EpsteinProject.org

House Oversight — DOJ production

DOJ-OGR-00008909

Format
pdf
File
596.pdf
Set
House Oversight (DOJ)
Pages
7
Text
Searchable
Text confidence
94%

View at the original source

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-PAE Document596- Filed 02/11/22 Pagelof7 USDC SDNY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOCUMENT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #:     DATE FILED: 2/11/22 United States of America, _y— 20-CR-330 (AJN) Ghislaine Maxwell, ORDER Defendant.   ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: The Court is in receipt of the parties’ letters addressing the Defendant’s request to temporarily seal her motion for a new trial and accompanying exhibits, and the Government’s response in opposition and accompanying exhibits. See Dkt. Nos. 590, 594, 595. Several media organizations have also filed letters seeking unsealing. The Court is also in receipt of Juror 50’s motion to intervene. Both the Government and the Defendant oppose intervention. The Defendant seeks to strike or, in the alternative, seal Juror 50’s motion. For the reasons outlined more fully below, the Court rules as follows. First, the Defendant’s motion to temporarily seal in their entirety all documents related to the motion for a new trial is DENIED. Any sealing of judicial documents must be narrowly tailored to serve competing interests. In this case, important interests include preserving the integrity of any inquiry process going forward as well as protecting juror anonymity and privacy. Protection of these interests, however, can plainly be accomplished through tailored redactions. Following the Court’s resolution of the Defendant’s motion or a hearing, if one is ordered, all redactions will be promptly unsealed except those necessary to protect any continuing interest in juror anonymity and privacy. DOJ-OGR-00008909 

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document596- Filed 02/11/22 Page2of7 Second, the Court DENIES Juror 50’s motion to intervene as it is unnecessary and unsupported by any authority or precedent. Juror 50’s motion to intervene, however, will be docketed because the Court DENIES the Defendant’s request to seal the motion. Even though the motion to intervene is denied, it is a judicial do

[…]

Open in the archive