DOJ-OGR-00020414.jpg

Case 22-1426, Document 1-2, 07/08/2022, 3344417, Page28 of 91 04/15/2021 | 202 | MOTION to Continue Trial Date. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Sternheim, Bobbi) (Entered: 04/15/2021) 2 04/16/2021 | 203 | ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: The Court is in receipt of the parties' joint letter responding to the Court's March 29, 2021 Order. The parties agree that the redactions to pages 118 and 119 are no longer necessary. The Defendant continues to press for the redactions on pages 129134. However, for the reasons stated in the Court's March 29, 2021 Order, the information is already part of the public record in this case and accordingly the proposed redactions are unnecessary and overbroad. Dkt. No. 189; see also United States v. Nejad, No. 18-CR—224 (AJN), 2021 WL 681427, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 22, 2021). For the reasons stated in the Court's March 18, 2021 and March 29, 2021 Orders, the Court approves the limited redactions to Exhibit 11 to the Government's brief, except for the language quoted in the Indictment, which is already part of the public record. The Government is therefore ORDERED to docket its omnibus memorandum of law, along with the corresponding exhibits, by 3:00 p.m. today, consistent with the Court's orders regarding redactions. The parties are further ORDERED to docket their April 1, 2021 joint letter; if either side believes that portions of that letter should be redacted, they shall propose redactions by April 19, 2021. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 4/16/2021) (ap) (Entered: 04/16/2021) 04/16/2021 | 204 | MEMORANDUM in Opposition by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell re 139 MOTION to Suppress Under the Fourth Amendment, Martindell, and the Fifth Amendment All Evidence Obtained from the Governments Subpoena to REDACTED and to Dismiss Counts Five And Six., 123 MOTION to Dismiss Counts One through Four of the Superseding Indictment as it was Obtained in Violation of the Sixth Amendment., 147 Superseding Indictment for Lack of Specificity., 135 MOTION to Dismiss Counts Five and Six of the Superseding Indictment Because the Alleged Misstatements are Not Perjurious as a Matter of Law., 121 MOTION to Dismiss Either Count One Or Count Three of the Superseding Indictment as Multiplicitous., 125 MOTION to Dismiss the MOTION for Bill of Particulars and Pretrial Disclosures., 119 MOTION for Separate Trial on Counts Ghislaine Maxwell (1) Count 5s—6s,5—6 ., 133 MOTION to Suppress Under the Due Process Clause All Evidence Obtained from the Governments Subpoena to REDACTED and to Dismiss Counts Five and Six., 145 MOTION to Strike Surplusage from Superseding Indictment., 143 MOTION to Dismiss Counts One Through Four of the Superseding Indictment as Time—Barred., 137 MOTION to Dismiss Counts One Through Six of the Superseding Indictment for Pre—Indictment Delay., 141 MOTION to Dismiss the Superseding Indictment for Breach of Non—Prosecution Agreement.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, #4 Exhibit 4, #5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, #7 Exhibit 7, #8 Exhibit 8, #9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12)(Pomerantz, Lara) (Entered: 04/16/2021) 04/16/2021 | 205 | ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: On March 15, 2021, the Defendant filed under seal her reply briefs to the Government memorandum of law opposing Defendants’ twelve pre-trial motions. She filed the briefs, along with the corresponding exhibits, temporarily under seal in order to permit the Government and the Court to review certain proposed redactions. Of the twelve reply briefs, Reply Briefs 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 11, and 12 did not contain any redaction or sealing requests. Reply Briefs 1, 3, 5, 6, and 10 contain limited proposed redactions. Reply Briefs 3, 6, and 10 also contain exhibits that the Defendant proposes be filed under seal. As set forth in the Defendant's cover letter, the premise of the proposed redactions is that the materials were produced in discovery and subject to the protective order that has been entered in this case. The mere existence of a confidentiality agreement or a protective order covering judicial documents is insufficient to overcome the presumption of access. See Aioi Nissay Dowa Ins. Co. v. Prosight Specialty Mgmt. Co., Inc., 12—cv—3274 (JPO), 2012 WL 3583176, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2012). And the Court did not receive specific requests or justifications to redact or seal any of the materials. The Defendant is ORDERED to docket Reply Briefs 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 11, and 12 on ECF today, as she did not propose any redactions to these and the Government has not voiced any opposition to these being filed without redactions. If either side is seeking these or any other redactions to the remaining reply briefs, they must file a letter indicating the redactions they request and providing specific justifications for the sealing requests or redactions, in line with the principles set forth in Lugosch. By April 20, 2021, the parties shall confer and submit a letter informing the Court whether any redactions are being sought. If no redactions are being sought, the Defendant is ORDERED to docket the DOJ-OGR- 00020414