mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011171.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "1",
    "document_number": "699",
    "date": "March 9, 2021",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 699 Filed 07/12/22 Page 1 of 3\nHaddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C\nLaura A. Menninger\n150 East 10th Avenue\nDenver, Colorado 80203\nPH 303.831.7364 FX 303.832.2628\nwww.hmflaw.com\nLMenninger@hmflaw.com\nMarch 9, 2021\nThe Hon. Alison J. Nathan\nUnited States District Court Judge\nSouthern District of New York\n500 Pearl Street\nNew York, NY 10007\nRe: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)\nObjection to Proposed Redactions of Government's Omnibus Response & Exhibit 5\nDear Judge Nathan:\nOn behalf of defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, we respectfully oppose certain of the redactions proposed by the government to their Omnibus Memorandum in Opposition to the Defendant's Pre-Trial Motions (\"Response\"), submitted to the Court on February 26, 2021.\nSpecifically, we oppose the redactions proposed by the government contained on pages 1-128 and 187-88 of the Response as well as certain of the redactions in Exhibit 5. We believe additional redactions are appropriate to pages 129-134 of the Response. We hereby attach our proposed redactions to pages 129-134, 187-88 and Exhibit 5.\nThe Response and its Exhibits are clearly \"judicial documents\" presumptively subject to the public access rights under both the common law and First Amendment. Lugosh v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119 (2d Cir. 2006); Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 49 (2d Cir. 2019). Ms. Maxwell also specifically asserts her right to an open and public trial pursuant to the Sixth Amendment. Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court (Press-Enterprise II), 478 U.S. 1, 7 (1986).\nObjections to Redactions Proposed on Pages 1-128\nThe government's proposed redactions on pages 1-128 all relate to materially inaccurate statements made by a prosecutor for the government to Chief Judge McMahon. They also relate to a sealed proceeding in which the government circumvented decades-old precedent in this Circuit which held that civil litigation materials subject to a protective order cannot be obtained absent notice to, and an opportunity to object by, individuals with a privacy interest in those documents. Numerous civil litigants in the Second Circuit are negotiating protective orders every day in reliance on Martindell and have the right to know that the protective orders may be of little to no utility when their civil opponent seeks to have them used as a tool\nDOJ-OGR-00011171",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 699 Filed 07/12/22 Page 1 of 3",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C\nLaura A. Menninger\n150 East 10th Avenue\nDenver, Colorado 80203\nPH 303.831.7364 FX 303.832.2628\nwww.hmflaw.com\nLMenninger@hmflaw.com",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "March 9, 2021\nThe Hon. Alison J. Nathan\nUnited States District Court Judge\nSouthern District of New York\n500 Pearl Street\nNew York, NY 10007",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)\nObjection to Proposed Redactions of Government's Omnibus Response & Exhibit 5",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Dear Judge Nathan:\nOn behalf of defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, we respectfully oppose certain of the redactions proposed by the government to their Omnibus Memorandum in Opposition to the Defendant's Pre-Trial Motions (\"Response\"), submitted to the Court on February 26, 2021.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Specifically, we oppose the redactions proposed by the government contained on pages 1-128 and 187-88 of the Response as well as certain of the redactions in Exhibit 5. We believe additional redactions are appropriate to pages 129-134 of the Response. We hereby attach our proposed redactions to pages 129-134, 187-88 and Exhibit 5.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Response and its Exhibits are clearly \"judicial documents\" presumptively subject to the public access rights under both the common law and First Amendment. Lugosh v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119 (2d Cir. 2006); Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 49 (2d Cir. 2019). Ms. Maxwell also specifically asserts her right to an open and public trial pursuant to the Sixth Amendment. Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court (Press-Enterprise II), 478 U.S. 1, 7 (1986).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Objections to Redactions Proposed on Pages 1-128\nThe government's proposed redactions on pages 1-128 all relate to materially inaccurate statements made by a prosecutor for the government to Chief Judge McMahon. They also relate to a sealed proceeding in which the government circumvented decades-old precedent in this Circuit which held that civil litigation materials subject to a protective order cannot be obtained absent notice to, and an opportunity to object by, individuals with a privacy interest in those documents. Numerous civil litigants in the Second Circuit are negotiating protective orders every day in reliance on Martindell and have the right to know that the protective orders may be of little to no utility when their civil opponent seeks to have them used as a tool",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011171",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ghislaine Maxwell",
      "Alison J. Nathan",
      "Laura A. Menninger",
      "McMahon"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C",
      "United States District Court",
      "Southern District of New York"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Denver",
      "Colorado",
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "March 9, 2021",
      "February 26, 2021",
      "07/12/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "20 Cr. 330 (AJN)",
      "699",
      "DOJ-OGR-00011171"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. It is a formal letter to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Laura A. Menninger, attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell, objecting to certain redactions proposed by the government."
}