{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "1",
    "document_number": "323",
    "date": "08/19/21",
    "document_type": "Letter",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 323 Filed 08/19/21 Page 1 of 2 COHEN & GRESSER LLP Christian R. Everdell +1 (212) 957-7600 ceverdell@cohengresser.com 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 +1 212 957 7600 phone www.cohengresser.com August 19, 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, NY 10007 Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) Dear Judge Nathan: Pursuant to the Court's order, dated August 13, 2021, we respectfully submit this letter to inform the Court that Ms. Maxwell does not seek any redactions to the Court's sealed Opinion and Order, dated August 13, 2021, or the underlying motion papers. We note that, under the terms of the Protective Order entered in this case, defense counsel are prohibited from \"filing publicly as an attachment to a filing or excerpted within a filing the identity of any victims or witnesses referenced in the discovery, who have not spoken by name on the public record in this case.\" (Dkt. 36 ¶ 6). The underlying motion papers reference the names of accusers and potential witnesses who have spoken on the public record in this case and others who have spoken publicly but not associated themselves directly with this case. The Court has ruled that the existence of the Protective Order, by itself, is not sufficient to justify redactions, and that any redactions must be justified under the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). The defense has consistently taken the position that the names of the accusers and other witnesses who have chosen to speak to the media about their alleged experiences, including regarding the very materials sought by the subpoena, should be publicly disclosed and that it is not the defense's burden to justify redacting their names. Accordingly, the defense does not seek any redactions. If the government wishes to seek any redactions, we respectfully submit that it is their burden - not Ms. Maxwell's - to justify them under Lugosch. DOJ-OGR-00005005",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 323 Filed 08/19/21 Page 1 of 2",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "COHEN & GRESSER LLP",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Christian R. Everdell +1 (212) 957-7600 ceverdell@cohengresser.com",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 +1 212 957 7600 phone www.cohengresser.com",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "August 19, 2021",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "BY ECF The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Dear Judge Nathan: Pursuant to the Court's order, dated August 13, 2021, we respectfully submit this letter to inform the Court that Ms. Maxwell does not seek any redactions to the Court's sealed Opinion and Order, dated August 13, 2021, or the underlying motion papers.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "We note that, under the terms of the Protective Order entered in this case, defense counsel are prohibited from \"filing publicly as an attachment to a filing or excerpted within a filing the identity of any victims or witnesses referenced in the discovery, who have not spoken by name on the public record in this case.\" (Dkt. 36 ¶ 6). The underlying motion papers reference the names of accusers and potential witnesses who have spoken on the public record in this case and others who have spoken publicly but not associated themselves directly with this case. The Court has ruled that the existence of the Protective Order, by itself, is not sufficient to justify redactions, and that any redactions must be justified under the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The defense has consistently taken the position that the names of the accusers and other witnesses who have chosen to speak to the media about their alleged experiences, including regarding the very materials sought by the subpoena, should be publicly disclosed and that it is not the defense's burden to justify redacting their names. Accordingly, the defense does not seek any redactions. If the government wishes to seek any redactions, we respectfully submit that it is their burden - not Ms. Maxwell's - to justify them under Lugosch.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00005005",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Christian R. Everdell",
      "Alison J. Nathan",
      "Ghislaine Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "COHEN & GRESSER LLP",
      "United States District Court",
      "Southern District of New York",
      "Second Circuit"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York",
      "NY"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "August 19, 2021",
      "August 13, 2021"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 323",
      "S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)",
      "Dkt. 36",
      "DOJ-OGR-00005005"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a formal letter from COHEN & GRESSER LLP to the Honorable Alison J. Nathan regarding the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The letter is typed and does not contain any handwritten text or stamps."
}