House Oversight — DOJ production
- Format
- File
- 051.pdf
- Set
- House Oversight (DOJ)
- Pages
- 5
- Text
- Searchable
- Text confidence
- 94%
Text as released
Machine-read from the scan. Names, dates and numbers can be misread — check anything you rely on against the original page.
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 51 Filed 09/02/20 Page 1 of 5 USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DATE FILED:__ 9/2/20 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK United States of America, _y_ 20-CR-330 (AJN) Ghislaine Maxwell, MEMORANDUM Defendant. OPINION AND ORDER ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: On August 17, 2020, Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell filed a sealed letter motion seeking an Order modifying the protective order in this case.' Specifically, she sought a Court order allowing her to file under seal in certain civil cases (“Civil Cases”) materials (“Documents”) that she received in discovery from the Government in this case. She also sought permission to ! This Order will not refer to any redacted or otherwise confidential information, and as a result it will not be sealed. The Court will adopt the redactions to Defendant’s August 17, 2020 letter motion that the Government proposed on August 21, 2020, and it will enter that version into the public docket. The Court’s decision to adopt the Government’s proposed redactions 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;” (11) assess the weight of the common law presumption of access to the materials; and (iii) balance competing considerations against the presumption of access. Jd. 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.’” Jd. at 120 (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 (2d Cir.1995) (“Amodeo IP’)). The Government’s proposed redactions satisfy this test. First, the Court finds that the defendant’s letter motion is “relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process,” thereby qualifying a […]