{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "1",
    "document_number": "128",
    "date": "01/28/21",
    "document_type": "Letter",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": true
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 128 Filed 01/28/21 Page 1 of 2 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 January 28, 2021 BY ECF & ELECTRONIC MAIL 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 January 26, 2021 providing the Government with an opportunity to respond to the defendant's proposed redactions to its pre-trial motions filed on January 25, 2021. The Government notes at the outset that the defendant has not proposed any redactions to certain motions filed on the docket. (Motions 5, 8, 9, & 12; Dkts. 119-126). The Government agrees that no redactions are necessary as to those particular motions. The Government agrees with the defendant's proposed redactions to the remaining pre-trial motions for the following reasons: - The proposed redactions to the defendant's motion to dismiss for breach of the non-prosecution agreement (Motion 1) and the motion to dismiss for pre-indictment delay (Motion 7) refer to documents designated by the Government as \"Confidential\" within the meaning of the Protective Order ¶ 15 (Dkt. 36)), and the proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to protect the integrity of the Government's ongoing investigation. See, e.g., Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U.S. 211, 218 n.9 (1979) (\"Since the 17th century, grand jury proceedings have been closed to the public; and records of such proceedings have been kept from the public eye. The rule of grand jury secrecy . . . is an integral part of our criminal justice system.\"). - The proposed redactions to the defendant's motion to dismiss Counts One through Four of the Superseding Indictment as time-barred (Motion 2) and her motion to strike surplusage from the Superseding Indictment (Motion 6) protect the privacy interests of victim-witnesses. - The proposed redactions to the motion to dismiss Counts Five and Six (Motion 4) refer to documents designated by the Government as \"Confidential\" within the DOJ-OGR-00002335",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 128 Filed 01/28/21 Page 1 of 2",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "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 January 28, 2021",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "BY ECF & ELECTRONIC MAIL 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:",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Government respectfully submits this letter in response to the Court's order dated January 26, 2021 providing the Government with an opportunity to respond to the defendant's proposed redactions to its pre-trial motions filed on January 25, 2021. The Government notes at the outset that the defendant has not proposed any redactions to certain motions filed on the docket. (Motions 5, 8, 9, & 12; Dkts. 119-126). The Government agrees that no redactions are necessary as to those particular motions. The Government agrees with the defendant's proposed redactions to the remaining pre-trial motions for the following reasons:",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "- The proposed redactions to the defendant's motion to dismiss for breach of the non-prosecution agreement (Motion 1) and the motion to dismiss for pre-indictment delay (Motion 7) refer to documents designated by the Government as \"Confidential\" within the meaning of the Protective Order ¶ 15 (Dkt. 36)), and the proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to protect the integrity of the Government's ongoing investigation. See, e.g., Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U.S. 211, 218 n.9 (1979) (\"Since the 17th century, grand jury proceedings have been closed to the public; and records of such proceedings have been kept from the public eye. The rule of grand jury secrecy . . . is an integral part of our criminal justice system.\").",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "- The proposed redactions to the defendant's motion to dismiss Counts One through Four of the Superseding Indictment as time-barred (Motion 2) and her motion to strike surplusage from the Superseding Indictment (Motion 6) protect the privacy interests of victim-witnesses.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "- The proposed redactions to the motion to dismiss Counts Five and Six (Motion 4) refer to documents designated by the Government as \"Confidential\" within the",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "stamp",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00002335",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Alison J. Nathan",
      "Ghislaine Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "U.S. Department of Justice",
      "United States Attorney",
      "United States District Court"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "January 28, 2021",
      "January 26, 2021",
      "January 25, 2021",
      "1979"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "Document 128",
      "20 Cr. 330 (AJN)",
      "Dkt. 36",
      "Dkts. 119-126"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a formal letter from the U.S. Department of Justice to the Honorable Alison J. Nathan regarding the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The letter discusses the government's response to the defendant's proposed redactions to pre-trial motions. The document is stamped with a DOJ reference number."
}