{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "17 of 24",
    "document_number": "Case 21-770, Document 1-2",
    "date": "03/24/2021",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 21-770, Document 1-2, 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) (Inl) (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",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 21-770, Document 1-2, 03/24/2021, 3065965, Page17 of 24",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "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)",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "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)",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "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) (Inl) (Entered: 12/23/2020)",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "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)",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "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)",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "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",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00000856",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ghislaine Maxwell",
      "Alison J. Nathan",
      "Christian R. Everdell",
      "Maurene Comey"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "USA",
      "Second Circuit",
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "03/24/2021",
      "12/18/2020",
      "12/23/2020",
      "12/28/2020",
      "December 7, 2020",
      "December 8, 2020"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 21-770",
      "Document 1-2",
      "3065965",
      "Dkt. No. 89",
      "Dkt. No. 95",
      "Dkt. No. 97",
      "100",
      "101",
      "102",
      "103",
      "104"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court docket sheet with various entries related to the case of Ghislaine Maxwell. The text is mostly printed, with some formatting and structure indicating a table or list. There are no visible stamps or handwritten text."
}