github-mirrors
/
mirror-epstein-docs


			
				
					
						
						
							12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243444546474849505152535455565758596061626364656667686970717273747576777879808182838485868788899091929394959697
							{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "34 of 92",
    "document_number": "3-2",
    "date": "07/08/2022",
    "document_type": "Case document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 22-1426, Document 3-2, 07/08/2022, 3344434, Page34 of 92\nENDORSEMENT: Because remote access is available for tomorrow and because no electronic devices may be used in the courtroom or overflow rooms, Dkt. No. 214, to the extent the request is for tomorrow's arraignment, that request is denied. Counsel may renew their application in advance of future proceedings. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 4/22/2021) (lnl) (Entered: 04/23/2021)\n04/23/2021 238 SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (jus) (Entered: 04/23/2021)\n04/23/2021 239 LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Alison Moe, Maurene Comey, Lara Pomerantz, and Andrew Rohrbach dated April 23, 2021 re: in response to the Court's April 16, 2021 Order. Document filed by USA. (Moe, Alison) (Entered: 04/23/2021)\n04/23/2021 240 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 April 23, 2021 re: Proposed Redactions Document filed by USA. (Comey, Maurene) (Entered: 04/23/2021)\n04/23/2021 241 MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Ghislaine Maxwell on 240 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 April 23, 2021 re: Proposed Redactions. ENDORSEMENT: The Court grants the Government's redaction requests. The Court's conclusion is guided by 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 of access to the materials; and (iii) balance competing considerations against the presumption of access. Id. at 11920. The Court concludes that these are judicial documents and that the First Amendment and common law presumptions of access attach. But in balancing competing considerations against the presumption of access, the Court finds that the specific arguments the Government has put forward in this letter, including the need to protect the privacy interests of third parties referenced in the documents, favor the narrowly tailored redactions. See United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1050 (2d Cir. 1995). The Defendant and Boies Schiller are hereby ORDERED to docket the respective documents with the Government's proposed redactions by April 23, 2021. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 4/23/2021) (lnl) (Entered: 04/23/2021)\n04/23/2021 242 ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: On April 22, 2021, Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell filed her response to the Court's April 21, 2021 Order, Dkt. No. 221, under temporary seal with proposed redactions. The proposed redactions are GRANTED. The Court's conclusion is guided by 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 of access to the materials; and (iii) balance competing considerations against the presumption of access. Id. at 11920. The Court concludes that these are judicial documents and that the First Amendment and common law presumptions of access attach. In balancing competing considerations against the presumption of access, however, the Court finds that the proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to protect the privacy interests of defense lawyers' clients in other matters and to allow defense counsel to comply with their professional obligations under the rules of professional conduct. The Defendant is ORDERED to docket the redacted version of her letter by April 23, 2021. The Defendant is further ORDERED to docket the basis for the redaction request, originally sent by email, on ECF by April 23, 2021. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 4/23/2021) (lnl) (Entered: 04/23/2021)\n04/23/2021 243 MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Ghislaine Maxwell on 234 LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Jeffrey S. Pagliuca dated April 22, 2021 re: Response to Dkt. No. 227, Governments April 21, 2021 Letter re Ms. Maxwell's Motions to Suppress. ENDORSEMENT: The Court agrees with the position set forth in this letter that, unless the Government agrees to forgo any use of the documents subject to the motions to suppress at trial on the non-perjury counts, the Court must resolve those motions prior to that trial. The Court will resolve the motions in due course. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 4/23/2021) (lnl) (Entered: 04/23/2021)\nDOJ-OGR-00020520",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 3-2, 07/08/2022, 3344434, Page34 of 92",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "ENDORSEMENT: Because remote access is available for tomorrow and because no electronic devices may be used in the courtroom or overflow rooms, Dkt. No. 214, to the extent the request is for tomorrow's arraignment, that request is denied. Counsel may renew their application in advance of future proceedings. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 4/22/2021) (lnl) (Entered: 04/23/2021)",
      "position": "table"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "04/23/2021 238 SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (jus) (Entered: 04/23/2021)",
      "position": "table"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "04/23/2021 239 LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Alison Moe, Maurene Comey, Lara Pomerantz, and Andrew Rohrbach dated April 23, 2021 re: in response to the Court's April 16, 2021 Order. Document filed by USA. (Moe, Alison) (Entered: 04/23/2021)",
      "position": "table"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "04/23/2021 240 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 April 23, 2021 re: Proposed Redactions Document filed by USA. (Comey, Maurene) (Entered: 04/23/2021)",
      "position": "table"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "04/23/2021 241 MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Ghislaine Maxwell on 240 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 April 23, 2021 re: Proposed Redactions. ENDORSEMENT: The Court grants the Government's redaction requests. The Court's conclusion is guided by 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 of access to the materials; and (iii) balance competing considerations against the presumption of access. Id. at 11920. The Court concludes that these are judicial documents and that the First Amendment and common law presumptions of access attach. But in balancing competing considerations against the presumption of access, the Court finds that the specific arguments the Government has put forward in this letter, including the need to protect the privacy interests of third parties referenced in the documents, favor the narrowly tailored redactions. See United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1050 (2d Cir. 1995). The Defendant and Boies Schiller are hereby ORDERED to docket the respective documents with the Government's proposed redactions by April 23, 2021. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 4/23/2021) (lnl) (Entered: 04/23/2021)",
      "position": "table"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "04/23/2021 242 ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: On April 22, 2021, Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell filed her response to the Court's April 21, 2021 Order, Dkt. No. 221, under temporary seal with proposed redactions. The proposed redactions are GRANTED. The Court's conclusion is guided by 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 of access to the materials; and (iii) balance competing considerations against the presumption of access. Id. at 11920. The Court concludes that these are judicial documents and that the First Amendment and common law presumptions of access attach. In balancing competing considerations against the presumption of access, however, the Court finds that the proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to protect the privacy interests of defense lawyers' clients in other matters and to allow defense counsel to comply with their professional obligations under the rules of professional conduct. The Defendant is ORDERED to docket the redacted version of her letter by April 23, 2021. The Defendant is further ORDERED to docket the basis for the redaction request, originally sent by email, on ECF by April 23, 2021. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 4/23/2021) (lnl) (Entered: 04/23/2021)",
      "position": "table"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "04/23/2021 243 MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Ghislaine Maxwell on 234 LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Jeffrey S. Pagliuca dated April 22, 2021 re: Response to Dkt. No. 227, Governments April 21, 2021 Letter re Ms. Maxwell's Motions to Suppress. ENDORSEMENT: The Court agrees with the position set forth in this letter that, unless the Government agrees to forgo any use of the documents subject to the motions to suppress at trial on the non-perjury counts, the Court must resolve those motions prior to that trial. The Court will resolve the motions in due course. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 4/23/2021) (lnl) (Entered: 04/23/2021)",
      "position": "table"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00020520",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Alison J. Nathan",
      "Ghislaine Maxwell",
      "Alison Moe",
      "Maurene Comey",
      "Lara Pomerantz",
      "Andrew Rohrbach",
      "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "USA",
      "Boies Schiller"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "07/08/2022",
      "04/23/2021",
      "04/22/2021",
      "04/21/2021",
      "04/16/2021"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "22-1426",
      "3-2",
      "3344434",
      "238",
      "239",
      "240",
      "241",
      "242",
      "243",
      "214",
      "221",
      "227",
      "DOJ-OGR-00020520"
    ]
  },
  "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, orders, and endorsements from the court and parties involved. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}