House Oversight — DOJ production
- Format
- File
- 605.pdf
- Set
- House Oversight (DOJ)
- Pages
- 3
- Text
- Searchable
- Text confidence
- 92%
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 Document 605 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK United States of America, —V— Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: Filed 02/18/22 Page1lof3 USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: DATE FILED: 20-CR-330 (AJN) ORDER The Court is in receipt of the parties’ proposed redactions to the Defendant’s motion for a new trial, the Government’s response in opposition, and the Defendant’s reply in support. See Dkt. No. 596. The parties did not propose any redactions to Juror 50’s motion nor the parties letters dated January 13, 2022. See id. at 7. The Defendant submitted a letter justifying her proposed redactions, Dkt. No. 602, and the Government submitted an opposition to the proposals, Dkt. No. 603. The Court determines that the following proposed redactions are not consistent with the Court’s prior order, Dkt. No. 596, because they redact information that is widely reported in the press and/or redact legal arguments: e Defense Br. at: o il, lines 17-18; o 21, lines 1-2; o 49, lines 16-21; o 51, lines 10-16; o 57, lines 5-7 e Gov. Resp. at: DOJ-OGR- 00008972 Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 605 _ Filed 02/18/22 e) 8, lines 16-19; 9, lines 3-6, 9-11; 16, lines 5-14; 22, lines 6-7; 32, line 2; 37, line 16; 37 n.17, line 2 e Defense Reply at: e) e) O O 18, lines 3-4, 11-28; 23 n.11, lines 1-12; 23, line 12-14; 24, lines 1-8, 13-15. Page 2 of 3 There are also clear inconsistencies between the Defendant’s intended redactions, as stated in her accompanying letter, and her proposed redactions, compare Dkt. No. 602, with Proposed Redactions to Maxwell Br. at 48-49, and between some of the proposed redactions themselves, compare Proposed Redactions to Gov. Br. at 35-36, with Proposed Redactions to Maxwell Reply at 22. The Defendant also proposes redactions related to “Juror 50’s exact responses to the questions on his jury questionnaire” because it is “being kept temporarily under seal.” Dkt. No. 6 […]