mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES007/DOJ-OGR-00019794.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "24",
    "document_number": "21-2",
    "date": "03/24/2021",
    "document_type": "Court Docket",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 21-58, Document 21-2, 03/24/2021, 3065978, Page24 of 25\n\n| 03/22/2021 | 169 | ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell's third motion for release on bail, Dkt. No. 160, is DENIED. The parties are ORDERED to meet and confer and propose and justify any redactions to the Defendant's reply brief by March 24, 2021. If they conclude that redactions are unnecessary, the Defendant is ORDERED to docket the unredacted version of the brief by March 24, 2021. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 3/22/2021) (See ORDER set forth) (ap) Modified on 3/23/21 (ap). (Entered: 03/22/2021)\n| 03/22/2021 | 170 | LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, Lara Pomerantz, and Andrew Rohrbach dated March 22, 2021 re: Redactions to Government Opposition to Defense Pretrial Motions Document filed by USA. (Pomerantz, Lara) (Entered: 03/22/2021)\n| 03/23/2021 | 171 | REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support as to Ghislaine Maxwell re: 160 THIRD MOTION for Bond . . . (Sternheim, Bobbi) (Entered: 03/23/2021)\n| 03/24/2021 | 172 | ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. On March 5, 2021, Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell submitted to the Court an application for an order authorizing a subpoena pursuant to Rule 17(c)(3) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The proposed subpoena was directed at a law firm that represents alleged victims of the Defendant. As is standard for Rule 17(c) subpoenas, the application was made ex parte and under seal on the ground that it reveals defense strategy...[** See this Order **]... Rule 17(c)(3) provides that \"[a]fter [an indictment] is filed, a subpoena requiring the production of personal or confidential information about a victim may be served on a third party only by court order,\" but \"before entering the order and unless there are exceptional circumstances, the court must require giving notice to the victim so that the victim can move to quash or modify the subpoena or otherwise object.\" Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(c)(3). Consistent with the Rule, on March 12, 2021, in a sealed ex parte Order, the Court required defense counsel to provide notice to alleged victims whose personal or confidential information may be disclosed by the proposed subpoena. The Court also gave the alleged victims an opportunity to object to or request modifications of the subpoena as required by Rule 17(c)(3). On March 19, 2021, the Court received a letter from the law firm indicating that it can provide notice to alleged victims whose personal or confidential information may be elicited by the subpoena. The law firm shall provide notice to any such alleged victims it represents. In that letter, the law firm also interposed substantial objections on behalf of the law firm and the alleged victims it represents. Those objections are functionally the equivalent of a motion to quash, even though the subpoena has not yet issued. So that the Court can receive adversarial briefing on the proposed subpoena comparable to a motion to quash, the law firm shall enter an appearance and file its objections on the public docket. See United States v. Ray, No. 20-CR-110 (LJL), 2020 WL 6939677, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 25, 2020) (\"[I]f the Court determines that the subpoena calls for personal or confidential information about a victim, it requires the requesting party have given notice to the victim before it permits the service of the subpoena. If the victim objects, the Court will then determine whether to modify or quash the subpoena, including on grounds that Nixon was not satisfied.\") In advance of noticing an appearance and filing, the law firm shall meet and confer with defense counsel to see if any issues can be narrowed before formal briefing. Moreover, prior to filing, the law firm shall confer with defense counsel as to any proposed, necessary, and tailored redactions to the objections. The law firm shall file its objections with any proposed redactions on or before March 26, 2021. Any redactions must be justified consistent with Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Within one week of the filing of objections, defense counsel may respond to the subpoena objections. The law firm may reply within three days of the Defendant's response.(See Citation 1 on this Order). Counsel shall confer regarding any proposed redactions for all briefing. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 3/24/2021)(bw) (Entered: 03/24/2021)\n| 03/24/2021 | 173 | NOTICE OF APPEAL by Ghislaine Maxwell from 169 Order, Terminate Motions. (tp) (Entered: 03/24/2021)\n| 03/24/2021 |  | Appeal Remark as to Ghislaine Maxwell re: 173 Notice of Appeal. $505.00 Appeal Fee Due. (tp) (Entered: 03/24/2021)\n| 03/24/2021 |  | Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Certified Copy of Docket Sheet as to Ghislaine Maxwell to US Court of Appeals re: 173 Notice of Appeal. (tp) (Entered: 03/24/2021)\n\nDOJ-OGR-00019794",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 21-58, Document 21-2, 03/24/2021, 3065978, Page24 of 25",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "| 03/22/2021 | 169 | ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell's third motion for release on bail, Dkt. No. 160, is DENIED. The parties are ORDERED to meet and confer and propose and justify any redactions to the Defendant's reply brief by March 24, 2021. If they conclude that redactions are unnecessary, the Defendant is ORDERED to docket the unredacted version of the brief by March 24, 2021. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 3/22/2021) (See ORDER set forth) (ap) Modified on 3/23/21 (ap). (Entered: 03/22/2021)",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "| 03/22/2021 | 170 | LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, Lara Pomerantz, and Andrew Rohrbach dated March 22, 2021 re: Redactions to Government Opposition to Defense Pretrial Motions Document filed by USA. (Pomerantz, Lara) (Entered: 03/22/2021)",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "| 03/23/2021 | 171 | REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support as to Ghislaine Maxwell re: 160 THIRD MOTION for Bond . . . (Sternheim, Bobbi) (Entered: 03/23/2021)",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "| 03/24/2021 | 172 | ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. On March 5, 2021, Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell submitted to the Court an application for an order authorizing a subpoena pursuant to Rule 17(c)(3) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The proposed subpoena was directed at a law firm that represents alleged victims of the Defendant. As is standard for Rule 17(c) subpoenas, the application was made ex parte and under seal on the ground that it reveals defense strategy...[** See this Order **]... Rule 17(c)(3) provides that \"[a]fter [an indictment] is filed, a subpoena requiring the production of personal or confidential information about a victim may be served on a third party only by court order,\" but \"before entering the order and unless there are exceptional circumstances, the court must require giving notice to the victim so that the victim can move to quash or modify the subpoena or otherwise object.\" Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(c)(3). Consistent with the Rule, on March 12, 2021, in a sealed ex parte Order, the Court required defense counsel to provide notice to alleged victims whose personal or confidential information may be disclosed by the proposed subpoena. The Court also gave the alleged victims an opportunity to object to or request modifications of the subpoena as required by Rule 17(c)(3). On March 19, 2021, the Court received a letter from the law firm indicating that it can provide notice to alleged victims whose personal or confidential information may be elicited by the subpoena. The law firm shall provide notice to any such alleged victims it represents. In that letter, the law firm also interposed substantial objections on behalf of the law firm and the alleged victims it represents. Those objections are functionally the equivalent of a motion to quash, even though the subpoena has not yet issued. So that the Court can receive adversarial briefing on the proposed subpoena comparable to a motion to quash, the law firm shall enter an appearance and file its objections on the public docket. See United States v. Ray, No. 20-CR-110 (LJL), 2020 WL 6939677, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 25, 2020) (\"[I]f the Court determines that the subpoena calls for personal or confidential information about a victim, it requires the requesting party have given notice to the victim before it permits the service of the subpoena. If the victim objects, the Court will then determine whether to modify or quash the subpoena, including on grounds that Nixon was not satisfied.\") In advance of noticing an appearance and filing, the law firm shall meet and confer with defense counsel to see if any issues can be narrowed before formal briefing. Moreover, prior to filing, the law firm shall confer with defense counsel as to any proposed, necessary, and tailored redactions to the objections. The law firm shall file its objections with any proposed redactions on or before March 26, 2021. Any redactions must be justified consistent with Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Within one week of the filing of objections, defense counsel may respond to the subpoena objections. The law firm may reply within three days of the Defendant's response.(See Citation 1 on this Order). Counsel shall confer regarding any proposed redactions for all briefing. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 3/24/2021)(bw) (Entered: 03/24/2021)",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "| 03/24/2021 | 173 | NOTICE OF APPEAL by Ghislaine Maxwell from 169 Order, Terminate Motions. (tp) (Entered: 03/24/2021)",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "| 03/24/2021 |  | Appeal Remark as to Ghislaine Maxwell re: 173 Notice of Appeal. $505.00 Appeal Fee Due. (tp) (Entered: 03/24/2021)",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "| 03/24/2021 |  | Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Certified Copy of Docket Sheet as to Ghislaine Maxwell to US Court of Appeals re: 173 Notice of Appeal. (tp) (Entered: 03/24/2021)",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00019794",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ghislaine Maxwell",
      "Alison J. Nathan",
      "Maurene Comey",
      "Alison Moe",
      "Lara Pomerantz",
      "Andrew Rohrbach",
      "Bobbi Sternheim"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "USA",
      "US Court of Appeals"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "03/22/2021",
      "03/23/2021",
      "03/24/2021",
      "March 5, 2021",
      "March 12, 2021",
      "March 19, 2021",
      "March 22, 2021",
      "March 24, 2021",
      "March 26, 2021",
      "Nov. 25, 2020"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "21-58",
      "21-2",
      "3065978",
      "160",
      "169",
      "170",
      "171",
      "172",
      "173",
      "20-CR-110 (LJL)",
      "DOJ-OGR-00019794"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court docket sheet for the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The docket entries are from March 22, 2021 to March 24, 2021. The document is a printed table with various columns including date, docket number, and description of the docket entry."
}