criminal protective order, Ms. Maxwell can file the unredacted version of the reply only under seal with this Court. In compliance with the criminal protective order, Ms. Maxwell will publicly file on ECF a redacted copy of her reply brief. Counsel for Ms. Maxwell conferred with the government regarding this motion. The government does not oppose this motion. For these reasons, Ms. Maxwell respectfully requests leave to file her unredacted reply brief under seal. October 8, 2020.
Page 4 of 5 - DOJ-OGR-00019673
Case 20-3061, Document 95, 10/08/2020, 2948488, Page4 of 5 Respectfully submitted, s/ Adam Mueller Ty Gee Adam Mueller HADDON, MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Tel 303.831.7364 Fax 303.832.2628 tgee@hmflaw.com amueller@hmflaw.com Counsel for Defendant-Appellant Ghislaine Maxwell 3 DOJ-OGR-00019673
Page 5 of 5 - DOJ-OGR-00019674
Case 20-3061, Document 95, 10/08/2020, 2948488, Page5 of 5 Certificate of Compliance Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32(g) and Rule 27(d)(2)(A), the undersigned counsel hereby certifies that this motion complies with the type-volume limitation of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. As measured by the word processing system used to prepare this motion, there are 168 words in this motion. s/ Adam Mueller Certificate of Service I certify that on October 8, 2020, I filed this Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Unredacted Reply Brief under Seal with the Court via CM/ECF, which will send notification of the filing to all counsel of record. I also certify that I emailed a copy of this motion to all counsel of record. s/ Nicole Simmons 4 DOJ-OGR-00019674