DOJ-OGR-00003851.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 217 Filed 04/19/21 Page5of6 The Hon. Alison J. Nathan April 1, 2021 Page 5 record or reported in the media does not mean that the [] parties themselves have lost any remaining privacy interest in their contents.” United States v. Gatto, No. 17-cr-686 (LAK), 2019 WL 4194569, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2019) (quoting Matter of New York Times, 828 at 116 (“much of the Title III material contained in the papers has already been publicized. Nonetheless, limited redaction of the Title II] material in the papers may still be appropriate.”)). Indeed, this Court rejected Ms. Maxwell’s argument that certain portions of the Response and its exhibits should be unredacted because the material had already been made public. See Dkt. No. 168 at 2-3; Letter Motion of Laura A. Menninger dated March 9, 2021 (Objection to Proposed Redactions of Government’s Omnibus Response & Exhibit 5) at 2-3 (Virginia Giuffre memoir detailing her private family matters released by Second Circuit in The Billionaire Playboys Club manuscript). The government also persists in using pseudonyms in this case such as “Minor Victim 2” in place of an accuser who has told her story most publicly on Netflix, ABC News, and the New York Times. Ms. Maxwell’s privacy rights to her zealously guarded intimate sexual affairs deserve at least as much protection as third-parties who have chosen at every turn to publicize their salacious allegations. Ms. Maxwell respectfully requests that the redactions to pages 129-134 that she previously proposed in her March 9, 2021 Letter at Exhibit 3 be adopted, in addition to the government’s redactions to those same pages. As regards Exhibit 11, Ms. Maxwell respectfully requests that the redactions ordered by Judge Preska to those deposition pages be adopted as well. To the extent additional testimony is reflected in Exhibit 11, it is immaterial to the issues presented in Ms. Maxwell’s Motions to Suppress or the government’s Response. The Government’s Position The Government respectfully submits that there is no basis under the applicable DOJ-OGR-00003851