DOJ-OGR-00020641.jpg

Case 22-1426, Document “Tato | 3475900, Page23 of 208 | A-19— 2/22/23, 1:25 PM SDNY CM/ECF NextGen Version 1.6 been filed by the court reporter/transcriber in the above-captioned matter. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days.... (McGuirk, Kelly) (Entered: 12/10/2020) 12/14/2020 95 | ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: 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;" (11) assess the weight of the common law presumption of access to the materials; and (111) balance competing considerations against the presumption of access. Id. at 11920. "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." Id. at 120 (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 (2d Cir.1995) ("Amodeo II")). 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. 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. Id. at 146; see also Nixon v. Warner Comme'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 602 (1978). Nevertheless, in balancing competing considerations against the presumption of access, the Court finds that the redactions are narrowly tailored to properly guard the privacy interests of the individuals referenced in the Defendant's submission and in the corresponding exhibits The Defendant is hereby ORDERED to docket the redacted documents and corresponding exhibits. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 12/14/2020) (ap) (Entered: 12/14/2020) 12/14/2020 96 | LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated December 8, 2020 re: Cover Letter for Renewed Bail Application (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 12/14/2020) 12/14/2020 97 | MEMORANDUM OF LAW tn Support by Ghislaine Maxwell re: Renewed Motion for Bail. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, #6 Exhibit F, #7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, #9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P, #17 Exhibit Q, # 18 Exhibit R, # 19 Exhibit 8, # 20 Exhibit T, #21 Exhibit U, #22 Exhibit V, # 23 Exhibit W, # 24 Exhibit X)(Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 12/14/2020) 12/17/2020 98 | NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE Andrew Rohrbach appearing for USA. (Rohrbach, Andrew) (Entered: 12/17/2020) 12/18/2020 99 | ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: On December 16, 2020, the Government filed its opposition to Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell's renewed application for bail. In accordance with this Court's December 7, 2020 Order, see Dkt. No. 89, the Government filed its materials under seal and proposed narrowly tailored redactions on those materials. The Defendant did not file any opposition to the Government's proposed redactions. The Court will adopt the Government's proposed redactions after applying 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 access to the materials; and (111) balance competing considerations against the https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?211087015221896-L_1_0-1 19/113 DOJ-OGR-00020641