github-mirrors
/
mirror-epstein-docs


			
				
					
						
						
							12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243444546474849505152535455565758596061626364656667686970717273747576777879808182
							{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "21",
    "document_number": "57",
    "date": "02/28/2023",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 22-1426, Document 57 02/28/2023, 3475900, Page21 of 208\nA-17\n2/22/23, 1:25 PM SDNY CM/ECF NextGen Version 1.6\nadopt the Defendant's proposed redactions, which are consented to by the Government. The Court's decision 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 119-20. \"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, 1050 (2d Cir. 1995) (\"Amodeo II\")). The proposed redactions satisfy this test. First, the Court finds that the 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 while the Court assumes that the common law presumption of access attaches, in balancing competing considerations against the presumption of access, the Court finds that the arguments the Defendant has put forthincluding, most notably, the privacy interests of the individuals referenced in the lettersfavor her proposed and tailored redactions. The Defendant is hereby ORDERED to docket the redacted versions of the two letters by December 4, 2020. For the reasons outlined in the Government's letter dated December 2, 2020, Dkt. No. 80, the Court DENIES the Defendant's request for an in camera conference. In order to protect the privacy interests referenced in the Defendant's November 25, 2020 letter, the Court will permit the Defendant to make her submission in writing and to propose narrowly tailored redactions. The parties are hereby ORDERED to meet and confer to jointly prepare a briefing schedule for the Defendant's forthcoming motion for release on bail. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 12/3/2020)(bw) (Entered: 12/03/2020)\n12/03/2020 82 SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (jus) (Entered: 12/03/2020)\n12/03/2020 83 SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (jus) (Entered: 12/03/2020)\n12/03/2020 84 SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (jus) (Entered: 12/03/2020)\n12/04/2020 85 LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated December 4, 2020 re: Briefing Schedule (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 12/04/2020)\n12/04/2020 86 LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated 11/25/2020 re: Sealing (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 12/04/2020)\n12/04/2020 87 LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated 11/30/2020 re: Sealing (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 12/04/2020)\n12/07/2020 88 LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Sophia Papapetru and John Wallace dated 12/4/20 re: This letter is written in response to your order dated December 2, 2020, concerning Ghislaine Maxwell, Reg. 02879-509., an inmate currently confined at the Metropolitan Detention center in Brooklyn, New York. You expressed various concerns regarding Ms. Maxwells confinement and well-being. (jw) (Entered: 12/07/2020)\n12/07/2020 89 ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell re: 85 Letter filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. The Court is in receipt of the Defendant's December 4, 2020 letter, Dkt. No. 85, and hereby sets the following schedule: The Defendants submission is due December 8, 2020; the Government's response is due December 16, 2020; The Defendant's reply is due December 18, 2020. After reviewing these submissions, the Court will determine whether a hearing on the renewed bail motion is necessary. The Court grants the Defendants request that the Government shall file its submission under seal with proposed redactions.\nhttps://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?2110870152221896-L_1_0-1 17/113 DOJ-OGR-00020639",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 57 02/28/2023, 3475900, Page21 of 208",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "A-17",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2/22/23, 1:25 PM SDNY CM/ECF NextGen Version 1.6",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "adopt the Defendant's proposed redactions, which are consented to by the Government. The Court's decision 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 119-20. \"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, 1050 (2d Cir. 1995) (\"Amodeo II\")). The proposed redactions satisfy this test. First, the Court finds that the 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 while the Court assumes that the common law presumption of access attaches, in balancing competing considerations against the presumption of access, the Court finds that the arguments the Defendant has put forthincluding, most notably, the privacy interests of the individuals referenced in the lettersfavor her proposed and tailored redactions. The Defendant is hereby ORDERED to docket the redacted versions of the two letters by December 4, 2020. For the reasons outlined in the Government's letter dated December 2, 2020, Dkt. No. 80, the Court DENIES the Defendant's request for an in camera conference. In order to protect the privacy interests referenced in the Defendant's November 25, 2020 letter, the Court will permit the Defendant to make her submission in writing and to propose narrowly tailored redactions. The parties are hereby ORDERED to meet and confer to jointly prepare a briefing schedule for the Defendant's forthcoming motion for release on bail. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 12/3/2020)(bw) (Entered: 12/03/2020)",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "12/03/2020 82 SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (jus) (Entered: 12/03/2020)\n12/03/2020 83 SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (jus) (Entered: 12/03/2020)\n12/03/2020 84 SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (jus) (Entered: 12/03/2020)\n12/04/2020 85 LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated December 4, 2020 re: Briefing Schedule (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 12/04/2020)\n12/04/2020 86 LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated 11/25/2020 re: Sealing (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 12/04/2020)\n12/04/2020 87 LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated 11/30/2020 re: Sealing (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 12/04/2020)\n12/07/2020 88 LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Sophia Papapetru and John Wallace dated 12/4/20 re: This letter is written in response to your order dated December 2, 2020, concerning Ghislaine Maxwell, Reg. 02879-509., an inmate currently confined at the Metropolitan Detention center in Brooklyn, New York. You expressed various concerns regarding Ms. Maxwells confinement and well-being. (jw) (Entered: 12/07/2020)\n12/07/2020 89 ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell re: 85 Letter filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. The Court is in receipt of the Defendant's December 4, 2020 letter, Dkt. No. 85, and hereby sets the following schedule: The Defendants submission is due December 8, 2020; the Government's response is due December 16, 2020; The Defendant's reply is due December 18, 2020. After reviewing these submissions, the Court will determine whether a hearing on the renewed bail motion is necessary. The Court grants the Defendants request that the Government shall file its submission under seal with proposed redactions.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?2110870152221896-L_1_0-1 17/113 DOJ-OGR-00020639",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ghislaine Maxwell",
      "Alison J. Nathan",
      "Christian R. Everdell",
      "Sophia Papapetru",
      "John Wallace"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Second Circuit",
      "SDNY CM/ECF"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Brooklyn",
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "02/28/2023",
      "2/22/23",
      "12/03/2020",
      "12/04/2020",
      "11/25/2020",
      "11/30/2020",
      "12/4/20",
      "December 2, 2020",
      "December 4, 2020",
      "December 8, 2020",
      "December 16, 2020",
      "December 18, 2020"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 22-1426",
      "Document 57",
      "Dkt. No. 80",
      "Dkt. No. 85",
      "Reg. 02879-509"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ghislaine Maxwell. It includes a detailed discussion of the court's decision regarding the defendant's proposed redactions and a schedule for future submissions. The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
}