{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "1",
    "document_number": "51",
    "date": "09/02/20",
    "document_type": "Memorandum Opinion and Order",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": true
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 51 Filed 09/02/20 Page 1 of 5\n\nUSDC SDNY\nDOCUMENT\nELECTRONICALLY FILED\nDOC #:\nDATE FILED: 9/2/20\n\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\nUnited States of America,\n\n-v-\n\nGhislaine Maxwell,\nDefendant.\n\n20-CR-330 (AJN)\nMEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER\n\nALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:\n\nOn August 17, 2020, Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell filed a sealed letter motion seeking an Order modifying the protective order in this case. Specifically, she sought a Court order allowing her to file under seal in certain civil cases (\"Civil Cases\") materials (\"Documents\") that she received in discovery from the Government in this case. She also sought permission to\n\n1 This Order will not refer to any redacted or otherwise confidential information, and as a result it will not be sealed. The Court will adopt the redactions to Defendant's August 17, 2020 letter motion that the Government proposed on August 21, 2020, and it will enter that version into the public docket. The Court's decision to adopt the Government's proposed 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 Government's proposed redactions satisfy this test. First, the Court finds that the defendant's letter motion is \"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). Second, the Court assumes that the common law presumption of access attaches, thereby satisfying the second element. But in balancing competing considerations against the presumption of access, the Court finds that the arguments the Government has put forth--including, most notably, the threat that public disclosure of the redacted sections would interfere with an ongoing grand jury investigation--favor the Government's proposed narrowly tailored redactions.\n\nIn light of this ruling, the parties are hereby ORDERED to meet and confer with respect to proposed redactions to the Defendant's reply letter, dated August 24, 2020 and the Defendant's August 24, 2020 letter addressing her proposed redactions to the Defendant's August 17, 2020 letter motion. The parties are further ORDERED to submit their proposed redactions no later than September 4, 2020; if the parties cannot agree on their proposed redactions, they shall submit a joint letter to the Court explaining the nature of their dispute.\n\n1\n\nDOJ-OGR-00001747",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 51 Filed 09/02/20 Page 1 of 5",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "stamp",
      "content": "USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: DATE FILED: 9/2/20",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "United States of America, -v- Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "20-CR-330 (AJN) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: On August 17, 2020, Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell filed a sealed letter motion seeking an Order modifying the protective order in this case. Specifically, she sought a Court order allowing her to file under seal in certain civil cases (\"Civil Cases\") materials (\"Documents\") that she received in discovery from the Government in this case. She also sought permission to",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 This Order will not refer to any redacted or otherwise confidential information, and as a result it will not be sealed. The Court will adopt the redactions to Defendant's August 17, 2020 letter motion that the Government proposed on August 21, 2020, and it will enter that version into the public docket. The Court's decision to adopt the Government's proposed 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 Government's proposed redactions satisfy this test. First, the Court finds that the defendant's letter motion is \"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). Second, the Court assumes that the common law presumption of access attaches, thereby satisfying the second element. But in balancing competing considerations against the presumption of access, the Court finds that the arguments the Government has put forth--including, most notably, the threat that public disclosure of the redacted sections would interfere with an ongoing grand jury investigation--favor the Government's proposed narrowly tailored redactions.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In light of this ruling, the parties are hereby ORDERED to meet and confer with respect to proposed redactions to the Defendant's reply letter, dated August 24, 2020 and the Defendant's August 24, 2020 letter addressing her proposed redactions to the Defendant's August 17, 2020 letter motion. The parties are further ORDERED to submit their proposed redactions no later than September 4, 2020; if the parties cannot agree on their proposed redactions, they shall submit a joint letter to the Court explaining the nature of their dispute.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00001747",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ghislaine Maxwell",
      "Alison J. Nathan"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States District Court",
      "Second Circuit",
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York",
      "Onondaga"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "August 17, 2020",
      "August 21, 2020",
      "August 24, 2020",
      "September 4, 2020",
      "09/02/20"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "20-CR-330 (AJN)",
      "DOJ-OGR-00001747"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document is a Memorandum Opinion and Order from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. It appears to be a court filing related to the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The document is typed and contains a stamp indicating it was electronically filed."
}