House Oversight — DOJ production
- Format
- File
- 095.pdf
- Set
- House Oversight (DOJ)
- Pages
- 2
- Text
- Searchable
- Text confidence
- 93%
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 95 Filed 12/14/20 Page 1 of 2 USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOC #:___. DATE FILED: 12/14/20 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK oes United States of America, _y_ 20-CR-330 (AJN) Ghislaine Maxwell, ORDER Defendant. ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: On December 8, 2020, Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell filed her renewed application for bail under seal with proposed redactions, in accordance with this Court’s December 7, 2020 Order, see Dkt. No. 89. The Government did not file any opposition to the Defendant’s proposed redactions. After due consideration, the Court will adopt the Defendant’s proposed redactions. The Court’s decision to adopt those 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: (1) determine whether the documents in question are “judicial documents;” (ii) assess the weight of the common law presumption of access to the materials; and (111) balance competing considerations against the presumption of access. /d. 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 I?’)). The proposed redactions satisfy this test. The Court finds that 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. DOJ-OGR-00001970 Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 95 Filed 12/14/20 Page 2 of 2 United States v. Amodeo (“Amodeo I’), 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995). And the Court also finds that the common law presumption of access attaches. /d. at 146; see also Nixon v. Warner Comme’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. […]