mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00020505.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "19",
    "document_number": "3-2",
    "date": "07/08/2022",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 22-1426, Document 3-2, 07/08/2022, 3344434, Page19 of 92 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, 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. 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. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 12/14/2020) (ap) (Entered: 12/14/2020) 12/14/2020 96 LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated December 8, 2020 re: Cover Letter for Renewed Bail Application (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 12/14/2020) 12/14/2020 97 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support by Ghislaine Maxwell re: Renewed Motion for Bail. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P, # 17 Exhibit Q, # 18 Exhibit R, # 19 Exhibit S, # 20 Exhibit T, # 21 Exhibit U, # 22 Exhibit V, # 23 Exhibit W, # 24 Exhibit X)(Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 12/14/2020) 12/17/2020 98 NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE Andrew Rohrbach appearing for USA. (Rohrbach, Andrew) (Entered: 12/17/2020) 12/18/2020 99 ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: On December 16, 2020, the Government filed its opposition to Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell's renewed application for bail. In accordance with this Court's December 7, 2020 Order, see Dkt. No. 89, the Government filed its materials under seal and proposed narrowly tailored redactions on 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 DOJ-OGR-00020505",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 3-2, 07/08/2022, 3344434, Page19 of 92",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "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, 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. 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. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 12/14/2020) (ap) (Entered: 12/14/2020)",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "12/14/2020 96 LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated December 8, 2020 re: Cover Letter for Renewed Bail Application (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 12/14/2020)",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "12/14/2020 97 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support by Ghislaine Maxwell re: Renewed Motion for Bail. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P, # 17 Exhibit Q, # 18 Exhibit R, # 19 Exhibit S, # 20 Exhibit T, # 21 Exhibit U, # 22 Exhibit V, # 23 Exhibit W, # 24 Exhibit X)(Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 12/14/2020)",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "12/17/2020 98 NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE Andrew Rohrbach appearing for USA. (Rohrbach, Andrew) (Entered: 12/17/2020)",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "12/18/2020 99 ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: On December 16, 2020, the Government filed its opposition to Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell's renewed application for bail. In accordance with this Court's December 7, 2020 Order, see Dkt. No. 89, the Government filed its materials under seal and proposed narrowly tailored redactions on 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": "middle"
    },
    {
      "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 DOJ-OGR-00020505",
      "position": "bottom"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ghislaine Maxwell",
      "Alison J. Nathan",
      "Christian R. Everdell",
      "Andrew Rohrbach",
      "Maurene Comey"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "USA"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "07/08/2022",
      "12/14/2020",
      "12/17/2020",
      "12/18/2020",
      "12/23/2020",
      "December 8, 2020",
      "December 7, 2020",
      "December 16, 2020"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 22-1426",
      "Document 3-2",
      "3344434",
      "DOJ-OGR-00020505",
      "Dkt. No. 89",
      "Dkt. No. 96",
      "Dkt. No. 97",
      "Dkt. No. 98",
      "Dkt. No. 99",
      "Dkt. No. 100",
      "Dkt. No. 101"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court docket sheet with various entries related to the case of Ghislaine Maxwell. The entries include letters, memoranda, and orders filed by the parties and the court. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}