The Epstein Index

Keyboard shortcuts

/
Search the files
j k
Move through a list of results
[ ]
Previous or next document
g g · G
Top or bottom of the page
Esc
Leave a search field or close this box
?
Show this box

Go to a page: g then

h
Index
t
Timeline
p
People
r
Redactions
x
Explore
w
News
l
Legislation
a
About

Court filing · Jan. 12, 2021

Notice of appeal by Ghislaine Maxwell over bail denial, January 2021

Second Circuit docketing notice and Maxwell's notice of appeal from the SDNY order denying release on bail, with counsel and docket informationMachine-written summary

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007

Date: January 12, 2021 Docket #: 21-58 Short Title: United States of America v. Maxwell

DOCKETING NOTICE

DC Docket #: 1:20-cr-330-1 DC Court: SDNY (NEW YORK CITY) DC Judge: Nathan

An appeal in the above-referenced case has been docketed under number. 21-58. This number must appear on all documents related to this case that are filed in this Court. Appellate counsel of record either represented the appellant before the district court, filed the notice of appeal, or acted as counsel for appellee in the district court. For pro se parties the docket sheet with the caption page, and an Acknowledgment and Notice of Appearance Form are enclosed. In counseled cases the docket sheet is available on PACER. Counsel must access the Acknowledgment and Notice of Appearance Form from this Court’s website http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov.

The form must be completed and returned within 14 days of the date of this notice. The form requires the following information:

YOUR CORRECT CONTACT INFORMATION: Review the party information on the docket sheet and note any incorrect information in writing on the Acknowledgment and Notice of Appearance Form.

The Court will contact one counsel per party or group of collectively represented parties when serving notice or issuing our order. Counsel must designate on the Acknowledgment and Notice of Appearance a lead attorney to accept all notices from this Court who, in turn will, be responsible for notifying any associated counsel.

CHANGE IN CONTACT INFORMATION: An attorney or pro se party who does not immediately notify the Court when contact information changes will not receive notices, documents and orders filed in the case.

An attorney and any pro se party who is permitted to file documents electronically in CM/ECF must notify the Court of a change to the user’s mailing address, business address, telephone number, ore-mail. To update contact information, a Filing User must access PACER’s Manage My Appellate Filer Account, https://www.pacer.gov/psco/cgi-bin/cmecf/ea-login.pl. The Court’s records will be updated within I business day of a user entering the change in PACER.

A pro se party who is not permitted to file documents electronically must notify the Court of a change in mailing address or telephone number by filing a letter with the Clerk of Court.

CAPTION: In an appeal, the Court uses the district court caption pursuant to FRAP 12(a), 32(a). For a petition for review or original proceeding the Court uses a caption pursuant to FRAP 15(a) or 21(a), respectively. Please review the caption carefully and promptly advise this Court of any improper or inaccurate designations in writing on the Acknowledgment and Notice of Appearance form. If a party has been terminated from the case the caption may reflect that change only if the district court judge ordered that the caption be amended.

APPELLATE DESIGNATIONS: Please review whether petitioner is listed correctly on the party listing page of the docket sheet and in the caption. If there is an error, please note on the Acknowledgment and Notice of Appearance Form. Timely submission of the Acknowledgment and Notice of Appearance Form will constitute compliance with the requirement to file a Representation Statement required by FRAP 12(b).

For additional information consult the Court’s instructions posted on the website.

Inquiries regarding this case may be directed to 212-857-8577.

USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: DATE FILED: January 11, 2021

Criminal Notice of Appeal - Form A

NOTICE OF APPEAL

United States v.

Docket No.: 1:20-CR-00330

Notice is hereby given that Ghislaine Maxwell appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from the judgment of other ✓ Order Denying Defendant’s Renewed Motion for Release on Bail entered in this action on 12/28/2020 (specify) (date)

This appeal concerns: Conviction only | Sentence only | Conviction & Sentence | Other | ✓

Defendant found guilty by plea | trial | N/A | ✓

Offense occurred after November 1, 1987? Yes | ✓ | No | N/A |

Date of sentence: N/A | ✓

Bail/Jail Disposition: Committed | ✓ | Not committed | N/A |

Appellant is represented by counsel? Yes ✓ | No | If yes, provide the following information:

Defendant’s Counsel: Christian Everdell Counsel’s Address: █ & Gresser LLP 800 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022 Counsel’s Phone: 212-957-7600 Assistant U.S. Attorney: Maurene Comey AUSA’s Address: 1 St. Andrew’s Plaza New York, NY 10007 AUSA’s Phone: 212-637-2200

Christian R. Everdell /s/ SS Signature

CRIMINAL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:20-cr-00330-AJN All Defendants**

[REDACTED] & Gresser LLP New York, NY 10022 212-707-7268 Fax: 212-957-4514 Email: ceverdell@cohengresser.com

Haddon [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] Denver, CO 80203 (303)-831-7364 Fax: (303)-832-2628

Haddon, [REDACTED] and [REDACTED], P.C. Denver, CO 80203 (303)-831-7364 Fax: (303)-832-2628

Mark Stewart [REDACTED] [REDACTED] & Gresser, LLP (NYC) New York, NY 10022 (212) 957-7600 Fax: (212)957-4514 Email: mcohen@cohengresser.com

New York, NY 10007

18:371.F CONSPIRACY TO ENTICE MINORS TO TRAVEL TO ENGAGE IN ILLEGAL SEX ACTS (1)

18:371.F CONSPIRACY TO ENTICE MINORS TO TRAVEL TO ENGAGE IN ILLEGAL SEX ACTS (Is)

18:2422.F COERCION OR ENTICEMENT OFA MINOT TO TRAVEL TO ENGAGE IN ILLEGAL SEX ACTS (2)

18:2422.F COERCION OR ENTICEMENT OF MINOR TO ENGAGE IN ILLEGAL SEX ACTS (2s)

18:371.F CONSPIRACY TO TRANSPORT MINORS WITH INTENT TO ENGAGE IN CRIMINAL SEXUAL ACTIVITY (3)

18:37I.F 18:371.F CONSPIRACY TO TRANSPORT MINORS WITH INTENT TO ENGAGE IN CRIMINAL SEXUAL ACTIVITY (3s)

18:2423.F COERCION OR ENTICEMENT OF MINOR FEMALE (TRANSPORTATION OF A MINOR WITH INTENT TO ENGAGE IN CRIMINAL SEXUAL ACTIVITY) (4)

18:2423.F TRANSPORTATION OF A MINOR WITH INTENT TO ENGAGE IN CRIMINAL SEXUAL ACTIVITY (4s)

18:1623.F FALSE DECLARATIONS BEFORE GRAND JURY/COURT (PERJURY) (5-6)

18: I623.F FALSE DECLARATIONS BEFORE GRAND JURY/COURT (5s-6s)

ilkihelLigie0=leieL(beign)

Felony

Highest Offense Level (Terminated)

New York, NY 10007 (212)-637-2415 Email: alexander.rossmiller@usdoj.gov PRO HAC VICE

New York, NY 10007 (212)-637-2225 Email: alison.moe@usdoj.gov

New York, NY 10007 (212)-637-2324 Email: maurene.comey@usdoj.gov

New York, NY 10007 Email: Andrew.Rohrbach@usdoj.gov

New York, NY 10007 212-637-2343 Email: Lara.Pomerantz@usdoj.gov

06/29/20201SEALED INDICTMENT as to Sealed Defendant 1 (1) count(s) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5–6. (jm) (Main Document 1 replaced on 7/2/2020) (jm). (Entered: 07/02/2020)
07/02/20202Order to Unseal Indictment as to Sealed Defendant 1. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Katharine H. [REDACTED] on 7/2/20)(jm) (Entered: 07/02/2020)
07/02/2020INDICTMENT UNSEALED as to Ghislaine Maxwell. (jm) (Entered: 07/02/2020)
07/02/2020Case Designated ECF as to Ghislaine Maxwell. (jm) (Entered: 07/02/2020)
07/02/2020Case as to Ghislaine Maxwell ASSIGNED to Judge Alison J. Nathan. (jm) (Entered: 07/02/2020)
07/02/2020Attorney update in case as to Ghislaine Maxwell. Attorney Alex Rossmiller, Maurene Ryan Comey, Alison Gainfort Moe for USA added. (jm) (Entered: 07/02/2020)
07/02/20204MOTION to detain defendant . Document filed by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell. (Moe, Alison) (Entered: 07/02/2020)
07/02/2020Arrest of Ghislaine Maxwell in the United States District Court – District of New Hampshire. (jm) (Entered: 07/06/2020)
07/05/20205LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, and Alex Rossmiller dated July 5, 2020 re: Request to Schedule Initial Appearance Document filed by USA. (Comey, Maurene) (Entered: 07/05/2020)
07/06/20206Rule 5(c)(3) Documents Received as to Ghislaine Maxwell from the United States District Court – District of New Hampshire. (jm) (Entered: 07/06/2020)
07/06/20207ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. This matter has been assigned to me for all purposes. In its July 5, 2020 letter, the Government on behalf of the parties requested that the Court schedule an arraignment, initial appearance, and bail hearing in this matter in the afternoon of Friday, July 10. See Dkt. No. 5. In light of the COVID public health crisis, there are significant safety issues related to in-court proceedings. If the Defendant is willing to waive her physical presence, this proceeding will be conducted remotely. To that end, defense counsel should confer with the Defendant regarding waiving her physical presence. If the Defendant wishes to waive her physical presence for this proceeding, she and her counsel should sign the attached form in advance of the proceeding if feasible. If this proceeding is to be conducted remotely, there are protocols at the Metropolitan Detention Center that limit the times at which the Defendant could be produced so that she could appear by video. In the next week, the Defendant could be produced by video at either 9:00 a.m. on July 9, 2020 or sometime during the morning of July 14, 2020. Counsel are hereby ordered to meet and confer regarding scheduling for this initial proceeding in light of these constraints. If counsel does anticipate proceeding remotely, by 9:00 p.m. tonight, counsel should file a joint letter proposing a date and time for the proceeding consistent with this scheduling information, as well as a revised briefing schedule for the Defendant’s bail application. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 7/6/2020)(jbo) (Entered: 07/06/2020)
07/06/20208LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Mark S. [REDACTED] dated July 6, 2020 re: Scheduling ([REDACTED], Mark) (Entered: 07/06/2020)
07/07/20209LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Alex Rossmiller dated July 7, 2020 re: scheduling Document filed by USA. (Rossmiller, Alex) (Entered: 07/07/2020)
07/07/202010ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. An arraignment, initial conference, and bail hearing in this matter is hereby scheduled to occur as a remote video/teleconference using an internet platform on July 14, 2020 at 1 p.m. In advance of the conference, [REDACTED] will email counsel with further information on how to access the video conference. To optimize the quality of the video feed, only the Court, the Defendant, defense counsel, and counsel for the Government will appear by video for the proceeding; all others may access the audio of the public proceeding by telephone. Due to the limited capacity of the internet platform system, only one attorney per party may participate by video. Co-counsel, members of the press, and the public may access the audio feed of the proceeding by calling a dial-in number, which the Court will provide in

advance of the proceeding by subsequent order. Given the high degree of public interest in this case, a video feed of the remote proceeding will be available for viewing in the Jury Assembly Room located at the Daniel [REDACTED] Moynihan Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY. Due to social distancing requirements, seating will be extremely limited; when capacity is reached no additional persons will be admitted. Per the S.D.N.Y. COVID-19 Courthouse Entry Program, anyone who appears at any S.D.N.Y. courthouse must complete a questionnaire on the date of the proceeding prior to arriving at the courthouse. All visitors must also have their temperature taken when they arrive at the courthouse. Please see the instructions, attached. Completing the questionnaire ahead of time will save time and effort upon entry. Only persons who meet the entry requirements established by the questionnaire and whose temperatures are below 100.4 degrees will be allowed to enter the courthouse. Face coverings that cover the nose and mouth must be worn at all times. Anyone who fails to comply with the COVID-19 protocols that have been adopted by the Court will be required to leave the courthouse. There are no exceptions. As discussed in the Court’s previous order, defense counsel shall, if possible, discuss the Waiver of Right to be Present at Criminal Proceeding with the Defendant prior to the proceeding. See Dkt. No. 7. If the Defendant consents, and is able to sign the form (either personally or, in accordance with Standing Order 20-MC-174 of March 27, 2020, by defense counsel), defense counsel shall file the executed form at least 24 hours prior to the proceeding. In the event the Defendant consents, but counsel is unable to obtain or affix the Defendant’s signature on the form, the Court will conduct an inquiry at the outset of the proceeding to determine whether it is appropriate for the Court to add the Defendant’s signature to the form. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3771(c)(1), the Government must make their best efforts to see that crime victims are notified of, and accorded, the rights provided to them in that section. This includes [t]he right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding… involving the crime or of any release… of the accused and “[t]he right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving release.” Id. § 3771(a)(2), (4). The Court will inquire with the Government as to the extent of those efforts. So that appropriate logistical arrangements can be made, the Government shall inform the Court by email within 24 hours in advance of the proceeding if any alleged victim wishes to be heard on the question of detention pending trial. Finally, the time between the Defendant’s arrest and July 6, 2020 is excluded under the Speedy Trial Act due to the delay involved in transferring the Defendant from another district. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(F). And the Court further excludes time under the Speedy Trial Act from today through July 14, 2020. Due to the logistical issues involved in conducting a remote proceeding, the Court finds “that the ends of justice served by [this exclusion] outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.” 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). The exclusion is also supported by the need for the parties to discuss a potential protective order, which will facilitate the timely production of discovery in a manner protective of the rights of third parties. See Dkt. No. 5. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 7/7/2020)(jbo) (Entered: 07/07/2020)

07/08/202011

MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Ghislaine Maxwell on 9 LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Alex Rossmiller dated July 7, 2020 re: scheduling. ENDORSEMENT: The Court hereby sets the following briefing schedule. The Defense response is due by 1:00 p.m. on July 10, 2020. The Government reply is due by 1:00 p.m. on July 13, 2020. Additionally, defense counsel is ordered to file notices of appearance on the docket by the end of the day today. SO ORDERED. (Responses due by 7/10/2020. Replies due by 7/13/2020.) (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 7/8/2020) (Inl) (Entered: 07/08/2020)

07/08/202012

NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Mark Stewart [REDACTED] appearing for Ghislaine Maxwell. Appearance Type: Retained. ([REDACTED], Mark) (Entered: 07/08/2020)

07/08/202013

NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Christian R. Everdell appearing for Ghislaine Maxwell. Appearance Type: Retained. (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 07/08/2020)

07/08/202014

NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Laura A. Menninger appearing for Ghislaine Maxwell. Appearance Type: Retained. (Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 07/08/2020)

07/08/202015MOTION for Jeffrey S. Pagliuca to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number ANYSDC-20605229. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk’s Office staff. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Jeffrey S. Pagliuca, # 2 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing, # 3 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Pagliuca, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/08/2020)
07/08/202017(S1) SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT FILED as to Ghislaine Maxwell (1) count(s) 1s, 2s, 3s, 4s, 5s-6s. (jm) (Entered: 07/10/2020)
07/09/2020>>>NOTICE REGARDING PRO HAC VICE MOTION. Regarding Document No. 15 MOTION for Jeffrey S. Pagliuca to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number ANYSDC-20605229. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk’s Office staff. The document has been reviewed and there are no deficiencies. (aea) (Entered: 07/09/2020)
07/09/202016ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. As discussed in its previous order, the Court will hold an arraignment, initial conference, and bail hearing in this matter remotely as a video/teleconference on July 14, 2020 at 1 pm. Members of the press and the public in the United States may access the live audio feed of the proceeding by calling 855-268-7844 and using access code 32091812# and PIN 9921299#. Those outside of the United States may access the live audio feed by calling 214-416-0400 and using the same access code and PIN. These phone lines can accommodate approximately 500 callers on a first come, first serve basis. The Court will provide counsel for both sides an additional dial-in number to be used to ensure audio access to the proceeding for non-speaking co-counsel, alleged victims, and any family members of the Defendant. The United States Attorney’s Office should email [REDACTED] with information regarding any alleged victims who are entitled, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3771(a)(4), to be heard at the bail hearing and who wish to be heard. The Court will then provide information as to the logistics for their dial-in access. As the Court described in a previous order, members of the press and public may watch and listen to the live video feed in the Jury Assembly Room, at the Daniel [REDACTED] Moynihan Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street. See Dkt. No. 10. However, in light of COVID-19, seating will be limited to approximately 60 seats in order to enable appropriate social distancing and ensure public safety. Counsel for the Defendant and the Government may contact [REDACTED] by email if there is a request to accommodate alleged victims or family members of the Defendant. Members of the credentialed in-house press corps may contact the District Executive’s Office about seating. Otherwise, all seating will be allocated on a first come, first serve basis and in accordance with the S.D.N.Y. COVID-19 Courthouse Entry Program and this Court’s previous order of July 7, 2020. See Dkt. No. 10. If conditions change or the Court otherwise concludes that allowing for in-person viewing of the video feed at the courthouse is not consistent with public health, the Court may provide audio access by telephone only. Any photographing, recording, or rebroadcasting of federal court proceedings is prohibited by law. Violation of these prohibitions may result in fines or sanctions, including removal of court issued media credentials, restricted entry to future hearings, denial of entry to future hearings, or any other sanctions deemed necessary by the Court. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 7/9/2020)(jbo) (Entered: 07/09/2020)
07/10/202018MEMORANDUM in Opposition by Ghislaine Maxwell re 4 MOTION to detain defendant .. ([REDACTED], Mark) (Entered: 07/10/2020)
07/10/202019NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Mark Stewart [REDACTED] appearing for Ghislaine Maxwell. Appearance Type: Retained. ([REDACTED], Mark) (Entered: 07/10/2020)
07/10/202020NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Christian R. Everdell appearing for Ghislaine Maxwell. Appearance Type: Retained. (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 07/10/2020)
07/10/202021WAIVER of Personal Appearance at Arraignment and Entry of Plea of Not Guilty by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 07/10/2020)
07/13/202022REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell re: 4 MOTION to detain defendant . . (Moe, Alison) (Entered: 07/13/2020)
07/13/2020ORDER granting 15 Motion for Jeffrey Pagliuca to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Ghislaine Maxwell (1). (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 7/13/2020) (kwi)
(Entered: 07/13/2020)
07/14/202023ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. For the reasons stated on the record at today’s proceeding, the Governments motion to detain the Defendant pending trial is hereby GRANTED (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 7/14/20)(jw) (Entered: 07/14/2020)
07/14/2020Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Alison J. Nathan: Arraignment as to Ghislaine Maxwell (1) Count 1s,2s,3s,4s,5s-6s held on 7/14/2020. Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell present by video conference with attorney Mark [REDACTED] present by video conference, AUSA Alison Moe, Alex Rossmiller and Maurene Comey for the government present by video conference, Pretrial Service Officer Lea Harmon present by telephone and Court Reporter Kristine Caraannante. Defendant enters a plea of Not Guilty to the S1 indictment. Trial set for July 12, 2021. See Order. Time is excluded under the Speedy Trial Act from today until July 12, 2021. Bail is denied. Defendant is remanded. See Transcript. (jw) (Entered: 07/14/2020)
07/14/2020Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Alison J. Nathan: Plea entered by Ghislaine Maxwell (1) Count 1s,2s,3s,4s,5s-6s Not Guilty. (jw) (Entered: 07/14/2020)
07/14/202024Waiver of Right to be Present at Criminal Proceeding as to Ghislaine Maxwell re: Arraignment, Bail Hearing, Conference. (jw) (Entered: 07/14/2020)
07/15/202025ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. Initial non-electronic discovery, generally to include search warrant applications and subpoena returns, is due by Friday, August 21, 2020. Completion of discovery, to include electronic materials, is due by Monday, November 9, 2020. Motions are due by Monday, December 21, 2020. Motion responses are due by Friday, January 22, 2021. Motion replies are due by Friday, February 5, 2021. Trial is set for Monday, July 12, 2021 ( Discovery due by 8/21/2020., Motions due by 12/21/2020) (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 7/15/20)(jw) (Entered: 07/15/2020)
07/21/202026ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: The Court has received a significant number of letters and messages from non-parties that purport to be related to this case. These submissions are either procedurally improper or irrelevant to the judicial function. Therefore, they will not be considered or docketed. The Court will accord the same treatment to any similar correspondence it receives in the future. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 7/21/2020) (lnl) (Entered: 07/21/2020)
07/21/202027LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Jeffrey S. Pagliuca dated July 21, 2020 re: Local Criminal Rule 23.1 . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Pagliuca, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/21/2020)
07/23/202028ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: The Defense has moved for an order “prohibiting the Government, its agents and counsel for witnesses from making extrajudicial statements concerning this case.” Dkt. No. 27 at 1. The Court firmly expects that counsel for all involved parties will exercise great care to ensure compliance with this Court’s local rules, including Local Criminal Rule 23.1, and the rules of professional responsibility. In light of this clear expectation, the Court does not believe that further action is needed at this time to protect the Defendant’s right to a fair trial by an impartial jury. Accordingly, it denies the Defendant’s motion without prejudice. But the Court warns counsel and agents for the parties and counsel for potential witnesses that going forward it will not hesitate to take appropriate action in the face of violations of any relevant rules. The Court will ensure strict compliance with those rules and will ensure that the Defendant’s right to a fair trial will be safeguarded. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 7/23/2020) (ap) (Entered: 07/23/2020)
07/27/202029LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated July 27, 2020 re: Proposed Protective Order . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Proposed Protective Order))(Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 07/27/2020)
07/27/202030AFFIDAVIT of Christian R. Everdell by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 07/27/2020)
07/27/202031LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Alison Moe dated July 27, 2020 re: requesting until 5 p.m. tomorrow to respond to defense counsel’s letter, filed July 27, 2020 Document filed by USA. (Moe, Alison)
(Entered: 07/27/2020)
07/27/202032MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Ghislaine Maxwell on 31 LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Alison Moe dated July 27, 2020 re: requesting until 5 p.m. tomorrow to respond to defense counsel’s letter, filed July 27, 2020. ENDORSEMENT: The Government’s response to the Defense’s letter is due by 5 p.m. on July 28, 2020. The Defense may file a reply by 5 p.m. on July 29, 2020. Before the Government’s response is filed, the parties must meet and confer by phone regarding this issue, and any response from the Government must contain an affirmation that the parties have done so. SO ORDERED. (Responses due by 7/28/2020. Replies due by 7/29/2020.) (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 7/27/2020) (Inl) (Entered: 07/27/2020)
07/28/202033LETTER RESPONSE to Motion by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Alex Rossmiller dated July 28, 2020 re: 29 LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated July 27, 2020 re: Proposed Protective Order .. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (proposed protective order))(Rossmiller, Alex) (Entered: 07/28/2020)
07/28/202034AFFIDAVIT of Alex Rossmiller by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell. (Rossmiller, Alex) (Entered: 07/28/2020)
07/29/202035LETTER REPLY TO RESPONSE to Motion by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated July 29, 2020 re 29 LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated July 27, 2020 re: Proposed Protective Order .. (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 07/29/2020)
07/30/202036PROTECTIVE ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell…regarding procedures to be followed that shall govern the handling of confidential material. SO ORDERED: (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 7/30/2020)(bw) (Entered: 07/31/2020)
07/30/202037MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. Both parties have asked for the Court to enter a protective order. While they agree on most of the language, two areas of dispute have emerged. First, Ms. Maxwell seeks language allowing her to publicly reference alleged victims or witnesses who have spoken on the public record to the media or in public fora, or in litigation relating to Ms. Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein. Second, Ms. Maxwell seeks language restricting potential Government witnesses and their counsel from using discovery materials for any purpose other than preparing for the criminal trial in this action. The Government has proposed contrary language on both of these issues. For the following reasons, the Court adopts the Government’s proposed protective order Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(d)(1), “[a]t any time the court may, for good cause, deny, restrict, or defer discovery or inspection, or grant other appropriate relief.” The good cause standard “requires courts to balance several interests, including whether dissemination of the discovery materials inflicts hazard to others… whether the imposition of the protective order would prejudice the defendant,” and “the public’s interest in the information.” United States v. [REDACTED], 985 F. Supp. 2d 506, 522 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). The party seeking to restrict disclosure bears the burden of showing good cause. Cf. Gambale v. Deutsche Bank AG, 377 F.3d 133, 142 (2d Cir. 2004). First, the Court finds that the Government has met its burden of showing good cause with regard to restricting the ability of Ms. Maxwell to publicly reference alleged victims and witnesses other than those who have publicly identified themselves in this litigation. As a general matter, it is undisputed that there is a strong and specific interest in protecting the privacy of alleged victims and witnesses in this case that supports restricting the disclosure of their identities. Dkt. No. 29 at 3 (acknowledging that as a baseline the protective order should “prohibit[] Ms. Maxwell, defense counsel, and others on the defense team from disclosing or disseminating the identity of any alleged victim or potential witness referenced in the discovery materials”); see also United States v. Corley, No. 13-cr-48, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 194426, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2016). The Defense argues this interest is significantly diminished for individuals who have spoken on the public record about Ms. Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein, because they have voluntarily chosen to identify themselves. But not all accusations or public statements are equal. Deciding to participate in or contribute to a criminal investigation or prosecution is a far different matter than simply making a public statement “relating to” Ms. Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein, particularly since such a statement might have occurred decades ago and have no relevance to the charges in

this case. These individuals still maintain a significant privacy interest that must be safeguarded. The exception the Defense seeks is too broad and risks undermining the protections of the privacy of witnesses and alleged victims that is required by law. In contrast, the Government’s proffered language would allow Ms. Maxwell to publicly reference individuals who have spoken by name on the record in this case. It also allows the Defense to “reference[e] the identities of individuals they believe may be relevant… to Potential Defense Witnesses and their counsel during the course of the investigation and preparation of the defense case at trial.” Dkt. No. 33-1, 5. This proposal adequately balances the interests at stake. And as the Government’s letter notes, see Dkt. No. 33 at 4, to the extent that the Defense needs an exception to the protective order for a specific investigative purpose, they can make applications to the Court on a case-by-case basis. Second, restrictions on the ability of potential witnesses and their counsel to use discovery materials for purposes other than preparing for trial in this case are unwarranted. The request appears unprecedented despite the fact that there have been many high-profile criminal matters that had related civil litigation. The Government labors under many restrictions including Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Privacy Act of 1974, and other policies of the Department of Justice and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, all of which the Court expects the Government to scrupulously follow. Furthermore, the Government indicates that it will likely only provide potential witnesses with materials that those witnesses already have in their possession. See Dkt. No. 33 at 6. And of course, those witnesses who do testify at trial would be subject to examination on the record as to what materials were provided or shown to them by the Government. Nothing in the Defense’s papers explains how its unprecedented proposed restriction is somehow necessary to ensure a fair trial. For the foregoing reasons, the Court adopts the Government’s proposed protective order, which will be entered on the docket. This resolves Dkt. No. 29. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 7/30/2020)(bw) (Entered: 07/31/2020)

08/10/202038LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated August 10, 2020 re: Discovery Disclosure and Access . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 08/10/2020)
08/10/202039AFFIDAVIT of Christian R. Everdell by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 08/10/2020)
08/11/202040MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Ghislaine Maxwell on re: 38 LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated August 10, 2020 re: Discovery Disclosure and Access. ENDORSEMENT: The Government is hereby ORDERED to respond to the Defendant’s letter motion by Thursday, August 13, 2020. The Defendant’s reply, if any, is due on or before Monday, August 17, 2020. (Responses due by 8/13/2020. Replies due by 8/17/2020) (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 8/11/2020) (ap) (Entered: 08/11/2020)
08/13/202041LETTER RESPONSE in Opposition by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Alex Rossmiller dated August 13, 2020 re: 38 LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated August 10, 2020 re: Discovery Disclosure and Access .. (Rossmiller, Alex) (Entered: 08/13/2020)
08/17/202042LETTER REPLY TO RESPONSE to Motion by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated August 17, 2020 re 38 LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated August 10, 2020 re: Discovery Disclosure and Access .. (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 08/17/2020)
08/17/202043LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Jeffrey S. Pagliuca dated August 17, 2020 re: Request for Permission to Submit Letter Motion in Excess of Three Pages . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Pagliuca, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/17/2020)
08/18/202044ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: On August 17, 2020, the Defendant filed a letter motion seeking a modification of this Court’s Protective Order, which the Court entered on July 30, 2020. Defendant also moves to file that letter motion under seal. The Governments opposition to Defendant’s letter motion is hereby due Friday, August 21 at 12 p.m. The Defendant’s reply is due on Monday, August 24 at 12 p.m. The
parties shall propose redactions to the letter briefing on this issue. Alternatively, the parties shall provide support and argument for why the letter motions should be sealed in their entirety. SO ORDERED. (Responses due by 8/21/2020. Replies due by 8/24/2020.) (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 8/18/2020) (Inl) (Entered: 08/18/2020)
08/20/202045NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE Lara Elizabeth Pomerantz appearing for USA. (Pomerantz, Lara) (Entered: 08/20/2020)
08/20/202050SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (mhe) (Entered: 08/27/2020)
08/21/202046LETTER RESPONSE in Opposition by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Maurene Comey dated August 21, 2020 re: 43 LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Jeffrey S. Pagliuca dated August 17, 2020 re: Request for Permission to Submit Letter Motion in Excess of Three Pages .. (Rossmiller, Alex) (Entered: 08/21/2020)
08/21/202047LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Maurene Comey dated August 21, 2020 re: Proposed redactions to letter briefing, in response to the Court’s Order of August 18, 2020 Document filed by USA. (Rossmiller, Alex) (Entered: 08/21/2020)
08/24/202048LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Laura A. Menninger dated August 24, 2020 re: Request to File Under Seal: Proposed Redactions to Request to Modify Protective Order and Reply in Support Thereof . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 08/24/2020)
08/25/202049MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: denying without prejudice 38 LETTER MOTION as to Ghislaine Maxwell (1). On August 10, 2020, the Defendant filed a letter motion related to two issues. Dkt. No. 38. First, the Defendant seeks an order directing the Government to disclose to defense counsel immediately the identities of the three alleged victims referenced in the indictment. Second, the Defendant seeks an order directing the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) to release the Defendant into the general population and to provide her with increased access to the discovery materials. For the reasons that follow, Defendant’s requests are DENIED without prejudice…[See this Memorandum Opinion And Order]… III. Conclusion: For the reasons stated above, Defendant’s requests contained in Dkt. No. 38 are DENIED without prejudice. Following the close of discovery, the parties shall meet and confer on an appropriate schedule for pre-trial disclosures, including the disclosure of § 3500 material, exhibit lists, and witness lists, taking into account all relevant factors. The Government is hereby ORDERED to submit written status updates every 90 days detailing any material changes to the conditions of Ms. Maxwell’s confinement, with particular emphasis on her access to legal materials and ability to communicate with defense counsel. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 8/25/2020) (bw) (Entered: 08/25/2020)
09/02/202051MEMORANDUMOPINION AND ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: On August 17, 2020, Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell filed a sealed letter motion seeking an Order modifying the protective order in this case. Specifically, she sought a Court order allowing her to file under seal in certain civil cases (“Civil Cases”) materials (“Documents”) that she received in discovery from the Government in this case. She also sought permission to reference, but not file, other discovery material that the Government produced in this case. For the reasons that follow, Defendant’s requests are DENIED. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 9/2/2020)(See MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER as set forth) (Inl) (Entered: 09/02/2020)
09/02/202052LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan, from Jeffrey S. Pagliuca dated 8/17/2020 re: Defense counsel writes with redacted request to modify protective order. (ap) (Entered: 09/02/2020)
09/04/202055NOTICE OF APPEAL by Ghislaine Maxwell from 51 Memorandum & Opinion. Filing fee $ 505.00, receipt number 465401266036. (tp) (Entered: 09/09/2020)
09/08/202053LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan dated 8/24/2020 re: Proposed Redactions to Request to Modify Protective Order. (jbo) (Entered: 09/08/2020)
09/08/202054LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan dated 8/24/2020
09/09/2020Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Certified Copy of Docket Sheet as to Ghislaine
09/09/2020Appeal Record Sent to USCA (Electronic File). Certified Indexed record on Appeal
09/10/202056SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (dn) (Entered: 09/11/2020)
09/10/202057SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (dn) (Entered: 09/11/2020)
09/24/202058SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (mhe) (Entered: 09/24/2020)
10/05/20202NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Bobbi C Sternheim appearing for
10/06/202060LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from
10/06/20205J.AFFIDAVIT of Maurene Comey by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell. (Comey, Maurene)
10/07/202052MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Ghislaine Maxwell on re: 54 Accordingly, the
10/07/202055 LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from
10/14/202054 LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R.
10/20/202055LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from
10/23/202055LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Jeffrey S.
10/30/202052 LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from
I I /05/20206KORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: This Order is entered, pursuant to Federal Rule of
11/06/202069LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, and Lara Pomerantz dated November 6, 2020 re: Request to Extend Discovery Deadline for Portion of Electronic Discovery Document filed by USA. (Comey, Maurene) (Entered: 11/06/2020)
11/06/202070AFFIDAVIT of Maurene Comey by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell. (Comey, Maurene) (Entered: 11/06/2020)
11/09/202071MANDATE of USCA (Certified Copy) as to Ghislaine Maxwell re: 55 Notice of Appeal. USCA Case Number 20-3061-cr. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the motion to consolidate is DENIED and the appeal is DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction.. Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk USCA for the Second Circuit. Issued As Mandate: 11/09/2020. (nd) (Entered: 11/09/2020)
11/09/202072MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Ghislaine Maxwell on 69 LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, and Lara Pomerantz dated November 6, 2020 re: Request to Extend Discovery Deadline for Portion of Electronic Discovery. ENDORSEMENT: The Court hereby extends the deadline for the Government’s production of electronic discovery from November 9, 2020 to November 23, 2020. The Court also grants the parties’ request for an extension of the motions deadlines as follows: the Defendant’s motions are due by January 11, 2021, the Government’s responses are due by February 12, 2021, and any replies are due by February 19, 2021. SO ORDERED. (Discovery due by 11/23/2020. Motions due by 1/11/2021. Responses due by 2/12/2021. Replies due by 2/19/2021.) (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 11/9/2020) (Inl) (Entered: 11/10/2020)
11/18/202073MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Ghislaine Maxwell on re: 60 Letter filed by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell re: The Government respectfully requests that the Court approve the Government’s request to delay disclosure of these Materials…ENDORSEMENT…There is no dispute that the materials referenced in the Government’s letter will be turned over to the defense. The Government has indicated that it will do so. The only dispute, then, relates to the timing of such disclosure. See Dkt. Nos. 64, 65. Because the Government has articulated plausible reasons for some delay of disclosure, see Dkt. No. 65 at 4, the Court grants the Government’s request to delay disclosure. However, the Governments proposal to delay disclosure until 8 weeks in advance of trial is insufficient. In order to ensure that the defense can adequately prepare for trial, the Government shall produce the referenced materials, which are not voluminous, to the defense by March 12, 2021. Disclosure of the materials will of course be subject to the protective order entered by the Court, see Dkt. No. 36. (Government Responses due by 3/12/2021) (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 11/18/20)(jw) (Entered: 11/18/2020)
11/23/202074LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, and Lara Pomerantz dated November 23, 2020 re: Update Regarding Conditions of Confinement Document filed by USA. (Comey, Maurene) (Entered: 11/23/2020)
11/24/202075LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Bobbi C. Sternheim dated 11/24/2020 re: Response to 90-day MDC conditions report (Sternheim, Bobbi) (Entered: 11/24/2020)
11/24/202076MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Ghislaine Maxwell on re: 75 LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Bobbi C. Sternheim dated 11/24/2020 re: Response to 90-day MDC conditions report. ENDORSEMENT: The parties are hereby ORDERED to meet and confer regarding Defendant’s request that Warden Heriberto Tellez directly address Defendant’s concerns regarding the conditions of her detention. The parties shall jointly submit a status update within one week of this Order. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 11/24/2020) (ap) (Entered: 11/24/2020)
12/01/202077ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. On November 25, 2020, the Defendant filed a letter request under seal. On November 30, 2020, she filed a second letter request in which she proposed redactions on both letters. The Government is hereby ORDERED to respond to the Defendant’s November 25, 2020 letter request and to the request for proposed redactions by no later than December 2, 2020. The letters shall be
temporarily sealed while the Court resolves the redaction request. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 12/1/2020)(bw) (Entered: 12/01/2020)
12/01/202078LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, and Lara Pomerantz dated December 1, 2020 re: Joint Letter regarding Conditions of Confinement Document filed by USA. (Pomerantz, Lara) (Entered: 12/01/2020)
12/02/202079MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Ghislaine Maxwell on re: 78 LETTER by USA addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, and Lara Pomerantz dated December 1, 2020 re: Joint Letter regarding Conditions of Confinement. ENDORSEMENT: MDC legal counsel shall submit their letter to the Court by December 4, 2020. Upon review of that letter, the Court will determine whether any additional information is required, either orally or in writing. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 12/2/2020)(bw) (Entered: 12/02/2020)
12/02/202080LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, and Lara Pomerantz dated December 2, 2020 re: Defense Requests for Sealing Document filed by USA. (Comey, Maurene) (Entered: 12/02/2020)
12/03/202081ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. On November 25, 2020, counsel for Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell filed a letter request seeking an in camera conference for the presentation of a renewed motion for release on bail and a request to seal the November 25, 2020 letter in its entirety. The Court required justification for the sealing request. On November 30, 2020, the defense counsel filed a second letter no longer fully pressing the unsupported request to file the letter entirely under seal and instead proposing redactions to both the November 25th and November 30th letters. The Government has indicated that it does not oppose the redactions. Dkt. No. 80. After due consideration, the Court will adopt the Defendant’s proposed redactions, which are consented to by the Government. The Court’s decision 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: (i) determine whether the documents in question are “judicial documents;” (ii) assess the weight of the common law presumption of access to the materials; and (iii) 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, 1050 (2d Cir. 1995) (“Amodeo II”)). The proposed redactions satisfy this test. First, the Court finds that the 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 while the Court assumes that the common law presumption of access attaches, in balancing competing considerations against the presumption of access, the Court finds that the arguments the Defendant has put forthincluding, most notably, the privacy interests of the individuals referenced in the lettersfavor her proposed and tailored redactions. The Defendant is hereby ORDERED to docket the redacted versions of the two letters by December 4, 2020. For the reasons outlined in the Government’s letter dated December 2, 2020, Dkt. No. 80, the Court DENIES the Defendant’s request for an in camera conference. In order to protect the privacy interests referenced in the Defendant’s November 25, 2020 letter, the Court will permit the Defendant to make her submission in writing and to propose narrowly tailored redactions. The parties are hereby ORDERED to meet and confer and to jointly prepare a briefing schedule for the Defendant’s forthcoming renewed motion for release on bail. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 12/3/2020)(bw) (Entered: 12/03/2020)
12/03/202082SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (jus) (Entered: 12/03/2020)
12/03/202083SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (jus) (Entered: 12/03/2020)
12/03/202084SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (jus) (Entered: 12/03/2020)
12/04/202085LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated December 4, 2020 re: Briefing Schedule (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 12/04/2020)
12/04/202086LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated 11/25/2020 re: Sealing (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 12/04/2020)
12/04/202087LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated 11/30/2020 re: Sealing (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 12/04/2020)
12/07/202088LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Sophia Papapetru and John Wallace dated 12/4/20 re: This letter is written in response to your order dated December 2, 2020, concerning Ghislaine Maxwell, Reg. 02879-509., an inmate currently confined at the Metropolitan Detention center in Brooklyn, New York. You expressed various concerns regarding Ms. Maxwells confinement and well-being. (jw) (Entered: 12/07/2020)
12/07/202089ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell re: 85 Letter filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. The Court is in receipt of the Defendant’s December 4, 2020 letter, Dkt. No. 85, and hereby sets the following schedule: The Defendants submission is due December 8, 2020; The Government’s response is due December 16, 2020; The Defendant’s reply is due December 18, 2020. After reviewing these submissions, the Court will determine whether a hearing on the renewed bail motion is necessary. The Court grants the Defendants request that the Government shall file its submission under seal with proposed redactions. Any objections to proposed redactions are due within 24 hours after any brief has been filed. Finally, the Defendant is granted leave to file a motion not to exceed 40 pages. The Governments response shall also be limited to 40 pages. The Defendant’s reply shall not exceed 10 pages ( Defendant submission due by 12/8/2020., Defendant Replies due by 12/18/2020., Government Responses due by 12/16/2020) (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 12/7/20)(jw) (Entered: 12/07/2020)
12/07/202090ENDORSED LETTER as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Mark S. [REDACTED] and Christian R. Everdell dated 11/25/20 re: On behalf of my client, Ghislaine Maxwell, we plan to file a Renewed Motion for Release on Bail (the “Motion”) and respectfully request an in camera conference, with all counsel present, to address the appropriate procedures for the filing and consideration of the Motion. For the reasons explained below, we intend to request, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 49.1(d), that the Court permit the filing of portions of the Motion and certain supporting materials under seal and require that any responsive materials be filed under seal…ENDORSEMENT: The Court sees no basis for the sealing of this letter. On or before December 2, 2020, Defendant shall justify why this letter should be sealed (or redacted). Alternatively, the Defendant may file the letter on the public docket by that date. The Court will take no action on the request pending resolution of the initial sealing question. The Defendant’s letter and this memorandum endorsement will be temporarily sealed pending resolution of the sealing request. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 11/25/20)(jw) (Entered: 12/07/2020)
12/07/202091LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Bobbi C. Sternheim dated 12/07/2020 re: Response to MDC Report to Court re: conditions (Sternheim, Bobbi) (Entered: 12/07/2020)
12/08/202092ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: On December 4, 2020, the Court received a letter from MDC legal counsel responding to the concerns that the Defendant raised in her November 24, 2020 letter. See Dkt. Nos. 75, 88; see also Dkt. No. 78. The Defendant responded to the MDC legal counsel’s letter on December 7, 2020, reiterating her request that the Court summon Warden Heriberto Tellez to personally respond to questions from the Court regarding the Defendant’s conditions of confinement. See Dkt. No. 91. Having carefully reviewed the parties’ submissions, along with the MDC legal counsel’s December 4, 2020 letter, the Court DENIES the Defendant’s request to summon the Warden to personally appear and respond to questions. This resolves Dkt. No. 75. Notwithstanding this, as originally provided in Dkt. No. 49, the Government shall continue to submit written status updates detailing any material changes to the conditions of Ms. Maxwell’s confinement, with particular emphasis on her access to legal materials, including legal mail and email, and her ability to communicate with defense counsel. The updates shall also include information on the frequency of searches of the Defendant. The Court hereby ORDERS the Government to submit these written updates every 60 days. Furthermore, the Government shall take all
necessary steps to ensure that the Defendant continues to receive adequate access to her legal materials and her ability to communicate with defense counsel. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 12/8/2020) (ap) (Entered: 12/08/2020)
12/10/202093TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings as to Ghislaine Maxwell re: Conference held on 7/14/2020 before Judge Alison J. Nathan. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Kristen Carannante, (212) 805-0300, Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 12/31/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 1/11/2021. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 3/10/2021. (McGuirk, Kelly) (Entered: 12/10/2020)
12/10/202094NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT as to Ghislaine Maxwell. Notice is hereby given that an official transcript of a Conference proceeding held on 7/14/2020 has 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)
12/14/202095ORDER 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: (i) determine whether the documents in question are “judicial documents;” (ii) assess the weight of the common law presumption of access to the materials; and (iii) 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 Commc’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)
12/14/202096LETTER 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)
12/14/202097MEMORANDUM OF LAW in 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 S, # 20 Exhibit T, # 21 Exhibit U, # 22 Exhibit V, # 23 Exhibit W, # 24 Exhibit X)(Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 12/14/2020)
12/17/202098NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE Andrew Rohrbach appearing for USA. (Rohrbach, Andrew) (Entered: 12/17/2020)
12/18/202099ORDER 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: (i) determine whether the documents in question are “judicial documents;” (ii) assess the weight of the common law presumption access to the materials; and (iii) 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 (“Amodeo II”), 71 F.3d 1044, 1050 (2d Cir. 1995)). The proposed redactions satisfy this test. The Court finds that the Governments submissions 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 Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 602 (1978). Nevertheless, the proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to serve substantial interests, including, most importantly, third parties’ personal privacy interests. See Under Seal v. Under Seal, 273 F. Supp. 3d 460 467 (S.D.N.Y.2017). The Government is hereby ORDERED to docket the redacted documents and corresponding exhibits by no later than December 18, 2 (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 12/18/2020) (ap) (Entered: 12/18/2020)
12/18/2020100MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell Renewed Bail Motion . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Comey, Maurene) (Entered: 12/18/2020)
12/23/2020101ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: On December 18, 2020, the Defendant filed her reply to the Government’s opposition to her renewed application for bail. In accordance with this Court’s December 7, 2020 Order, see Dkt. No. 89, she filed these materials under seal and proposed narrowly tailored redactions on those materials. The Government did not file any opposition to the Defendant’s proposed redactions. The Court will adopt the Defendant’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: (i) determine whether the documents in question are “judicial documents;” (ii) assess the weight of the common law presumption of access to the materials; and (iii) 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 (“Amodeo II”), 71 F.3d 1044, 1050 (2d Cir. 1995)). The proposed redactions satisfy this test. The Court finds that the Defendant’s submissions 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 Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 602 (1978). As with the redactions to her renewed motion for bail, the proposed redactions here are narrowly tailored to serve substantial interests, including, most importantly, third parties personal privacy interests. See Under Seal v. Under Seal, 273 F. Supp. 3d 460, 467 (S.D.N.Y. 2017). See also Dkt. No. 95. The Defendant is hereby ORDERED to docket the redacted documents and corresponding exhibits by no later than December 23, 2020. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 12/23/2020) (Inl) (Entered: 12/23/2020)
12/23/2020102LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated December 18, 2020 re: Cover Letter for Reply Memorandum for Renewed Bail Application (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 12/23/2020)
12/23/2020103REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support by Ghislaine Maxwell re: Renewed Motion for Bail . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 12/23/2020)
12/28/2020104ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. On December 8, 2020, Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell filed a renewed motion for releaseon bail. Dkt No. 97. In an Opinion and Order concurrently filed under temporary seal, the Court DENIES the Defendant’s
motion. In light of the fact that the Opinion includes potentially confidential information that should not be filed on the public docket, the Court will permit the parties 48 hours to propose any redactions to the Courts Opinion and Order and to justify those redactions by reference to the Second Circuits decision in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110(2d Cir. 2006). After determining which, if any, portions of the Opinion and Order should be redacted, the Court will file the Opinion and Order on the public docket. As a result, the Court concludes that the Government has met its burden of persuasion that the Defendant poses a flight risk and that pretrial detention continues to be warranted. On or before December 30, 2020, the parties are ORDERED to submit a joint letter indicating whether they propose any redactions and the justification for any such proposal. This resolves Dkt No. 97. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 12/28/20)(jw) (Entered: 12/28/2020)
12/30/2020105LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, and Lara Pomerantz dated December 30, 2020 re: Joint Letter re December 28, 2020 Opinion and Order Document filed by USA. (Comey, Maurene) (Entered: 12/30/2020)
12/30/2020106OPINION AND ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell has been indicted by a grand jury on charges of conspiracy to entice minors to travel to engage in illegal sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; enticing a minor to travel to engage in illegal sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2422 and 2; conspiracy to transport minors to participate in illegal sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; transporting minors to participate in illegal sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2423 and 2; and two charges of perjury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623. The Court held a lengthy bail hearing on July 14, 2020. After extensive briefing and argument at the hearing, the Court concluded that the Defendant was a clear risk of flight and that no conditions or combination of conditions would ensure her appearance. Defendant Ghislaine Maxwells renewed motion for release on bail, Dkt. No. 97, is DENIED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 12/28/20)(jw) (Entered: 12/30/2020)
12/31/2020107LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated December 31, 2020 re: Extension of Time . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 12/31/2020)
01/05/2021108MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Ghislaine Maxwell (1) on 107 LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated December 31, 2020 re: Extension of Time. ENDORSEMENT: SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 1/5/2021) (ap) (Entered: 01/05/2021)
01/05/2021Set/Reset Deadlines as to Ghislaine Maxwell: Motions due by 1/25/2021. Responses due by 2/26/2021. Replies due by 3/5/2021. (ap) (Entered: 01/05/2021)
01/08/2021109LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated January 8, 2021 re: Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 01/08/2021)
01/11/2021110SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (jus) (Entered: 01/11/2021)
01/11/2021111SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (jus) (Entered: 01/11/2021)
01/11/2021112MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Ghislaine Maxwell (1) denying 109 LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated January 8, 2021 re: Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal. ENDORSEMENT: The request is denied. Good cause for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal has not been provided. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 1/11/2021) (Inl) (Entered: 01/11/2021)
01/11/2021113NOTICE OF APPEAL by Ghislaine Maxwell from 104 Order. (nd) (Entered: 01/12/2021)
01/11/2021Appeal Remark as to re: 113 Notice of Appeal by Ghislaine Maxwell. $505.00 Appeal filing fee due. (nd) (Entered: 01/12/2021)
01/12/2021Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Certified Copy of Docket Sheet as to Ghislaine Maxwell to US Court of Appeals re: 113 Notice of Appeal. (nd) (Entered: 01/12/2021)
01/12/2021Appeal Record Sent to USCA (Electronic File). Certified Indexed record on Appeal Electronic Files as to Ghislaine Maxwell re: 113 Notice of Appeal were transmitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals. (nd) (Entered: 01/12/2021)
------------—-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

United States of America,

—v—

Ghislaine Maxwell,

Defendant.

USDC SDNY DOCU ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC DATE FILED: 12/28/20

20-CR-330 (AJN)

ORDER

ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:

On December 8, 2020, Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell filed a renewed motion for release on bail. Dkt No. 97. In an Opinion and Order concurrently filed under temporary seal, the Court DENIES the Defendant’s motion.

In light of the fact that the Opinion includes potentially confidential information that should not be filed on the public docket, the Court will permit the parties 48 hours to propose any redactions to the Court’s Opinion and Order and to justify those redactions by reference to the Second Circuit’s decision in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d I10(2d Cir. 2006). After determining which, if any, portions of the Opinion and Order should be redacted, the Court will file the Opinion and Order on the public docket.

This Order provides the bottom line of the Court’s resolution. On July 14, 2020, this Court conducted an extensive bail hearing and determined that pit-trial detention was warranted because the no conditions or set of conditions could reasonably assure the Defendant’s appearance at future proceedings. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(O, a bail hearing may be reopened if the Court finds “that information exists that was not known to the movant at the time of the hearing and that has a material bearing on the issue whether there are conditions of release that will reasonably assure the appearance of such person as required.” The Court concludes that

none of the new information that the Defendant presented in support of her application has a material bearing on the Court’s determination that she poses a flight risk.

Furthermore, for substantially the same reasons as the Court determined that detention was warranted in the initial bail hearing, the Court again concludes that no conditions of release can reasonably assure the Defendant’s appearance at future proceedings. In reaching that conclusion, the Court considers the nature and circumstances of the offenses charged, the weight of the evidence against the Defendant, the history and characteristics of the Defendant, and the nature and seriousness of the danger that the Defendant’s release would pose. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g). The Government does not contend that the Defendant poses a danger to the community. Nonetheless the Court determines that the other three factors warrant detention under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e). The Court also finds that the Defendant’s proposed bail conditions would not reasonably assure her appearance at future proceedings.

As a result, the Court concludes that the Government has met its burden of persuasion that the Defendant poses a flight risk and that pre-trial detention continues to be warranted.

On or before December 30, 2020, the parties are ORDERED to submit a joint letter indicating whether they propose any redactions and the justification for any such proposal.

This resolves Dkt No. 97.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 28, 2020 New York, New York

ALISON J. NATHAN United States District Judge

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007

Date: January 12, 2021

Docket #: 21-58

CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOL1FE CLERK OF COURT

DC Docket #: 1:20-cr-330-1

NOTICE OF RECORD ON APPEAL FILED

In the above referenced case the document indicated below has been filed in the Court.

Record on Appeal - Certified List

Record on Appeal - CD ROM

Record on Appeal - Paper Documents

_X Record on Appeal - Electronic Index

Record on Appeal - Paper Index

Inquiries regarding this case may be directed to 212-857-8577.

CAO2db Intake

From: NYSD_ECF_Pool@nysd.uscourts.gov Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2021 8:38 AM To: NYSD CourtMail Subject: Activity in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN USA v. Maxwell Appeal Record Sent to USCA - Electronic File

This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended.

***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. However, if the referenced document is a transcript, the free copy and 30 page limit do not apply.

U.S. District Court

Notice of Electronic Filing

The following transaction was entered on 1/12/2021 at 8:38 AM EST and filed on 1/12/2021

Case Name: USA v. Maxwell

Case Number: 1:20-cr-00330-AJN

Filer:

Document Number: No document attached

Docket Text:

Appeal Record Sent to USCA (Electronic File). Certified Indexed record on Appeal Electronic Files as to Ghislaine Maxwell re: [113] Notice of Appeal were transmitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals. (nd)

1:20-cr-00330-AJN-1 Notice has been electronically mailed to:

Jeffrey S. Pagliuca jpagliuca@hmflaw.com, nsimmons@hmflaw.com

Laura A. Menninger Imenninger@hmflaw.com, alundberg@hmflaw.com, hrogers@hmflaw.com, nsimmons@hmflaw.com

Bobbi C Sternheim bc@sternheimlaw.com, bcsternheim@mac.com, ecf@sternheimlaw.com

Christian R. Everdell ceverdell@cohengresser.com, autodocket@cohengresser.com

Mark Stewart mcohen@cohengresser.com, autodocket@cohengresser.com, managingclerksoffice@cohengresser.com

Alex Rossmiller alexander.rossmiller@usdoj.gov, CaseView.ECF@usdoj.gov, USANYS.ECF@USDO.I.GOV

Maurene Ryan Comey maurene.comey@usdoj.gov, CaseView.ECF@usdoj.gov, USANYS.ECF@USDOLGOV

Andrew Rohrbach Andrew.Rohrbach@usdoj.gov, caseview.ecf@usdoj.gov, usanys.ecf@usdoj.gov

1:20-cr-00330-AJN-1 Notice has been delivered by other means to:

CRIMINAL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:20-cr-00330-AJN All Defendants**

New York, NY 10022 212-707-7268 Fax: 212-957-4514 Email: ceverdell@cohengresser.com

Denver, CO 80203 (303)-831-7364 Fax: (303)-832-2628

Denver, CO 80203 (303)-831-7364 Fax: (303)-832-2628

New York, NY 10022 (212) 957-7600 Fax: (212)957-4514 Email: mcohen@cohengresser.com

New York, NY 10007

18:2422.F COERCION OR ENTICEMENT OF A MINOR TO TRAVEL TO ENGAGE IN ILLEGAL SEX ACTS

18:2422.F COERCION OR ENTICEMENT OF MINOR TO ENGAGE IN ILLEGAL SEX

TRANSPORT MINORS WITH CRIMINAL SEXUAL ACTIVITY

18:371.F 18:371.F CONSPIRACY TO TRANSPORT MINORS WITH CRIMINAL SEXUAL ACTIVITY

18:2423.F COERCION OR ENTICEMENT OF MINOR FEMALE (TRANSPORTATION SEXUAL ACTIVITY)

18:2423.F TRANSPORTATION SEXUAL ACTIVITY

18:1623.F FALSE (PERJURY)

18:1623.F FALSE (5s-6s)

Highest Offense Level (Opening)

Felony

Highest Offense Level (Terminated)

New York, NY 10007 (212)-637-2415 Email: alexander.rossmiller@usdoj.gov PRO HAC VICE

New York, NY 10007 (212)-637-2225 Email: alison.moe@usdoj.gov

New York, NY 10007 (212)-637-2324 Email: maurene.comey@usdoj.gov

New York, NY 10007 Email: Andrew.Rohrbach@usdoj.gov

New York, NY 10007 212-637-2343 Email: Lara.Pomerantz@usdoj.gov

06/29/20201SEALED INDICTMENT as to Sealed Defendant 1 (1) count(s) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5–6. (jm) (Main Document 1 replaced on 7/2/2020) (jm). (Entered: 07/02/2020)
07/02/20202Order to Unseal Indictment as to Sealed Defendant 1. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Katharine H. [REDACTED] on 7/2/20)(jm) (Entered: 07/02/2020)
07/02/2020INDICTMENT UNSEALED as to Ghislaine Maxwell. (jm) (Entered: 07/02/2020)
07/02/2020Case Designated ECF as to Ghislaine Maxwell. (jm) (Entered: 07/02/2020)
07/02/2020Case as to Ghislaine Maxwell ASSIGNED to Judge Alison J. Nathan. (jm) (Entered: 07/02/2020)
07/02/2020Attorney update in case as to Ghislaine Maxwell. Attorney Alex Rossmiller, Maurene Ryan Comey, Alison Gainfort Moe for USA added. (jm) (Entered: 07/02/2020)
07/02/20204MOTION to detain defendant . Document filed by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell. (Moe, Alison) (Entered: 07/02/2020)
07/02/2020Arrest of Ghislaine Maxwell in the United States District Court – District of New Hampshire. (jm) (Entered: 07/06/2020)
07/05/20205LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, and Alex Rossmiller dated July 5, 2020 re: Request to Schedule Initial Appearance Document filed by USA. (Comey, Maurene) (Entered: 07/05/2020)
07/06/20206Rule 5(c)(3) Documents Received as to Ghislaine Maxwell from the United States District Court – District of New Hampshire. (jm) (Entered: 07/06/2020)
07/06/20207ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. This matter has been assigned to me for all purposes. In its July 5, 2020 letter, the Government on behalf of the parties requested that the Court schedule an arraignment, initial appearance, and bail hearing in this matter in the afternoon of Friday, July 10. See Dkt. No. 5. In light of the COVID public health crisis, there are significant safety issues related to in-court proceedings. If the Defendant is willing to waive her physical presence, this proceeding will be conducted remotely. To that end, defense counsel should confer with the Defendant regarding waiving her physical presence. If the Defendant wishes to waive her physical presence for this proceeding, she and her counsel should sign the attached form in advance of the proceeding if feasible. If this proceeding is to be conducted remotely, there are protocols at the Metropolitan Detention Center that limit the times at which the Defendant could be produced so that she could appear by video. In the next week, the Defendant could be produced by video at either 9:00 a.m. on July 9, 2020 or sometime during the morning of July 14, 2020. Counsel are hereby ordered to meet and confer regarding scheduling for this initial proceeding in light of these constraints. If counsel does anticipate proceeding remotely, by 9:00 p.m. tonight, counsel should file a joint letter proposing a date and time for the proceeding consistent with this scheduling information, as well as a revised briefing schedule for the Defendant’s bail application. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 7/6/2020)(jbo) (Entered: 07/06/2020)
07/06/20208LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Mark S. [REDACTED] dated July 6, 2020 re: Scheduling ([REDACTED], Mark) (Entered: 07/06/2020)
07/07/20209LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Alex Rossmiller dated July 7, 2020 re: scheduling Document filed by USA. (Rossmiller, Alex) (Entered: 07/07/2020)
07/07/202010ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. An arraignment, initial conference, and bail hearing in this matter is hereby scheduled to occur as a remote video/teleconference using an internet platform on July 14, 2020 at 1 p.m. In advance of the conference, [REDACTED] will email counsel with further information on how to access the video conference. To optimize the quality of the video feed, only the Court, the Defendant, defense counsel, and counsel for the Government will appear by video for the proceeding; all others may access the audio of the public proceeding by telephone. Due to the limited capacity of the internet platform system, only one attorney per party may participate by video. Co-counsel, members of the press, and the public may access the audio feed of the proceeding by calling a dial-in number, which the Court will provide in

advance of the proceeding by subsequent order. Given the high degree of public interest in this case, a video feed of the remote proceeding will be available for viewing in the Jury Assembly Room located at the Daniel [REDACTED] Moynihan Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY. Due to social distancing requirements, seating will be extremely limited; when capacity is reached no additional persons will be admitted. Per the S.D.N.Y. COVID-19 Courthouse Entry Program, anyone who appears at any S.D.N.Y. courthouse must complete a questionnaire on the date of the proceeding prior to arriving at the courthouse. All visitors must also have their temperature taken when they arrive at the courthouse. Please see the instructions, attached. Completing the questionnaire ahead of time will save time and effort upon entry. Only persons who meet the entry requirements established by the questionnaire and whose temperatures are below 100.4 degrees will be allowed to enter the courthouse. Face coverings that cover the nose and mouth must be worn at all times. Anyone who fails to comply with the COVID-19 protocols that have been adopted by the Court will be required to leave the courthouse. There are no exceptions. As discussed in the Court’s previous order, defense counsel shall, if possible, discuss the Waiver of Right to be Present at Criminal Proceeding with the Defendant prior to the proceeding. See Dkt. No. 7. If the Defendant consents, and is able to sign the form (either personally or, in accordance with Standing Order 20-MC-174 of March 27, 2020, by defense counsel), defense counsel shall file the executed form at least 24 hours prior to the proceeding. In the event the Defendant consents, but counsel is unable to obtain or affix the Defendant’s signature on the form, the Court will conduct an inquiry at the outset of the proceeding to determine whether it is appropriate for the Court to add the Defendant’s signature to the form. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3771(c)(1), the Government must make their best efforts to see that crime victims are notified of, and accorded, the rights provided to them in that section. This includes [t]he right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding… involving the crime or of any release… of the accused and “[t]he right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving release.” Id. § 3771(a)(2), (4). The Court will inquire with the Government as to the extent of those efforts. So that appropriate logistical arrangements can be made, the Government shall inform the Court by email within 24 hours in advance of the proceeding if any alleged victim wishes to be heard on the question of detention pending trial. Finally, the time between the Defendant’s arrest and July 6, 2020 is excluded under the Speedy Trial Act due to the delay involved in transferring the Defendant from another district. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(F). And the Court further excludes time under the Speedy Trial Act from today through July 14, 2020. Due to the logistical issues involved in conducting a remote proceeding, the Court finds “that the ends of justice served by [this exclusion] outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.” 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). The exclusion is also supported by the need for the parties to discuss a potential protective order, which will facilitate the timely production of discovery in a manner protective of the rights of third parties. See Dkt. No. 5. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 7/7/2020)(jbo) (Entered: 07/07/2020)

07/08/202011

MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Ghislaine Maxwell on 9 LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Alex Rossmiller dated July 7, 2020 re: scheduling. ENDORSEMENT: The Court hereby sets the following briefing schedule. The Defense response is due by 1:00 p.m. on July 10, 2020. The Government reply is due by 1:00 p.m. on July 13, 2020. Additionally, defense counsel is ordered to file notices of appearance on the docket by the end of the day today. SO ORDERED. (Responses due by 7/10/2020. Replies due by 7/13/2020.) (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 7/8/2020) (Inl) (Entered: 07/08/2020)

07/08/202012

NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Mark Stewart [REDACTED] appearing for Ghislaine Maxwell. Appearance Type: Retained. ([REDACTED], Mark) (Entered: 07/08/2020)

07/08/202013

NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Christian R. Everdell appearing for Ghislaine Maxwell. Appearance Type: Retained. (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 07/08/2020)

07/08/202014

NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Laura A. Menninger appearing for Ghislaine Maxwell. Appearance Type: Retained. (Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 07/08/2020)

07/08/202015MOTION for Jeffrey S. Pagliuca to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number ANYSDC-20605229. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk’s Office staff. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Jeffrey S. Pagliuca, # 2 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing, # 3 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Pagliuca, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/08/2020)
07/08/202017(S1) SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT FILED as to Ghislaine Maxwell (1) count(s) 1s, 2s, 3s, 4s, 5s-6s. (jm) (Entered: 07/10/2020)
07/09/2020>>>NOTICE REGARDING PRO HAC VICE MOTION. Regarding Document No. 15 MOTION for Jeffrey S. Pagliuca to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number ANYSDC-20605229. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk’s Office staff. The document has been reviewed and there are no deficiencies. (aea) (Entered: 07/09/2020)
07/09/202016ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. As discussed in its previous order, the Court will hold an arraignment, initial conference, and bail hearing in this matter remotely as a video/teleconference on July 14, 2020 at 1 pm. Members of the press and the public in the United States may access the live audio feed of the proceeding by calling 855-268-7844 and using access code 32091812# and PIN 9921299#. Those outside of the United States may access the live audio feed by calling 214-416-0400 and using the same access code and PIN. These phone lines can accommodate approximately 500 callers on a first come, first serve basis. The Court will provide counsel for both sides an additional dial-in number to be used to ensure audio access to the proceeding for non-speaking co-counsel, alleged victims, and any family members of the Defendant. The United States Attorney’s Office should email [REDACTED] with information regarding any alleged victims who are entitled, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3771(a)(4), to be heard at the bail hearing and who wish to be heard. The Court will then provide information as to the logistics for their dial-in access. As the Court described in a previous order, members of the press and public may watch and listen to the live video feed in the Jury Assembly Room, at the Daniel [REDACTED] Moynihan Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street. See Dkt. No. 10. However, in light of COVID-19, seating will be limited to approximately 60 seats in order to enable appropriate social distancing and ensure public safety. Counsel for the Defendant and the Government may contact [REDACTED] by email if there is a request to accommodate alleged victims or family members of the Defendant. Members of the credentialed in-house press corps may contact the District Executive’s Office about seating. Otherwise, all seating will be allocated on a first come, first serve basis and in accordance with the S.D.N.Y. COVID-19 Courthouse Entry Program and this Court’s previous order of July 7, 2020. See Dkt. No. 10. If conditions change or the Court otherwise concludes that allowing for in-person viewing of the video feed at the courthouse is not consistent with public health, the Court may provide audio access by telephone only. Any photographing, recording, or rebroadcasting of federal court proceedings is prohibited by law. Violation of these prohibitions may result in fines or sanctions, including removal of court issued media credentials, restricted entry to future hearings, denial of entry to future hearings, or any other sanctions deemed necessary by the Court. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 7/9/2020)(jbo) (Entered: 07/09/2020)
07/10/202018MEMORANDUM in Opposition by Ghislaine Maxwell re 4 MOTION to detain defendant .. ([REDACTED], Mark) (Entered: 07/10/2020)
07/10/202019NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Mark Stewart [REDACTED] appearing for Ghislaine Maxwell. Appearance Type: Retained. ([REDACTED], Mark) (Entered: 07/10/2020)
07/10/202020NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Christian R. Everdell appearing for Ghislaine Maxwell. Appearance Type: Retained. (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 07/10/2020)
07/10/202021WAIVER of Personal Appearance at Arraignment and Entry of Plea of Not Guilty by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 07/10/2020)
07/13/202022REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell re: 4 MOTION to detain defendant . . (Moe, Alison) (Entered: 07/13/2020)
07/13/2020ORDER granting 15 Motion for Jeffrey Pagliuca to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Ghislaine Maxwell (1). (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 7/13/2020) (kwi)
(Entered: 07/13/2020)
07/14/202023ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. For the reasons stated on the record at today’s proceeding, the Governments motion to detain the Defendant pending trial is hereby GRANTED (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 7/14/20)(jw) (Entered: 07/14/2020)
07/14/2020Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Alison J. Nathan: Arraignment as to Ghislaine Maxwell (1) Count 1s,2s,3s,4s,5s-6s held on 7/14/2020. Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell present by video conference with attorney Mark [REDACTED] present by video conference, AUSA Alison Moe, Alex Rossmiller and Maurene Comey for the government present by video conference, Pretrial Service Officer Lea Harmon present by telephone and Court Reporter Kristine Caraannante. Defendant enters a plea of Not Guilty to the S1 indictment. Trial set for July 12, 2021. See Order. Time is excluded under the Speedy Trial Act from today until July 12, 2021. Bail is denied. Defendant is remanded. See Transcript. (jw) (Entered: 07/14/2020)
07/14/2020Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Alison J. Nathan: Plea entered by Ghislaine Maxwell (1) Count 1s,2s,3s,4s,5s-6s Not Guilty. (jw) (Entered: 07/14/2020)
07/14/202024Waiver of Right to be Present at Criminal Proceeding as to Ghislaine Maxwell re: Arraignment, Bail Hearing, Conference. (jw) (Entered: 07/14/2020)
07/15/202025ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. Initial non-electronic discovery, generally to include search warrant applications and subpoena returns, is due by Friday, August 21, 2020. Completion of discovery, to include electronic materials, is due by Monday, November 9, 2020. Motions are due by Monday, December 21, 2020. Motion responses are due by Friday, January 22, 2021. Motion replies are due by Friday, February 5, 2021. Trial is set for Monday, July 12, 2021 ( Discovery due by 8/21/2020., Motions due by 12/21/2020) (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 7/15/20)(jw) (Entered: 07/15/2020)
07/21/202026ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: The Court has received a significant number of letters and messages from non-parties that purport to be related to this case. These submissions are either procedurally improper or irrelevant to the judicial function. Therefore, they will not be considered or docketed. The Court will accord the same treatment to any similar correspondence it receives in the future. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 7/21/2020) (lnl) (Entered: 07/21/2020)
07/21/202027LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Jeffrey S. Pagliuca dated July 21, 2020 re: Local Criminal Rule 23.1 . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Pagliuca, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/21/2020)
07/23/202028ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: The Defense has moved for an order “prohibiting the Government, its agents and counsel for witnesses from making extrajudicial statements concerning this case.” Dkt. No. 27 at 1. The Court firmly expects that counsel for all involved parties will exercise great care to ensure compliance with this Court’s local rules, including Local Criminal Rule 23.1, and the rules of professional responsibility. In light of this clear expectation, the Court does not believe that further action is needed at this time to protect the Defendant’s right to a fair trial by an impartial jury. Accordingly, it denies the Defendant’s motion without prejudice. But the Court warns counsel and agents for the parties and counsel for potential witnesses that going forward it will not hesitate to take appropriate action in the face of violations of any relevant rules. The Court will ensure strict compliance with those rules and will ensure that the Defendant’s right to a fair trial will be safeguarded. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 7/23/2020) (ap) (Entered: 07/23/2020)
07/27/202029LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated July 27, 2020 re: Proposed Protective Order . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Proposed Protective Order))(Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 07/27/2020)
07/27/202030AFFIDAVIT of Christian R. Everdell by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 07/27/2020)
07/27/202031LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Alison Moe dated July 27, 2020 re: requesting until 5 p.m. tomorrow to respond to defense counsel’s letter, filed July 27, 2020 Document filed by USA. (Moe, Alison)
(Entered: 07/27/2020)
07/27/202032MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Ghislaine Maxwell on 31 LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Alison Moe dated July 27, 2020 re: requesting until 5 p.m. tomorrow to respond to defense counsel’s letter, filed July 27, 2020. ENDORSEMENT: The Government’s response to the Defense’s letter is due by 5 p.m. on July 28, 2020. The Defense may file a reply by 5 p.m. on July 29, 2020. Before the Government’s response is filed, the parties must meet and confer by phone regarding this issue, and any response from the Government must contain an affirmation that the parties have done so. SO ORDERED. (Responses due by 7/28/2020. Replies due by 7/29/2020.) (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 7/27/2020) (Inl) (Entered: 07/27/2020)
07/28/202033LETTER RESPONSE to Motion by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Alex Rossmiller dated July 28, 2020 re: 29 LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated July 27, 2020 re: Proposed Protective Order .. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (proposed protective order))(Rossmiller, Alex) (Entered: 07/28/2020)
07/28/202034AFFIDAVIT of Alex Rossmiller by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell. (Rossmiller, Alex) (Entered: 07/28/2020)
07/29/202035LETTER REPLY TO RESPONSE to Motion by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated July 29, 2020 re 29 LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated July 27, 2020 re: Proposed Protective Order .. (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 07/29/2020)
07/30/202036PROTECTIVE ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell…regarding procedures to be followed that shall govern the handling of confidential material. SO ORDERED: (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 7/30/2020)(bw) (Entered: 07/31/2020)
07/30/202037MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. Both parties have asked for the Court to enter a protective order. While they agree on most of the language, two areas of dispute have emerged. First, Ms. Maxwell seeks language allowing her to publicly reference alleged victims or witnesses who have spoken on the public record to the media or in public fora, or in litigation relating to Ms. Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein. Second, Ms. Maxwell seeks language restricting potential Government witnesses and their counsel from using discovery materials for any purpose other than preparing for the criminal trial in this action. The Government has proposed contrary language on both of these issues. For the following reasons, the Court adopts the Government’s proposed protective order Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(d)(1), “[a]t any time the court may, for good cause, deny, restrict, or defer discovery or inspection, or grant other appropriate relief.” The good cause standard “requires courts to balance several interests, including whether dissemination of the discovery materials inflicts hazard to others… whether the imposition of the protective order would prejudice the defendant,” and “the public’s interest in the information.” United States v. [REDACTED], 985 F. Supp. 2d 506, 522 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). The party seeking to restrict disclosure bears the burden of showing good cause. Cf. Gambale v. Deutsche Bank AG, 377 F.3d 133, 142 (2d Cir. 2004). First, the Court finds that the Government has met its burden of showing good cause with regard to restricting the ability of Ms. Maxwell to publicly reference alleged victims and witnesses other than those who have publicly identified themselves in this litigation. As a general matter, it is undisputed that there is a strong and specific interest in protecting the privacy of alleged victims and witnesses in this case that supports restricting the disclosure of their identities. Dkt. No. 29 at 3 (acknowledging that as a baseline the protective order should “prohibit[] Ms. Maxwell, defense counsel, and others on the defense team from disclosing or disseminating the identity of any alleged victim or potential witness referenced in the discovery materials”); see also United States v. Corley, No. 13-cr-48, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 194426, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2016). The Defense argues this interest is significantly diminished for individuals who have spoken on the public record about Ms. Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein, because they have voluntarily chosen to identify themselves. But not all accusations or public statements are equal. Deciding to participate in or contribute to a criminal investigation or prosecution is a far different matter than simply making a public statement “relating to” Ms. Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein, particularly since such a statement might have occurred decades ago and have no relevance to the charges in

this case. These individuals still maintain a significant privacy interest that must be safeguarded. The exception the Defense seeks is too broad and risks undermining the protections of the privacy of witnesses and alleged victims that is required by law. In contrast, the Government’s proffered language would allow Ms. Maxwell to publicly reference individuals who have spoken by name on the record in this case. It also allows the Defense to “reference[e] the identities of individuals they believe may be relevant… to Potential Defense Witnesses and their counsel during the course of the investigation and preparation of the defense case at trial.” Dkt. No. 33-1, 5. This proposal adequately balances the interests at stake. And as the Government’s letter notes, see Dkt. No. 33 at 4, to the extent that the Defense needs an exception to the protective order for a specific investigative purpose, they can make applications to the Court on a case-by-case basis. Second, restrictions on the ability of potential witnesses and their counsel to use discovery materials for purposes other than preparing for trial in this case are unwarranted. The request appears unprecedented despite the fact that there have been many high-profile criminal matters that had related civil litigation. The Government labors under many restrictions including Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Privacy Act of 1974, and other policies of the Department of Justice and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, all of which the Court expects the Government to scrupulously follow. Furthermore, the Government indicates that it will likely only provide potential witnesses with materials that those witnesses already have in their possession. See Dkt. No. 33 at 6. And of course, those witnesses who do testify at trial would be subject to examination on the record as to what materials were provided or shown to them by the Government. Nothing in the Defense’s papers explains how its unprecedented proposed restriction is somehow necessary to ensure a fair trial. For the foregoing reasons, the Court adopts the Government’s proposed protective order, which will be entered on the docket. This resolves Dkt. No. 29. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 7/30/2020)(bw) (Entered: 07/31/2020)

08/10/202038LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated August 10, 2020 re: Discovery Disclosure and Access . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 08/10/2020)
08/10/202039AFFIDAVIT of Christian R. Everdell by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 08/10/2020)
08/11/202040MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Ghislaine Maxwell on re: 38 LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated August 10, 2020 re: Discovery Disclosure and Access. ENDORSEMENT: The Government is hereby ORDERED to respond to the Defendant’s letter motion by Thursday, August 13, 2020. The Defendant’s reply, if any, is due on or before Monday, August 17, 2020. (Responses due by 8/13/2020. Replies due by 8/17/2020) (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 8/11/2020) (ap) (Entered: 08/11/2020)
08/13/202041LETTER RESPONSE in Opposition by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Alex Rossmiller dated August 13, 2020 re: 38 LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated August 10, 2020 re: Discovery Disclosure and Access .. (Rossmiller, Alex) (Entered: 08/13/2020)
08/17/202042LETTER REPLY TO RESPONSE to Motion by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated August 17, 2020 re 38 LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated August 10, 2020 re: Discovery Disclosure and Access .. (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 08/17/2020)
08/17/202043LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Jeffrey S. Pagliuca dated August 17, 2020 re: Request for Permission to Submit Letter Motion in Excess of Three Pages . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Pagliuca, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/17/2020)
08/18/202044ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: On August 17, 2020, the Defendant filed a letter motion seeking a modification of this Court’s Protective Order, which the Court entered on July 30, 2020. Defendant also moves to file that letter motion under seal. The Governments opposition to Defendant’s letter motion is hereby due Friday, August 21 at 12 p.m. The Defendant’s reply is due on Monday, August 24 at 12 p.m. The
parties shall propose redactions to the letter briefing on this issue. Alternatively, the parties shall provide support and argument for why the letter motions should be sealed in their entirety. SO ORDERED. (Responses due by 8/21/2020. Replies due by 8/24/2020.) (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 8/18/2020) (Inl) (Entered: 08/18/2020)
08/20/202045NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE Lara Elizabeth Pomerantz appearing for USA. (Pomerantz, Lara) (Entered: 08/20/2020)
08/20/202050SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (mhe) (Entered: 08/27/2020)
08/21/202046LETTER RESPONSE in Opposition by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Maurene Comey dated August 21, 2020 re: 43 LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Jeffrey S. Pagliuca dated August 17, 2020 re: Request for Permission to Submit Letter Motion in Excess of Three Pages .. (Rossmiller, Alex) (Entered: 08/21/2020)
08/21/202047LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Maurene Comey dated August 21, 2020 re: Proposed redactions to letter briefing, in response to the Court’s Order of August 18, 2020 Document filed by USA. (Rossmiller, Alex) (Entered: 08/21/2020)
08/24/202048LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Laura A. Menninger dated August 24, 2020 re: Request to File Under Seal: Proposed Redactions to Request to Modify Protective Order and Reply in Support Thereof . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 08/24/2020)
08/25/202049MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: denying without prejudice 38 LETTER MOTION as to Ghislaine Maxwell (1). On August 10, 2020, the Defendant filed a letter motion related to two issues. Dkt. No. 38. First, the Defendant seeks an order directing the Government to disclose to defense counsel immediately the identities of the three alleged victims referenced in the indictment. Second, the Defendant seeks an order directing the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) to release the Defendant into the general population and to provide her with increased access to the discovery materials. For the reasons that follow, Defendant’s requests are DENIED without prejudice…[See this Memorandum Opinion And Order]… III. Conclusion: For the reasons stated above, Defendant’s requests contained in Dkt. No. 38 are DENIED without prejudice. Following the close of discovery, the parties shall meet and confer on an appropriate schedule for pre-trial disclosures, including the disclosure of § 3500 material, exhibit lists, and witness lists, taking into account all relevant factors. The Government is hereby ORDERED to submit written status updates every 90 days detailing any material changes to the conditions of Ms. Maxwell’s confinement, with particular emphasis on her access to legal materials and ability to communicate with defense counsel. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 8/25/2020) (bw) (Entered: 08/25/2020)
09/02/202051MEMORANDUMOPINION AND ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: On August 17, 2020, Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell filed a sealed letter motion seeking an Order modifying the protective order in this case. Specifically, she sought a Court order allowing her to file under seal in certain civil cases (“Civil Cases”) materials (“Documents”) that she received in discovery from the Government in this case. She also sought permission to reference, but not file, other discovery material that the Government produced in this case. For the reasons that follow, Defendant’s requests are DENIED. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 9/2/2020)(See MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER as set forth) (Inl) (Entered: 09/02/2020)
09/02/202052LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan, from Jeffrey S. Pagliuca dated 8/17/2020 re: Defense counsel writes with redacted request to modify protective order. (ap) (Entered: 09/02/2020)
09/04/202055NOTICE OF APPEAL by Ghislaine Maxwell from 51 Memorandum & Opinion. Filing fee $ 505.00, receipt number 465401266036. (tp) (Entered: 09/09/2020)
09/08/202053LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan dated 8/24/2020 re: Proposed Redactions to Request to Modify Protective Order. (jbo) (Entered: 09/08/2020)
09/08/2020jA LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan dated 8/24/2020
09/09/2020Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Certified Copy of Docket Sheet as to Ghislaine
09/09/2020Appeal Record Sent to USCA (Electronic File). Certified Indexed record on Appeal
09/10/202056 SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (dn) (Entered: 09/11/2020)
09/10/202057 SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (dn) (Entered: 09/11/2020)
09/24/202058 SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (mhe) (Entered: 09/24/2020)
10/05/20202 NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Bobbi C Sternheim appearing for
10/06/202060 LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from
10/06/202061 AFFIDAVIT of Maurene Comey by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell. (Comey, Maurene)
10/07/2020fa MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Ghislaine Maxwell on re: fel Accordingly, the
10/07/2020fla LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from
10/14/202064 LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R.
10/20/2020(15 LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from
10/23/2020fifj LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Jeffrey S.
10/30/202052 LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from
I I /05/20206K ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: This Order is entered, pursuant to Federal Rule of
11/06/202069LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, and Lara Pomerantz dated November 6, 2020 re: Request to Extend Discovery Deadline for Portion of Electronic Discovery Document filed by USA. (Comey, Maurene) (Entered: 11/06/2020)
11/06/202070AFFIDAVIT of Maurene Comey by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell. (Comey, Maurene) (Entered: 11/06/2020)
11/09/202071MANDATE of USCA (Certified Copy) as to Ghislaine Maxwell re: 55 Notice of Appeal. USCA Case Number 20-3061-cr. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the motion to consolidate is DENIED and the appeal is DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction.. Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk USCA for the Second Circuit. Issued As Mandate: 11/09/2020. (nd) (Entered: 11/09/2020)
11/09/202072MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Ghislaine Maxwell on 69 LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, and Lara Pomerantz dated November 6, 2020 re: Request to Extend Discovery Deadline for Portion of Electronic Discovery. ENDORSEMENT: The Court hereby extends the deadline for the Government’s production of electronic discovery from November 9, 2020 to November 23, 2020. The Court also grants the parties’ request for an extension of the motions deadlines as follows: the Defendant’s motions are due by January 11, 2021, the Government’s responses are due by February 12, 2021, and any replies are due by February 19, 2021. SO ORDERED. (Discovery due by 11/23/2020. Motions due by 1/11/2021. Responses due by 2/12/2021. Replies due by 2/19/2021.) (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 11/9/2020) (Inl) (Entered: 11/10/2020)
11/18/202073MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Ghislaine Maxwell on re: 60 Letter filed by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell re: The Government respectfully requests that the Court approve the Government’s request to delay disclosure of these Materials…ENDORSEMENT…There is no dispute that the materials referenced in the Government’s letter will be turned over to the defense. The Government has indicated that it will do so. The only dispute, then, relates to the timing of such disclosure. See Dkt. Nos. 64, 65. Because the Government has articulated plausible reasons for some delay of disclosure, see Dkt. No. 65 at 4, the Court grants the Government’s request to delay disclosure. However, the Governments proposal to delay disclosure until 8 weeks in advance of trial is insufficient. In order to ensure that the defense can adequately prepare for trial, the Government shall produce the referenced materials, which are not voluminous, to the defense by March 12, 2021. Disclosure of the materials will of course be subject to the protective order entered by the Court, see Dkt. No. 36. (Government Responses due by 3/12/2021) (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 11/18/20)(jw) (Entered: 11/18/2020)
11/23/202074LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, and Lara Pomerantz dated November 23, 2020 re: Update Regarding Conditions of Confinement Document filed by USA. (Comey, Maurene) (Entered: 11/23/2020)
11/24/202075LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Bobbi C. Sternheim dated 11/24/2020 re: Response to 90-day MDC conditions report (Sternheim, Bobbi) (Entered: 11/24/2020)
11/24/202076MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Ghislaine Maxwell on re: 75 LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Bobbi C. Sternheim dated 11/24/2020 re: Response to 90-day MDC conditions report. ENDORSEMENT: The parties are hereby ORDERED to meet and confer regarding Defendant’s request that Warden Heriberto Tellez directly address Defendant’s concerns regarding the conditions of her detention. The parties shall jointly submit a status update within one week of this Order. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 11/24/2020) (ap) (Entered: 11/24/2020)
12/01/202077ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. On November 25, 2020, the Defendant filed a letter request under seal. On November 30, 2020, she filed a second letter request in which she proposed redactions on both letters. The Government is hereby ORDERED to respond to the Defendant’s November 25, 2020 letter request and to the request for proposed redactions by no later than December 2, 2020. The letters shall be
temporarily sealed while the Court resolves the redaction request. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 12/1/2020)(bw) (Entered: 12/01/2020)
12/01/202078LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, and Lara Pomerantz dated December 1, 2020 re: Joint Letter regarding Conditions of Confinement Document filed by USA. (Pomerantz, Lara) (Entered: 12/01/2020)
12/02/202079MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Ghislaine Maxwell on re: 78 LETTER by USA addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, and Lara Pomerantz dated December 1, 2020 re: Joint Letter regarding Conditions of Confinement. ENDORSEMENT: MDC legal counsel shall submit their letter to the Court by December 4, 2020. Upon review of that letter, the Court will determine whether any additional information is required, either orally or in writing. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 12/2/2020)(bw) (Entered: 12/02/2020)
12/02/202080LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, and Lara Pomerantz dated December 2, 2020 re: Defense Requests for Sealing Document filed by USA. (Comey, Maurene) (Entered: 12/02/2020)
12/03/202081ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. On November 25, 2020, counsel for Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell filed a letter request seeking an in camera conference for the presentation of a renewed motion for release on bail and a request to seal the November 25, 2020 letter in its entirety. The Court required justification for the sealing request. On November 30, 2020, the defense counsel filed a second letter no longer fully pressing the unsupported request to file the letter entirely under seal and instead proposing redactions to both the November 25th and November 30th letters. The Government has indicated that it does not oppose the redactions. Dkt. No. 80. After due consideration, the Court will adopt the Defendant’s proposed redactions, which are consented to by the Government. The Court’s decision 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: (i) determine whether the documents in question are “judicial documents;” (ii) assess the weight of the common law presumption of access to the materials; and (iii) 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, 1050 (2d Cir. 1995) (“Amodeo II”)). The proposed redactions satisfy this test. First, the Court finds that the 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 while the Court assumes that the common law presumption of access attaches, in balancing competing considerations against the presumption of access, the Court finds that the arguments the Defendant has put forthincluding, most notably, the privacy interests of the individuals referenced in the lettersfavor her proposed and tailored redactions. The Defendant is hereby ORDERED to docket the redacted versions of the two letters by December 4, 2020. For the reasons outlined in the Government’s letter dated December 2, 2020, Dkt. No. 80, the Court DENIES the Defendant’s request for an in camera conference. In order to protect the privacy interests referenced in the Defendant’s November 25, 2020 letter, the Court will permit the Defendant to make her submission in writing and to propose narrowly tailored redactions. The parties are hereby ORDERED to meet and confer and to jointly prepare a briefing schedule for the Defendant’s forthcoming renewed motion for release on bail. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 12/3/2020)(bw) (Entered: 12/03/2020)
12/03/202082SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (jus) (Entered: 12/03/2020)
12/03/202083SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (jus) (Entered: 12/03/2020)
12/03/202084SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (jus) (Entered: 12/03/2020)
12/04/202085LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated December 4, 2020 re: Briefing Schedule (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 12/04/2020)
12/04/202086LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated 11/25/2020 re: Sealing (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 12/04/2020)
12/04/202087LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated 11/30/2020 re: Sealing (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 12/04/2020)
12/07/202088LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Sophia Papapetru and John Wallace dated 12/4/20 re: This letter is written in response to your order dated December 2, 2020, concerning Ghislaine Maxwell, Reg. 02879-509., an inmate currently confined at the Metropolitan Detention center in Brooklyn, New York. You expressed various concerns regarding Ms. Maxwells confinement and well-being. (jw) (Entered: 12/07/2020)
12/07/202089ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell re: 85 Letter filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. The Court is in receipt of the Defendant’s December 4, 2020 letter, Dkt. No. 85, and hereby sets the following schedule: The Defendants submission is due December 8, 2020; The Government’s response is due December 16, 2020; The Defendant’s reply is due December 18, 2020. After reviewing these submissions, the Court will determine whether a hearing on the renewed bail motion is necessary. The Court grants the Defendants request that the Government shall file its submission under seal with proposed redactions. Any objections to proposed redactions are due within 24 hours after any brief has been filed. Finally, the Defendant is granted leave to file a motion not to exceed 40 pages. The Governments response shall also be limited to 40 pages. The Defendant’s reply shall not exceed 10 pages ( Defendant submission due by 12/8/2020., Defendant Replies due by 12/18/2020., Government Responses due by 12/16/2020) (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 12/7/20)(jw) (Entered: 12/07/2020)
12/07/202090ENDORSED LETTER as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Mark S. [REDACTED] and Christian R. Everdell dated 11/25/20 re: On behalf of my client, Ghislaine Maxwell, we plan to file a Renewed Motion for Release on Bail (the “Motion”) and respectfully request an in camera conference, with all counsel present, to address the appropriate procedures for the filing and consideration of the Motion. For the reasons explained below, we intend to request, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 49.1(d), that the Court permit the filing of portions of the Motion and certain supporting materials under seal and require that any responsive materials be filed under seal…ENDORSEMENT: The Court sees no basis for the sealing of this letter. On or before December 2, 2020, Defendant shall justify why this letter should be sealed (or redacted). Alternatively, the Defendant may file the letter on the public docket by that date. The Court will take no action on the request pending resolution of the initial sealing question. The Defendant’s letter and this memorandum endorsement will be temporarily sealed pending resolution of the sealing request. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 11/25/20)(jw) (Entered: 12/07/2020)
12/07/202091LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Bobbi C. Sternheim dated 12/07/2020 re: Response to MDC Report to Court re: conditions (Sternheim, Bobbi) (Entered: 12/07/2020)
12/08/202092ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: On December 4, 2020, the Court received a letter from MDC legal counsel responding to the concerns that the Defendant raised in her November 24, 2020 letter. See Dkt. Nos. 75, 88; see also Dkt. No. 78. The Defendant responded to the MDC legal counsel’s letter on December 7, 2020, reiterating her request that the Court summon Warden Heriberto Tellez to personally respond to questions from the Court regarding the Defendant’s conditions of confinement. See Dkt. No. 91. Having carefully reviewed the parties’ submissions, along with the MDC legal counsel’s December 4, 2020 letter, the Court DENIES the Defendant’s request to summon the Warden to personally appear and respond to questions. This resolves Dkt. No. 75. Notwithstanding this, as originally provided in Dkt. No. 49, the Government shall continue to submit written status updates detailing any material changes to the conditions of Ms. Maxwell’s confinement, with particular emphasis on her access to legal materials, including legal mail and email, and her ability to communicate with defense counsel. The updates shall also include information on the frequency of searches of the Defendant. The Court hereby ORDERS the Government to submit these written updates every 60 days. Furthermore, the Government shall take all
necessary steps to ensure that the Defendant continues to receive adequate access to her legal materials and her ability to communicate with defense counsel. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 12/8/2020) (ap) (Entered: 12/08/2020)
12/10/202093TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings as to Ghislaine Maxwell re: Conference held on 7/14/2020 before Judge Alison J. Nathan. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Kristen Carannante, (212) 805-0300, Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 12/31/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 1/11/2021. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 3/10/2021. (McGuirk, Kelly) (Entered: 12/10/2020)
12/10/202094NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT as to Ghislaine Maxwell. Notice is hereby given that an official transcript of a Conference proceeding held on 7/14/2020 has 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)
12/14/202095ORDER 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: (i) determine whether the documents in question are “judicial documents;” (ii) assess the weight of the common law presumption of access to the materials; and (iii) 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 Commc’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)
12/14/202096LETTER 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)
12/14/202097MEMORANDUM OF LAW in 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 S, # 20 Exhibit T, # 21 Exhibit U, # 22 Exhibit V, # 23 Exhibit W, # 24 Exhibit X)(Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 12/14/2020)
12/17/202098NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE Andrew Rohrbach appearing for USA. (Rohrbach, Andrew) (Entered: 12/17/2020)
12/18/202099ORDER 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: (i) determine whether the documents in question are “judicial documents;” (ii) assess the weight of the common law presumption access to the materials; and (iii) 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 (“Amodeo II”), 71 F.3d 1044, 1050 (2d Cir. 1995)). The proposed redactions satisfy this test. The Court finds that the Governments submissions 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 Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 602 (1978). Nevertheless, the proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to serve substantial interests, including, most importantly, third parties’ personal privacy interests. See Under Seal v. Under Seal, 273 F. Supp. 3d 460 467 (S.D.N.Y.2017). The Government is hereby ORDERED to docket the redacted documents and corresponding exhibits by no later than December 18, 2 (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 12/18/2020) (ap) (Entered: 12/18/2020)
12/18/2020100MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell Renewed Bail Motion . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Comey, Maurene) (Entered: 12/18/2020)
12/23/2020101ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: On December 18, 2020, the Defendant filed her reply to the Government’s opposition to her renewed application for bail. In accordance with this Court’s December 7, 2020 Order, see Dkt. No. 89, she filed these materials under seal and proposed narrowly tailored redactions on those materials. The Government did not file any opposition to the Defendant’s proposed redactions. The Court will adopt the Defendant’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: (i) determine whether the documents in question are “judicial documents;” (ii) assess the weight of the common law presumption of access to the materials; and (iii) 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 (“Amodeo II”), 71 F.3d 1044, 1050 (2d Cir. 1995)). The proposed redactions satisfy this test. The Court finds that the Defendant’s submissions 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 Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 602 (1978). As with the redactions to her renewed motion for bail, the proposed redactions here are narrowly tailored to serve substantial interests, including, most importantly, third parties personal privacy interests. See Under Seal v. Under Seal, 273 F. Supp. 3d 460, 467 (S.D.N.Y. 2017). See also Dkt. No. 95. The Defendant is hereby ORDERED to docket the redacted documents and corresponding exhibits by no later than December 23, 2020. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 12/23/2020) (Inl) (Entered: 12/23/2020)
12/23/2020102LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated December 18, 2020 re: Cover Letter for Reply Memorandum for Renewed Bail Application (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 12/23/2020)
12/23/2020103REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support by Ghislaine Maxwell re: Renewed Motion for Bail . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 12/23/2020)
12/28/2020104ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. On December 8, 2020, Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell filed a renewed motion for releaseon bail. Dkt No. 97. In an Opinion and Order concurrently filed under temporary seal, the Court DENIES the Defendant’s
motion. In light of the fact that the Opinion includes potentially confidential information that should not be filed on the public docket, the Court will permit the parties 48 hours to propose any redactions to the Courts Opinion and Order and to justify those redactions by reference to the Second Circuits decision in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110(2d Cir. 2006). After determining which, if any, portions of the Opinion and Order should be redacted, the Court will file the Opinion and Order on the public docket. As a result, the Court concludes that the Government has met its burden of persuasion that the Defendant poses a flight risk and that pretrial detention continues to be warranted. On or before December 30, 2020, the parties are ORDERED to submit a joint letter indicating whether they propose any redactions and the justification for any such proposal. This resolves Dkt No. 97. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 12/28/20)(jw) (Entered: 12/28/2020)
12/30/2020105LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, and Lara Pomerantz dated December 30, 2020 re: Joint Letter re December 28, 2020 Opinion and Order Document filed by USA. (Comey, Maurene) (Entered: 12/30/2020)
12/30/2020106OPINION AND ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell has been indicted by a grand jury on charges of conspiracy to entice minors to travel to engage in illegal sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; enticing a minor to travel to engage in illegal sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2422 and 2; conspiracy to transport minors to participate in illegal sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; transporting minors to participate in illegal sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2423 and 2; and two charges of perjury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623. The Court held a lengthy bail hearing on July 14, 2020. After extensive briefing and argument at the hearing, the Court concluded that the Defendant was a clear risk of flight and that no conditions or combination of conditions would ensure her appearance. Defendant Ghislaine Maxwells renewed motion for release on bail, Dkt. No. 97, is DENIED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 12/28/20)(jw) (Entered: 12/30/2020)
12/31/2020107LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated December 31, 2020 re: Extension of Time . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 12/31/2020)
01/05/2021108MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Ghislaine Maxwell (1) on 107 LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated December 31, 2020 re: Extension of Time. ENDORSEMENT: SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 1/5/2021) (ap) (Entered: 01/05/2021)
01/05/2021Set/Reset Deadlines as to Ghislaine Maxwell: Motions due by 1/25/2021. Responses due by 2/26/2021. Replies due by 3/5/2021. (ap) (Entered: 01/05/2021)
01/08/2021109LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated January 8, 2021 re: Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 01/08/2021)
01/11/2021110SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (jus) (Entered: 01/11/2021)
01/11/2021111SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (jus) (Entered: 01/11/2021)
01/11/2021112MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Ghislaine Maxwell (1) denying 109 LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated January 8, 2021 re: Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal. ENDORSEMENT: The request is denied. Good cause for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal has not been provided. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 1/11/2021) (Inl) (Entered: 01/11/2021)
01/11/2021113NOTICE OF APPEAL by Ghislaine Maxwell from 104 Order. (nd) (Entered: 01/12/2021)
01/11/2021Appeal Remark as to re: 113 Notice of Appeal by Ghislaine Maxwell. $505.00 Appeal filing fee due. (nd) (Entered: 01/12/2021)
01/12/2021Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Certified Copy of Docket Sheet as to Ghislaine Maxwell to US Court of Appeals re: 113 Notice of Appeal. (nd) (Entered: 01/12/2021)
01/12/2021Appeal Record Sent to USCA (Electronic File). Certified Indexed record on Appeal Electronic Files as to Ghislaine Maxwell re: 113 Notice of Appeal were transmitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals. (nd) (Entered: 01/12/2021)
------------—-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Substitute, Additional, or Amicus Counsel’s Contact Information is as follows:

Name; Maurene Comey

Docket No.: 21’ 58

Firm: United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York

Telephone: (212) 637-2324

Email: maurene.comey@usdoj.gov

Fax: (212) 637-2387

Select One:

Additional counsel (co-counsel with: Won S. Shin U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York

Amicus (in support of:

CERTIFICATION

Ell am admitted to practice in this Court and, if required by Interim Local Rule 46.1(a)(2), have renewed

my admission on November 5. 2020 OR

Ell applied for admission on

Signature of Counsel: /s/Maurene Comet’

Type or Print Name: Maurene Comey

Substitute, Additional, or Amicus Counsel’s Contact Information is as follows:

Name: Lam Pomerantz

Docket No.: 21-58

Firm: United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York

Telephone: (212) 637-2343

E,rnad;lara.pomerantz@usdoj.gov

Fax:

Select One:

Additional counsel (co-counsel with: Won S. Shin/U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York

Amicus (in support of :

CERTIFICATION

Ell am admitted to practice in this Court and, if required by Interim Local Rule 46.1(a)(2), have renewed

my admission on December 3.2020 OR

❑I applied for admission on

Signature of Counsel: Is/ Lam Pomerantz

Type or Print Name: Lam Pomerantz

Short Title: USA v. MAXWELL

Substitute, Additional, or Amicus Counsel’s Contact Information is as follows:

Bobbi C. Stemheim, Esq. Name:

Docket No.: 21-58

Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim Firm:

Address: 33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor. New York, NY 10011

212-243-1100 888-587-4737 Telephone: Fax:

bc@sternheimlaw.com, ecf@sternheimlaw.com, bcsternheim@mac.com

Appearance for: Appellant Ghislaine Maxwell

th lest One:

Substitute counsel (replacing lead counsel: (name/firm)

EISubstitute counsel (replacing other counsel: (name/firm)

Christian R. Everdell, Esq./ & Gresser, LLP nAdditional counsel (co.counsel with: (name/firm)

kmicus (in support of: (party/designation)

CERTIFICATION

Ell am admitted to practice in this Court and, if required by Interim Local Rule 46.1(a)(2), have renewed

my admission on OR

applied for admission on

Signature of Counsel: S 3twofaitt.

Type or Print Name: Bobbi C. Sternheim, Esq.

Short Title: USA v. MAXWELL Docket No.: 21-58

Lad Counsel of Record (name/firm) or Pro se Party (name): Christian R. Everdell, Esq./

Grasser, LLP

Appearance for (party/designation): APPellant Ghislaine Maxwell

DOCKET SHEET ACKNOWLEDGMENT/AMENDMENTS

Caption as indicated is:

I Correct 0 Incorrect. See attached caption page with corrections.

Appellate Designation is:

0 Correct 0 Incorrect. The following parties do not wish to participate in this appeal:

Panics:

Incorrect. Please change the following panics’ designations:

Correct Desionatioo

Contact Information for Lead CounseVPro Se Party is:

0 Correct 0 Incorrect or Incomplete. As an Miler, I have updated my contact information in the PACER “Manage My Account’ screen.

Name; Christian R. Everdell, Esq.

Firm: & Grasser, LLP.

Address: 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022

Telephone: 2 1 2 - 9 5 7 - 7 6 0 0

ceverdell@cohengressercom

Fax: 212957-4514

RELATED CASES

0 This case has not been before this Court previously. 0 This case has been before this Court previously. The short title, docket number, and citation are: USA v. Maxwell 20-3061 0 Matters related to this appeal or involving the same issue have been or presently are before this Court. The short titles, docket numbers, and citations are:

CERTIFICATION

I certify that 0 I am admitted to practice in this Court and, if required by LR 46.1(a)(2), have renewed my admission on OR that 0 I applied for admission on or renewal on . If the Court has not yet admitted me or approved my renewal, I have completed Addendum A.

Signature of Lead Counsel of Record: /s/ Christian R. Everdell, Esq.

Type or Print Name: Christian R. Everdell, Esq

OR

Signature of pro se litigant:

0 I am a pro se litigant who is not an attorney. 0 I am an incarcerated pro se litigant.

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007

DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON CHIEF JUDGE.

Date: January 26, 2021 Docket #: 21-58 Short Title: United States of America v. Maxwell CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOL1FE CLERK OF COURT

DC Docket #: 1:20-cr-330-1 DC Court: SDNY (NEW YORK CITY) DC Judge: Nathan

NOTICE OF DEFECTIVE FILING

On January 25, 2021 the Acknowledgment and Notice of Appearance, on behalf of the Appellant, was submitted in the above referenced case. The document does not comply with the FRAP or the Court’s Local Rules for the following reason:

Failure to submit acknowledgment and notice of appearance (Local Rule 12.3) Failure to file the Record on Appeal (FRAP 10, FRAP 11) Missing motion information statement (T-1080 - Local Rule 27.1) Missing supporting papers for motion (e.g, affidavit/affirmation/declaration) (FRAP 27) Insufficient number of copies (Local Rules: 21.1, 27.1, 30.1, 31.1) Improper proof of service (FRAP 25) Missing proof of service Served to an incorrect address Incomplete service (Anders v. California 386 U.S. 738 (1967)) Failure to submit document in digital format (Local Rule 25.1) Not Text-Searchable (Local Rule 25.1, Local Rules 25.2), click here for instructions on how to make PDFs text searchable Failure to file appendix on CD-ROM (Local Rule 25.1, Local Rules 25.2) Failure to file special appendix (Local Rule 32.1) Defective cover (FRAP 32) Incorrect caption (FRAP 32) Wrong color cover (FRAP 32) Docket number font too small (Local Rule 32.1) Incorrect pagination, click here for instructions on how to paginate PDFs (Local Rule 32.1) Incorrect font (FRAP 32) Oversized filing (FRAP 27 (motion), FRAP 32 (brief)) Missing Amicus Curiae filing or motion (Local Rule 29.1) Untimely filing

X Incorrect Filing Event —X Other: You must use the event Acknowledgment and Notice of Appearance, filed.

Please cure the defect and resubmit the document, with the required copies if necessary, no later than N/A. The resubmitted documents, if compliant with FRAP and the Local Rules, will be deemed timely filed.

Failure to cure the defect by the date set forth above will result in the document being stricken. An appellant’s failure to cure a defective filing may result in the dismissal of the appeal.

Inquiries regarding this case may be directed to 212-857-8577.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT CRIMINAL APPEAL TRANSCRIPT INFORMATION - FORM B

TO BE COMPLETED BY ATTORNEY:

USA v. Maxwell CASE NAME: v.

21-58 DOCKET NUMBER:

Christian R. Everdell, Esq. & Gresser, LLP COUNSEL’S NAME:

800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 COUNSEL’S ADDRESS:

212-957-7600 COUNSEL’S PHONE:

QUESTIONNAIRE

I am ordering a transcript.

✓ I am not ordering a transcript. Reason: Daily copy available U.S. Atty. placed order

✓ Other (attach explanation)

TRANSCRIPT ORDER

Prepare transcript of

1 Pre-trial proceedings: (Description & Dates)

Trial: (Description & Dates)

Sentencing: (Description & Dates)

Post-trial proceedings: (Description & Dates)

, hereby certify that I will make satisfactory arrangements with (counsel’s name)

the court reporter for payment of the costs of the transcript in accordance with FRAP 10(b).

Method of payment: !Funds CJA Form 24

Counsel’s Signature Date

TO BE COMPLETED BY COURT REPORTER AND FORWARDED TO COURT OF APPEALS:

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Date order received: Estimated Number of Pages:

Estimated completion date:

Attomev(s): Send completed form to the U.S. District Court as that court may require and send copies to the Court of Appeals, U.S. Attorney’s Office, and Court Reporter.

USA v. MAXWELL 21-58

Addendum to Form B

Reason no transcript is being ordered:

This is an interlocutory appeal from a decision and order adjudicated without a hearing, docketed in the district court (SDNY), and available on ECF.

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007

Date: March 29, 2021

Docket #: 21-770

DOCKETING NOTICE

DC Docket #: I :20-cr-330-1

An appeal in the above-referenced case has been docketed under number: 21-770. This number must appear on all documents related to this case that are filed in this Court. Appellate counsel of record either represented the appellant before the district court, filed the notice of appeal, or acted as counsel for appellee in the district court. For pro se parties the docket sheet with the caption page, and an Acknowledgment and Notice of Appearance Form are enclosed. In counseled cases the docket sheet is available on PACER. Counsel must access the Acknowledgment and Notice of Appearance Form from this Court’s website http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov.

The form must be completed and returned within 14 days of the date of this notice. The form requires the following information:

YOUR CORRECT CONTACT INFORMATION: Review the party information on the docket sheet and note any incorrect information in writing on the Acknowledgment and Notice of Appearance Form.

The Court will contact one counsel per party or group of collectively represented parties when serving notice or issuing our order. Counsel must designate on the Acknowledgment and Notice of Appearance a lead attorney to accept all notices from this Court who, in turn will, be responsible for notifying any associated counsel.

CHANGE IN CONTACT INFORMATION: An attorney or pro se party who does not immediately notify the Court when contact information changes will not receive notices, documents and orders filed in the case.

An attorney and any pro se party who is permitted to file documents electronically in CM/ECF must notify the Court of a change to the user’s mailing address, business address, telephone number, or e-mail. To update contact information, a Filing User must access PACER’s Manage My Appellate Filer Account, https://www.pacer.gov/psco/cgi-binkmecf/ea-login.pl. The Court’s records will be updated within I business day of a user entering the change in PACER.

A pro se party who is not permitted to file documents electronically must notify the Court of a change in mailing address or telephone number by filing a letter with the Clerk of Court.

CAPTION: In an appeal, the Court uses the district court caption pursuant to FRAP 12(a), 32(a). For a petition for review or original proceeding the Court uses a caption pursuant to FRAP 15(a) or 21(a), respectively. Please review the caption carefully and promptly advise this Court of any improper or inaccurate designations in writing on the Acknowledgment and Notice of Appearance form. If a party has been terminated from the case the caption may reflect that change only if the district court judge ordered that the caption be amended.

APPELLATE DESIGNATIONS: Please review whether petitioner is listed correctly on the party listing page of the docket sheet and in the caption. If there is an error, please note on the Acknowledgment and Notice of Appearance Form. Timely submission of the Acknowledgment and Notice of Appearance Form will constitute compliance with the requirement to file a Representation Statement required by FRAP 12(b).

For additional information consult the Court’s instructions posted on the website.

Inquiries regarding this case may be directed to 212-857-8577.

Criminal Notice of Appeal - Form A

USDC SDNY DOCUMENT DOC #: DATE FILED: 3/24/2021

NOTICE OF APPEAL

United States of America

Docket No.: 20-CR-00330-AJN

Notice is hereby given that Ghislaine Maxwell appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from the judgment     , other      ✓ Order on Third Motion for Release on Bail (Doc. 169) entered in this action on March 22, 2021 (specify) (date)

This appeal concerns: Conviction only | Sentence only | Conviction & Sentence | Other [ ✓

Defendant found guilty by plea | trial | N/A | ✓

Offense occurred after November 1, 1987? Yes | No | N/A | ✓

Date of sentence:                      N/A [ ✓

Bail/Jail Disposition: Committed [ ✓ ] Not committed | N/A |

Appellant is represented by counsel? Yes ✓ | No | If yes, provide the following information:

Defendant’s Counsel: David Oscar Markus

Counsel’s Address: Markus/ [ ] PLLC 40 NW Third Street, Ph 1, Miami, Florida 33128

Counsel’s Phone: (305)379-6667

Assistant U.S. Attorney: Maurene Comey, Alison Moe & Lara Pomerantz

AUSA’s Address: The Silvio J. Mollo Building One Saint Andrew’s Plaza, New York, New York 10007

AUSA’s Phone: (212)637-2324

CRIMINAL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:20-cr-00330-AJN All Defendants**

New York, NY 10022 212-707-7268 Fax: 212-957-4514 Email: ceverdell@cohengresser.com

Denver, CO 80203 (303)-831-7364 Fax: (303)-832-2628

Denver, CO 80203 (303)-831-7364 Fax: (303)-832-2628

New York, NY 10022 (212) 957-7600 Fax: (212)957-4514 Email: mcohen@cohengresser.com

New York, NY 10007

18:371.F CONSPIRACY TO ENTICE MINORS TO TRAVEL TO ENGAGE IN ILLEGAL SEX ACTS

18:371.F CONSPIRACY TO ENTICE MINORS TO TRAVEL TO ENGAGE IN ILLEGAL SEX ACTS

18:2422.F COERCION OR ENTICEMENT OF A MINOT TO TRAVEL TO ENGAGE IN ILLEGAL SEX ACTS

18:2422.F COERCION OR ENTICEMENT OF MINOR TO ENGAGE IN ILLEGAL SEX ACTS

18:371.F CONSPIRACY TO TRANSPORT MINORS WITH INTENT TO ENGAGE IN CRIMINAL SEXUAL ACTIVITY

18:371.F 18:371.F CONSPIRACY TO TRANSPORT MINORS WITH INTENT TO ENGAGE IN CRIMINAL SEXUAL ACTIVITY

18:2423.F COERCION OR ENTICEMENT OF MINOR FEMALE (TRANSPORTATION OF A MINOR WITH INTENT TO ENGAGE IN CRIMINAL SEXUAL ACTIVITY)

18:2423.F TRANSPORTATION OF A MINOR WITH INTENT TO ENGAGE IN CRIMINAL SEXUAL ACTIVITY

18:1623.F FALSE DECLARATIONS BEFORE GRAND JURY/COURT (PERJURY)

New York, NY 10007 (212)-637-2415 Email: alexander.rossmiller@usdoj.gov

New York, NY 10007 (212)-637-2225 Email: alison.moe@usdoj.gov

New York, NY 10007 (212)-637-2324 Email: maurene.comey@usdoj.gov

New York, NY 10007 Email: Andrew.Rohrbach@usdoj.gov

New York, NY 10007 212-637-2343 Email: Lara.Pomerantz@usdoj.gov

Date Filed# Docket Text
06/29/20201 SEALED INDICTMENT as to Sealed Defendant I (1) count(s) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5-6. Om)
07/02/20202 Order to Unseal Indictment as to Sealed Defendant 1. (Signed by Magistrate Judge
Katharine H. on 7/2/20)(jm) (Entered: 07/02/2020)
07/02/2020INDICTMENT UNSEALED as to Ghislaine Maxwell. (jm) (Entered: 07/02/2020)
07/02/2020Case Designated ECF as to Ghislaine Maxwell. Qm) (Entered: 07/02/2020)
07/02/2020Case as to Ghislaine Maxwell ASSIGNED to Judge Alison J. Nathan. Om) (Entered:
07/02/2020Attorney update in case as to Ghislaine Maxwell. Attorney Alex Rossmiller,Maurene
07/02/20204 MOTION to detain defendant . Document filed by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell.
07/02/2020Arrest of Ghislaine Maxwell in the United States District Court — District of New
07/05/20201 LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from
07/06/2020n Rule 5(c)(3) Documents Received as to Ghislaine Maxwell from the United States
07/06/20202 ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. This matter has been assigned to me for all
07/06/2020li kliiirR by Ghislaine Maxwell addressecipshglge Alison J. Nathan from Mark S.
dated July 6, 2020 re: Scheduling ( Mark) (Entered: 07/06/2020)
07/07/20202 LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from
07/07/2020ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. An arraignment, initial conference, and bail hearing

capacity of the internet platform system, only one attorney per party may participate by video. Co-counsel, members of the press, and the public may access the audio feed of the proceeding by calling a dial-in number, which the Court will provide in advance of the proceeding by subsequent order. Given the high degree of public interest in this case, a video feed of the remote proceeding will be available for viewing in the Jury Assembly Room located at the Daniel [REDACTED] Moynihan Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY. Due to social distancing requirements, seating will be extremely limited; when capacity is reached no additional persons will be admitted. Per the S.D.N.Y. COVID-19 Courthouse Entry Program, anyone who appears at any S.D.N.Y. courthouse must complete a questionnaire on the date of the proceeding prior to arriving at the courthouse. All visitors must also have their temperature taken when they arrive at the courthouse. Please see the instructions, attached. Completing the questionnaire ahead of time will save time and effort upon entry. Only persons who meet the entry requirements established by the questionnaire and whose temperatures are below 100.4 degrees will be allowed to enter the courthouse. Face coverings that cover the nose and mouth must be worn at all times. Anyone who fails to comply with the COVID-19 protocols that have been adopted by the Court will be required to leave the courthouse. There are no exceptions. As discussed in the Court’s previous order, defense counsel shall, if possible, discuss the Waiver of Right to be Present at Criminal Proceeding with the Defendant prior to the proceeding. See Dkt. No. 7. If the Defendant consents, and is able to sign the form (either personally or, in accordance with Standing Order 20-MC-174 of March 27, 2020, by defense counsel), defense counsel shall file the executed form at least 24 hours prior to the proceeding. In the event the Defendant consents, but counsel is unable to obtain or affix the Defendant’s signature on the form, the Court will conduct an inquiry at the outset of the proceeding to determine whether it is appropriate for the Court to add the Defendant’s signature to the form. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3771(c)(1), the Government must make their best efforts to see that crime victims are notified of, and accorded, the rights provided to them in that section. This includes [t]he right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding… involving the crime or of any release… of the accused and “[t]he right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving release.” Id. § 3771(a)(2), (4). The Court will inquire with the Government as to the extent of those efforts. So that appropriate logistical arrangements can be made, the Government shall inform the Court by email within 24 hours in advance of the proceeding if any alleged victim wishes to be heard on the question of detention pending trial. Finally, the time between the Defendant’s arrest and July 6, 2020 is excluded under the Speedy Trial Act due to the delay involved in transferring the Defendant from another district. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(F). And the Court further excludes time under the Speedy Trial Act from today through July 14, 2020. Due to the logistical issues involved in conducting a remote proceeding, the Court finds “that the ends of justice served by [this exclusion] outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.” 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). The exclusion is also supported by the need for the parties to discuss a potential protective order, which will facilitate the timely production of discovery in a manner protective of the rights of third parties. See Dkt. No. 5. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 7/7/2020)(jbo) (Entered: 07/07/2020)

07/08/202011MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Ghislaine Maxwell on 9 LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Alex Rossmiller dated July 7, 2020 re: scheduling. ENDORSEMENT: The Court hereby sets the following briefing schedule. The Defense response is due by 1:00 p.m. on July 10, 2020. The Government reply is due by 1:00 p.m. on July 13, 2020. Additionally, defense counsel is ordered to file notices of appearance on the docket by the end of the day today. SO ORDERED. (Responses due by 7/10/2020. Replies due by 7/13/2020.) (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 7/8/2020) (Inl) (Entered: 07/08/2020)
07/08/202012NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Mark Stewart [REDACTED] appearing for Ghislaine Maxwell. Appearance Type: Retained. ([REDACTED], Mark) (Entered: 07/08/2020)
07/08/202013NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Christian R. Everdell appearing for Ghislaine Maxwell. Appearance Type: Retained. (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 07/08/2020)
07/08/202014NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Laura A. Menninger appearing for Ghislaine Maxwell. Appearance Type: Retained. (Menninger, Laura) (Entered:

| ------------ | ----------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | 07/08/2020 | 15 | MOTION for Jeffrey S. Pagliuca to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number ANYSDC-20605229. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk’s Office staff. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Jeffrey S. Pagliuca, # 2 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing, # 3 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Pagliuca, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/08/2020) | | 07/08/2020 | 17 | (S1) SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT FILED as to Ghislaine Maxwell (1) count(s) 1s, 2s, 3s, 4s, 5s-6s. (jm) (Entered: 07/10/2020) | | 07/09/2020 | | >>>NOTICE REGARDING PRO HAC VICE MOTION. Regarding Document No. 15 MOTION for Jeffrey S. Pagliuca to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number ANYSDC-20605229. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk’s Office staff. The document has been reviewed and there are no deficiencies. (aea) (Entered: 07/09/2020) | | 07/09/2020 | 16 | ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. As discussed in its previous order, the Court will hold an arraignment, initial conference, and bail hearing in this matter remotely as a video/teleconference on July 14, 2020 at 1 pm. Members of the press and the public in the United States may access the live audio feed of the proceeding by calling 855-268-7844 and using access code 32091812# and PIN 9921299#. Those outside of the United States may access the live audio feed by calling 214-416-0400 and using the same access code and PIN. These phone lines can accommodate approximately 500 callers on a first come, first serve basis. The Court will provide counsel for both sides an additional dial-in number to be used to ensure audio access to the proceeding for non-speaking co-counsel, alleged victims, and any family members of the Defendant. The United States Attorney’s Office should email [REDACTED] with information regarding any alleged victims who are entitled, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3771(a)(4), to be heard at the bail hearing and who wish to be heard. The Court will then provide information as to the logistics for their dial-in access. As the Court described in a previous order, members of the press and public may watch and listen to the live video feed in the Jury Assembly Room, at the Daniel [REDACTED] Moynihan Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street. See Dkt. No. 10. However, in light of COVID-19, seating will be limited to approximately 60 seats in order to enable appropriate social distancing and ensure public safety. Counsel for the Defendant and the Government may contact [REDACTED] by email if there is a request to accommodate alleged victims or family members of the Defendant. Members of the credentialed in-house press corps may contact the District Executive’s Office about seating. Otherwise, all seating will be allocated on a first come, first serve basis and in accordance with the S.D.N.Y. COVID-19 Courthouse Entry Program and this Court’s previous order of July 7, 2020. See Dkt. No. 10. If conditions change or the Court otherwise concludes that allowing for in-person viewing of the video feed at the courthouse is not consistent with public health, the Court may provide audio access by telephone only. Any photographing, recording, or rebroadcasting of federal court proceedings is prohibited by law. Violation of these prohibitions may result in fines or sanctions, including removal of court issued media credentials, restricted entry to future hearings, denial of entry to future hearings, or any other sanctions deemed necessary by the Court. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 7/9/2020)(jbo) (Entered: 07/09/2020) | | 07/10/2020 | 18 | MEMORANDUM in Opposition by Ghislaine Maxwell re 4 MOTION to detain defendant .. ([REDACTED], Mark) (Entered: 07/10/2020) | | 07/10/2020 | 19 | NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Mark Stewart [REDACTED] appearing for Ghislaine Maxwell. Appearance Type: Retained. ([REDACTED], Mark) (Entered: 07/10/2020) | | 07/10/2020 | 20 | NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Christian R. Everdell appearing for Ghislaine Maxwell. Appearance Type: Retained. (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 07/10/2020) | | 07/10/2020 | 21 | WAIVER of Personal Appearance at Arraignment and Entry of Plea of Not Guilty by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 07/10/2020) | | 07/13/2020 | 22 | REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell re: 4 MOTION to detain defendant .. (Moe, Alison) (Entered: 07/13/2020) |

07/13/2020ORDER granting 15 Motion for Jeffrey Pagliuca to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Ghislaine Maxwell (1). (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 7/13/2020) (kwi) (Entered: 07/13/2020)
07/14/202023ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. For the reasons stated on the record at today’s proceeding, the Governments motion to detain the Defendant pending trial is hereby GRANTED (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 7/14/20)(jw) (Entered: 07/14/2020)
07/14/2020Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Alison J. Nathan:Arraignment as to Ghislaine Maxwell (1) Count 1s,2s,3s,4s,5s-6s held on 7/14/2020. Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell present by video conference with attorney Mark [REDACTED] present by video conference, AUSA Alison Moe, Alex Rossmiller and Maurene Comey for the government present by video conference, Pretrial Service Officer Lea Harmon present by telephone and Court Reporter Kristine Caraannante. Defendant enters a plea of Not Guilty to the S1 indictment. Trial set for July 12, 2021. See Order. Time is excluded under the Speedy Trial Act from today until July 12, 2021. Bail is denied. Defendant is remanded. See Transcript. (jw) (Entered: 07/14/2020)
07/14/2020Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Alison J. Nathan: Plea entered by Ghislaine Maxwell (1) Count 1s,2s,3s,4s,5s-6s Not Guilty. (jw) (Entered: 07/14/2020)
07/14/202024Waiver of Right to be Present at Criminal Proceeding as to Ghislaine Maxwell re: Arraignment, Bail Hearing, Conference. (jw) (Entered: 07/14/2020)
07/15/202025ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. Initial non-electronic discovery, generally to include search warrant applications and subpoena returns, is due by Friday, August 21, 2020. Completion of discovery, to include electronic materials, is due by Monday, November 9, 2020. Motions are due by Monday, December 21, 2020. Motion responses are due by Friday, January 22, 2021. Motion replies are due by Friday, February 5, 2021. Trial is set for Monday, July 12, 2021 ( Discovery due by 8/21/2020., Motions due by 12/21/2020) (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 7/15/20)(jw) (Entered: 07/15/2020)
07/21/202026ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: The Court has received a significant number of letters and messages from non-parties that purport to be related to this case. These submissions are either procedurally improper or irrelevant to the judicial function. Therefore, they will not be considered or docketed. The Court will accord the same treatment to any similar correspondence it receives in the future. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 7/21/2020) (lnl) (Entered: 07/21/2020)
07/21/202027LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Jeffrey S. Pagliuca dated July 21, 2020 re: Local Criminal Rule 23.1 . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Pagliuca, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/21/2020)
07/23/202028ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: The Defense has moved for an order “prohibiting the Government, its agents and counsel for witnesses from making extrajudicial statements concerning this case.” Dkt. No. 27 at 1. The Court firmly expects that counsel for all involved parties will exercise great care to ensure compliance with this Court’s local rules, including Local Criminal Rule 23.1, and the rules of professional responsibility. In light of this clear expectation, the Court does not believe that further action is needed at this time to protect the Defendant’s right to a fair trial by an impartial jury. Accordingly, it denies the Defendant’s motion without prejudice. But the Court warns counsel and agents for the parties and counsel for potential witnesses that going forward it will not hesitate to take appropriate action in the face of violations of any relevant rules. The Court will ensure strict compliance with those rules and will ensure that the Defendant’s right to a fair trial will be safeguarded. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 7/23/2020) (ap) (Entered: 07/23/2020)
07/27/202029LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated July 27, 2020 re: Proposed Protective Order . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Proposed Protective Order))(Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 07/27/2020)
07/27/202030AFFIDAVIT of Christian R. Everdell by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 07/27/2020)
07/27/202031LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Alison Moe dated July 27, 2020 re: requesting until 5 p.m. tomorrow to respond to
defense counsel’s letter, filed July 27, 2020 Document filed by USA. (Moe, Alison)
(Entered: 07/27/2020)
07/27/202032MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Ghislaine Maxwell on 31 LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Alison Moe dated July 27, 2020 re: requesting until 5 p.m. tomorrow to respond to defense counsel’s letter, filed July 27, 2020. ENDORSEMENT: The Government’s response to the Defellow letter is due by 5 p.m. on July 28, 2020. The Defense may file a reply by 5 p.m. on July 29, 2020. Before the Government’s response is filed, the parties must meet and confer by phone regarding this issue, and any response from the Government must contain an affirmation that the parties have done so. SO ORDERED. (Responses due by 7/28/2020. Replies due by 7/29/2020.) (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 7/27/2020) (Inl) (Entered: 07/27/2020)
07/28/202033LETTER RESPONSE to Motion by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Alex Rossmiller dated July 28, 2020 re: 29 LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated July 27, 2020 re: Proposed Protective Order .. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (proposed protective order))(Rossmiller, Alex) (Entered: 07/28/2020)
07/28/202034AFFIDAVIT of Alex Rossmiller by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell. (Rossmiller, Alex)
(Entered: 07/28/2020)
07/29/202035LETTER REPLY TO RESPONSE to Motion by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated July 29, 2020 re 29 LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated July 27, 2020 re: Proposed Protective Order .. (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 07/29/2020)
07/30/202036PROTECTIVE ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell…regarding procedures to be followed that shall govern the handling of confidential material. SO ORDERED:
(Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 7/30/2020)(bw) (Entered: 07/31/2020)
07/30/202037MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. Both parties have asked for the Court to enter a protective order. While they agree on most of the language, two areas of dispute have emerged. First, Ms. Maxwell seeks language allowing her to publicly reference alleged victims or witnesses who have spoken on the public record to the media or in public fora, or in litigation relating to Ms. Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein. Second, Ms. Maxwell seeks language restricting potential Government witnesses and their counsel from using discovery materials for any purpose other than preparing for the criminal trial in this action. The Government has proposed contrary language on both of these issues. For the following reasons, the Court adopts the Government’s proposed protective order Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(d)(1), “[a]t any time the court may, for good cause, deny, restrict, or defer discovery or inspection, or grant other appropriate relief.” The good cause standard “requires courts to balance several interests, including whether dissemination of the discovery materials inflicts hazard to others… whether the imposition of the protective order would prejudice the defendant,” and “the public’s interest in the information.” United States v. [REDACTED], 985 F. Supp. 2d 506, 522 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). The party seeking to restrict disclosure bears the burden of showing good cause. Cf. Gambale v. Deutsche Bank AG, 377 F.3d 133, 142 (2d Cir. 2004). First, the Court finds that the Government has met its burden of showing good cause with regard to restricting the ability of Ms. Maxwell to publicly reference alleged victims and witnesses other than those who have publicly identified themselves in this litigation. As a general matter, it is undisputed that there is a strong and specific interest in protecting the privacy of alleged victims and witnesses in this case that supports restricting the disclosure of their identities. Dkt. No. 29 at 3 (acknowledging that as a baseline the protective order should “prohibit[] Ms. Maxwell, defense counsel, and others on the defense team from disclosing or disseminating the identity of any alleged victim or potential witness referenced in the discovery materials”); see also United States v. Corley, No. 13-cr-48, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 194426, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2016). The Defense argues this interest is significantly diminished for individuals who have spoken on the public record about Ms. Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein, because they have voluntarily chosen to identify themselves. But not all accusations or public statements are equal. Deciding to participate in or contribute to a criminal investigation or prosecution is a far different matter than simply making a public statement “relating to” Ms. Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein, particularly since such a

statement might have occurred decades ago and have no relevance to the charges in this case. These individuals still maintain a significant privacy interest that must be safeguarded. The exception the Defense seeks is too broad and risks undermining the protections of the privacy of witnesses and alleged victims that is required by law. In contrast, the Government’s proffered language would allow Ms. Maxwell to publicly reference individuals who have spoken by name on the record in this case. It also allows the Defense to “reference[e] the identities of individuals they believe may be relevant… to Potential Defense Witnesses and their counsel during the course of the investigation and preparation of the defense case at trial.” Dkt. No. 33-1, 5. This proposal adequately balances the interests at stake. And as the Government’s letter notes, see Dkt. No. 33 at 4, to the extent that the Defense needs an exception to the protective order for a specific investigative purpose, they can make applications to the Court on a case-by-case basis. Second, restrictions on the ability of potential witnesses and their counsel to use discovery materials for purposes other than preparing for trial in this case are unwarranted. The request appears unprecedented despite the fact that there have been many high-profile criminal matters that had related civil litigation. The Government labors under many restrictions including Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Privacy Act of 1974, and other policies of the Department of Justice and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, all of which the Court expects the Government to scrupulously follow. Furthermore, the Government indicates that it will likely only provide potential witnesses with materials that those witnesses already have in their possession. See Dkt. No. 33 at 6. And of course, those witnesses who do testify at trial would be subject to examination on the record as to what materials were provided or shown to them by the Government. Nothing in the Defense’s papers explains how its unprecedented proposed restriction is somehow necessary to ensure a fair trial. For the foregoing reasons, the Court adopts the Government’s proposed protective order, which will be entered on the docket. This resolves Dkt. No. 29. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 7/30/2020)(bw) (Entered: 07/31/2020)

08/10/202038LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated August 10, 2020 re: Discovery Disclosure and Access . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 08/10/2020)
08/10/202039AFFIDAVIT of Christian R. Everdell by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 08/10/2020)
08/11/202040MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Ghislaine Maxwell on re: 38 LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated August 10, 2020 re: Discovery Disclosure and Access. ENDORSEMENT: The Government is hereby ORDERED to respond to the Defendant’s letter motion by Thursday, August 13, 2020. The Defendant’s reply, if any, is due on or before Monday, August 17, 2020. (Responses due by 8/13/2020. Replies due by 8/17/2020) (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 8/11/2020) (ap) (Entered: 08/11/2020)
08/13/202041LETTER RESPONSE in Opposition by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Alex Rossmiller dated August 13, 2020 re: 38 LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated August 10, 2020 re: Discovery Disclosure and Access .. (Rossmiller, Alex) (Entered: 08/13/2020)
08/17/202042LETTER REPLY TO RESPONSE to Motion by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated August 17, 2020 re 38 LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated August 10, 2020 re: Discovery Disclosure and Access .. (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 08/17/2020)
08/17/202043LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Jeffrey S. Pagliuca dated August 17, 2020 re: Request for Permission to Submit Letter Motion in Excess of Three Pages . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Pagliuca, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/17/2020)
08/18/202044ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: On August 17, 2020, the Defendant filed a letter motion seeking a modification of this Court’s Protective Order, which the Court entered on July 30, 2020. Defendant also moves to file that letter motion under seal. The Governments opposition to Defendant’s letter motion is hereby due Friday, August
21 at 12 p.m. The Defendant’s reply is due on Monday, August 24 at 12 p.m. The parties shall propose redactions to the letter briefing on this issue. Alternatively, the parties shall provide support and argument for why the letter motions should be sealed in their entirety. SO ORDERED. (Responses due by 8/21/2020. Replies due by 8/24/2020.) (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 8/18/2020) (Inl) (Entered: 08/18/2020)
08/20/202045NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE Lara Elizabeth Pomerantz appearing for USA. (Pomerantz, Lara) (Entered: 08/20/2020)
08/20/202050SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (mhe) (Entered: 08/27/2020)
08/21/202046LETTER RESPONSE in Opposition by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Maurene Comey dated August 21, 2020 re: 43 LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Jeffrey S. Pagliuca dated August 17, 2020 re: Request for Permission to Submit Letter Motion in Excess of Three Pages .. (Rossmiller, Alex) (Entered: 08/21/2020)
08/21/202047LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Maurene Comey dated August 21, 2020 re: Proposed redactions to letter briefing, in response to the Court’s Order of August 18, 2020 Document filed by USA. (Rossmiller, Alex) (Entered: 08/21/2020)
08/24/202048LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Laura A. Menninger dated August 24, 2020 re: Request to File Under Seal: Proposed Redactions to Request to Modify Protective Order and Reply in Support Thereof . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 08/24/2020)
08/25/202049MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: denying without prejudice 38 LETTER MOTION as to Ghislaine Maxwell (1). On August 10, 2020, the Defendant filed a letter motion related to two issues. Dkt. No. 38. First, the Defendant seeks an order directing the Government to disclose to defense counsel immediately the identities of the three alleged victims referenced in the indictment. Second, the Defendant seeks an order directing the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) to release the Defendant into the general population and to provide her with increased access to the discovery materials. For the reasons that follow, Defendant’s requests are DENIED without prejudice…[See this Memorandum Opinion And Order]… III. Conclusion: For the reasons stated above, Defendant’s requests contained in Dkt. No. 38 are DENIED without prejudice. Following the close of discovery, the parties shall meet and confer on an appropriate schedule for pre-trial disclosures, including the disclosure of § 3500 material, exhibit lists, and witness lists, taking into account all relevant factors. The Government is hereby ORDERED to submit written status updates every 90 days detailing any material changes to the conditions of Ms. Maxwell’s confinement, with particular emphasis on her access to legal materials and ability to communicate with defense counsel. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 8/25/2020) (bw) (Entered: 08/25/2020)
09/02/202051MEMORANDUMOPINION AND ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: On August 17, 2020, Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell filed a sealed letter motion seeking an Order modifying the protective order in this case. Specifically, she sought a Court order allowing her to file under seal in certain civil cases (“Civil Cases”) materials (“Documents”) that she received in discovery from the Government in this case. She also sought permission to reference, but not file, other discovery material that the Government produced in this case. For the reasons that follow, Defendant’s requests are DENIED. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 9/2/2020)(See MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER as set forth) (Inl) (Entered: 09/02/2020)
09/02/202052LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan, from Jeffrey S. Pagliuca dated 8/17/2020 re: Defense counsel writes with redacted request to modify protective order. (ap) (Entered: 09/02/2020)
09/04/202055NOTICE OF APPEAL by Ghislaine Maxwell from 51 Memorandum & Opinion. Filing fee $ 505.00, receipt number 465401266036. (tp) (Entered: 09/09/2020)
09/08/202053LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan dated 8/24/2020 re: Proposed Redactions to Request to Modify Protective Order. (jbo) (Entered: 09/08/2020)
09/08/20205.4LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan dated 8/24/2020
09/09/2020Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Certified Copy of Docket Sheet as to Ghislaine
09/09/2020Appeal Record Sent to USCA (Electronic File). Certified Indexed record on Appeal
09/10/202056SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (dn) (Entered: 09/11/2020)
09/10/202057SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (dn) (Entered: 09/11/2020)
09/24/202058SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (mhe) (Entered: 09/24/2020)
10/05/202052NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Bobbi C Sternheim appearing for
10/06/2020ft()LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from
10/06/202061 AFFIDAVIT of Maurene Comey by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell. (Comey, Maurene)
10/07/202062MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Ghislaine Maxwell on re: 66 Accordingly, the
10/07/202062LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from
10/14/202064LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R.
10/20/202055LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from
10/23/2020fifiLETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Jeffrey S.
10/30/202061 LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from
I I /05/20206KORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: This Order is entered, pursuant to Federal Rule of
11/06/202069LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, and Lara Pomerantz dated November 6, 2020 re: Request to Extend Discovery Deadline for Portion of Electronic Discovery Document filed by USA. (Comey, Maurene) (Entered: 11/06/2020)
11/06/202070AFFIDAVIT of Maurene Comey by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell. (Comey, Maurene) (Entered: 11/06/2020)
11/09/202071MANDATE of USCA (Certified Copy) as to Ghislaine Maxwell re: 55 Notice of Appeal. USCA Case Number 20-3061-cr. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the motion to consolidate is DENIED and the appeal is DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction.. Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk USCA for the Second Circuit. Issued As Mandate: 11/09/2020. (nd) (Entered: 11/09/2020)
11/09/202072MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Ghislaine Maxwell on 69 LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, and Lara Pomerantz dated November 6, 2020 re: Request to Extend Discovery Deadline for Portion of Electronic Discovery. ENDORSEMENT: The Court hereby extends the deadline for the Government’s production of electronic discovery from November 9, 2020 to November 23, 2020. The Court also grants the parties’ request for an extension of the motions deadlines as follows: the Defendant’s motions are due by January 11, 2021, the Government’s responses are due by February 12, 2021, and any replies are due by February 19, 2021. SO ORDERED. (Discovery due by 11/23/2020. Motions due by 1/11/2021. Responses due by 2/12/2021. Replies due by 2/19/2021.) (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 11/9/2020) (Inl) (Entered: 11/10/2020)
11/18/202073MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Ghislaine Maxwell on re: 60 Letter filed by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell re: The Government respectfully requests that the Court approve the Government’s request to delay disclosure of these Materials…ENDORSEMENT…There is no dispute that the materials referenced in the Government’s letter will be turned over to the defense. The Government has indicated that it will do so. The only dispute, then, relates to the timing of such disclosure. See Dkt. Nos. 64, 65. Because the Government has articulated plausible reasons for some delay of disclosure, see Dkt. No. 65 at 4, the Court grants the Government’s request to delay disclosure. However, the Governments proposal to delay disclosure until 8 weeks in advance of trial is insufficient. In order to ensure that the defense can adequately prepare for trial, the Government shall produce the referenced materials, which are not voluminous, to the defense by March 12, 2021. Disclosure of the materials will of course be subject to the protective order entered by the Court, see Dkt. No. 36. (Government Responses due by 3/12/2021) (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 11/18/20)(jw) (Entered: 11/18/2020)
11/23/202074LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, and Lara Pomerantz dated November 23, 2020 re: Update Regarding Conditions of Confinement Document filed by USA. (Comey, Maurene) (Entered: 11/23/2020)
11/24/202075LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Bobbi C. Sternheim dated 11/24/2020 re: Response to 90-day MDC conditions report (Sternheim, Bobbi) (Entered: 11/24/2020)
11/24/202076MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Ghislaine Maxwell on re: 75 LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Bobbi C. Sternheim dated 11/24/2020 re: Response to 90-day MDC conditions report. ENDORSEMENT: The parties are hereby ORDERED to meet and confer regarding Defendant’s request that Warden Heriberto Tellez directly address Defendant’s concerns regarding the conditions of her detention. The parties shall jointly submit a status update within one week of this Order. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 11/24/2020) (ap) (Entered: 11/24/2020)
12/01/202077ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. On November 25, 2020, the Defendant filed a letter request under seal. On November 30, 2020, she filed a second letter request in which she proposed redactions on both letters. The Government is hereby ORDERED to respond to the Defendant’s November 25, 2020 letter request and to the request for proposed redactions by no later than December 2, 2020. The letters shall be
temporarily sealed while the Court resolves the redaction request. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 12/1/2020)(bw) (Entered: 12/01/2020)
12/01/202078LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, and Lara Pomerantz dated December 1, 2020 re: Joint Letter regarding Conditions of Confinement Document filed by USA. (Pomerantz, Lara) (Entered: 12/01/2020)
12/02/202079MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Ghislaine Maxwell on re: 78 LETTER by USA addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, and Lara Pomerantz dated December 1, 2020 re: Joint Letter regarding Conditions of Confinement. ENDORSEMENT: MDC legal counsel shall submit their letter to the Court by December 4, 2020. Upon review of that letter, the Court will determine whether any additional information is required, either orally or in writing. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 12/2/2020)(bw) (Entered: 12/02/2020)
12/02/202080LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, and Lara Pomerantz dated December 2, 2020 re: Defense Requests for Sealing Document filed by USA. (Comey, Maurene) (Entered: 12/02/2020)
12/03/202081ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. On November 25, 2020, counsel for Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell filed a letter request seeking an in camera conference for the presentation of a renewed motion for release on bail and a request to seal the November 25, 2020 letter in its entirety. The Court required justification for the sealing request. On November 30, 2020, the defense counsel filed a second letter no longer fully pressing the unsupported request to file the letter entirely under seal and instead proposing redactions to both the November 25th and November 30th letters. The Government has indicated that it does not oppose the redactions. Dkt. No. 80. After due consideration, the Court will adopt the Defendant’s proposed redactions, which are consented to by the Government. The Court’s decision 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: (i) determine whether the documents in question are “judicial documents;” (ii) assess the weight of the common law presumption of access to the materials; and (iii) 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, 1050 (2d Cir. 1995) (“Amodeo II”)). The proposed redactions satisfy this test. First, the Court finds that the 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 while the Court assumes that the common law presumption of access, in balancing competing considerations against the presumption of access, the Court finds that the arguments the Defendant has put forthincluding, most notably, the privacy interests of the individuals referenced in the lettersfavor her proposed and tailored redactions. The Defendant is hereby ORDERED to docket the redacted versions of the two letters by December 4, 2020. For the reasons outlined in the Government’s letter dated December 2, 2020, Dkt. No. 80, the Court DENIES the Defendant’s request for an in camera conference. In order to protect the privacy interests referenced in the Defendant’s November 25, 2020 letter, the Court will permit the Defendant to make her submission in writing and to propose narrowly tailored redactions. The parties are hereby ORDERED to meet and confer and to jointly prepare a briefing schedule for the Defendant’s forthcoming renewed motion for release on bail. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 12/3/2020)(bw) (Entered: 12/03/2020)
12/03/202082SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (jus) (Entered: 12/03/2020)
12/03/202083SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (jus) (Entered: 12/03/2020)
12/03/202084SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (jus) (Entered: 12/03/2020)
12/04/202085LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated December 4, 2020 re: Briefing Schedule (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 12/04/2020)
12/04/202086LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated 11/25/2020 re: Sealing (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 12/04/2020)
12/04/202087LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated 11/30/2020 re: Sealing (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 12/04/2020)
12/07/202088LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Sophia Papapetru and John Wallace dated 12/4/20 re: This letter is written in response to your order dated December 2, 2020, concerning Ghislaine Maxwell, Reg. 02879-509., an inmate currently confined at the Metropolitan Detention center in Brooklyn, New York. You expressed various concerns regarding Ms. Maxwells confinement and well-being. (jw) (Entered: 12/07/2020)
12/07/202089ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell re: 85 Letter filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. The Court is in receipt of the Defendant’s December 4, 2020 letter, Dkt. No. 85, and hereby sets the following schedule: The Defendants submission is due December 8, 2020; The Government’s response is due December 16, 2020; The Defendant’s reply is due December 18, 2020. After reviewing these submissions, the Court will determine whether a hearing on the renewed bail motion is necessary. The Court grants the Defendants request that the Government shall file its submission under seal with proposed redactions. Any objections to proposed redactions are due within 24 hours after any brief has been filed. Finally, the Defendant is granted leave to file a motion not to exceed 40 pages. The Governments response shall also be limited to 40 pages. The Defendant’s reply shall not exceed 10 pages ( Defendant submission due by 12/8/2020., Defendant Replies due by 12/18/2020., Government Responses due by 12/16/2020) (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 12/7/20)(jw) (Entered: 12/07/2020)
12/07/202090ENDORSED LETTER as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Mark S. [REDACTED] and Christian R. Everdell dated 11/25/20 re: On behalf of my client, Ghislaine Maxwell, we plan to file a Renewed Motion for Release on Bail (the “Motion”) and respectfully request an in camera conference, with all counsel present, to address the appropriate procedures for the filing and consideration of the Motion. For the reasons explained below, we intend to request, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 49.1(d), that the Court permit the filing of portions of the Motion and certain supporting materials under seal and require that any responsive materials be filed under seal…ENDORSEMENT: The Court sees no basis for the sealing of this letter. On or before December 2, 2020, Defendant shall justify why this letter should be sealed (or redacted). Alternatively, the Defendant may file the letter on the public docket by that date. The Court will take no action on the request pending resolution of the initial sealing question. The Defendant’s letter and this memorandum endorsement will be temporarily sealed pending resolution of the sealing request. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 11/25/20)(jw) (Entered: 12/07/2020)
12/07/202091LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Bobbi C. Sternheim dated 12/07/2020 re: Response to MDC Report to Court re: conditions (Sternheim, Bobbi) (Entered: 12/07/2020)
12/08/202092ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: On December 4, 2020, the Court received a letter from MDC legal counsel responding to the concerns that the Defendant raised in her November 24, 2020 letter. See Dkt. Nos. 75, 88; see also Dkt. No. 78. The Defendant responded to the MDC legal counsel’s letter on December 7, 2020, reiterating her request that the Court summon Warden Heriberto Tellez to personally respond to questions from the Court regarding the Defendant’s conditions of confinement. See Dkt. No. 91. Having carefully reviewed the parties’ submissions, along with the MDC legal counsel’s December 4, 2020 letter, the Court DENIES the Defendant’s request to summon the Warden to personally appear and respond to questions. This resolves Dkt. No. 75. Notwithstanding this, as originally provided in Dkt. No. 49, the Government shall continue to submit written status updates detailing any material changes to the conditions of Ms. Maxwell’s confinement, with particular emphasis on her access to legal materials, including legal mail and email, and her ability to communicate with defense counsel. The updates shall also include information on the frequency of searches of the Defendant. The Court hereby ORDERS the Government to submit these written updates every 60 days. Furthermore, the Government shall take all
necessary steps to ensure that the Defendant continues to receive adequate access to her legal materials and her ability to communicate with defense counsel. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 12/8/2020) (ap) (Entered: 12/08/2020)
12/10/202093TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings as to Ghislaine Maxwell re: Conference held on 7/14/2020 before Judge Alison J. Nathan. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Kristen Carannante, (212) 805-0300, Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 12/31/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 1/11/2021. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 3/10/2021. (McGuirk, Kelly) (Entered: 12/10/2020)
12/10/202094NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT as to Ghislaine Maxwell. Notice is hereby given that an official transcript of a Conference proceeding held on 7/14/2020 has 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)
12/14/202095ORDER 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: (i) determine whether the documents in question are “judicial documents;” (ii) assess the weight of the common law presumption of access to the materials; and (iii) 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 Commc’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)
12/14/202096LETTER 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)
12/14/202097MEMORANDUM OF LAW in 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 S, # 20 Exhibit T, # 21 Exhibit U, # 22 Exhibit V, # 23 Exhibit W, # 24 Exhibit X)(Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 12/14/2020)
12/17/202098NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE Andrew Rohrbach appearing for USA. (Rohrbach, Andrew) (Entered: 12/17/2020)
12/18/202099ORDER 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: (i) determine whether the documents in question are “judicial documents;” (ii) assess the weight of the common law presumption access to the materials; and (iii) 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 (“Amodeo II”), 71 F.3d 1044, 1050 (2d Cir. 1995)). The proposed redactions satisfy this test. The Court finds that the Governments submissions 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 Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 602 (1978). Nevertheless, the proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to serve substantial interests, including, most importantly, third parties’ personal privacy interests. See Under Seal v. Under Seal, 273 F. Supp. 3d 460 467 (S.D.N.Y.2017). The Government is hereby ORDERED to docket the redacted documents and corresponding exhibits by no later than December 18, 2 (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 12/18/2020) (ap) (Entered: 12/18/2020)
12/18/2020100MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell Renewed Bail Motion . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Comey, Maurene) (Entered: 12/18/2020)
12/23/2020101ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: On December 18, 2020, the Defendant filed her reply to the Government’s opposition to her renewed application for bail. In accordance with this Court’s December 7, 2020 Order, see Dkt. No. 89, she filed these materials under seal and proposed narrowly tailored redactions on those materials. The Government did not file any opposition to the Defendant’s proposed redactions. The Court will adopt the Defendant’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: (i) determine whether the documents in question are “judicial documents;” (ii) assess the weight of the common law presumption of access to the materials; and (iii) 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 (“Amodeo II”), 71 F.3d 1044, 1050 (2d Cir. 1995)). The proposed redactions satisfy this test. The Court finds that the Defendant’s submissions 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 Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 602 (1978). As with the redactions to her renewed motion for bail, the proposed redactions here are narrowly tailored to serve substantial interests, including, most importantly, third parties personal privacy interests. See Under Seal v. Under Seal, 273 F. Supp. 3d 460, 467 (S.D.N.Y. 2017). See also Dkt. No. 95. The Defendant is hereby ORDERED to docket the redacted documents and corresponding exhibits by no later than December 23, 2020. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 12/23/2020) (Inl) (Entered: 12/23/2020)
12/23/2020102LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated December 18, 2020 re: Cover Letter for Reply Memorandum for Renewed Bail Application (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 12/23/2020)
12/23/2020103REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support by Ghislaine Maxwell re: Renewed Motion for Bail . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 12/23/2020)
12/28/2020104ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. On December 8, 2020, Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell filed a renewed motion for releaseon bail. Dkt No. 97. In an Opinion and Order concurrently filed under temporary seal, the Court DENIES the Defendant’s
motion. In light of the fact that the Opinion includes potentially confidential information that should not be filed on the public docket, the Court will permit the parties 48 hours to propose any redactions to the Courts Opinion and Order and to justify those redactions by reference to the Second Circuits decision in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110(2d Cir. 2006). After determining which, if any, portions of the Opinion and Order should be redacted, the Court will file the Opinion and Order on the public docket. As a result, the Court concludes that the Government has met its burden of persuasion that the Defendant poses a flight risk and that pretrial detention continues to be warranted. On or before December 30, 2020, the parties are ORDERED to submit a joint letter indicating whether they propose any redactions and the justification for any such proposal. This resolves Dkt No. 97. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 12/28/20)(jw) (Entered: 12/28/2020)
12/30/2020105LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, and Lara Pomerantz dated December 30, 2020 re: Joint Letter re December 28, 2020 Opinion and Order Document filed by USA. (Comey, Maurene) (Entered: 12/30/2020)
12/30/2020106OPINION AND ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell has been indicted by a grand jury on charges of conspiracy to entice minors to travel to engage in illegal sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; enticing a minor to travel to engage in illegal sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2422 and 2; conspiracy to transport minors to participate in illegal sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; transporting minors to participate in illegal sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2423 and 2; and two charges of perjury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623. The Court held a lengthy bail hearing on July 14, 2020. After extensive briefing and argument at the hearing, the Court concluded that the Defendant was a clear risk of flight and that no conditions or combination of conditions would ensure her appearance. Defendant Ghislaine Maxwells renewed motion for release on bail, Dkt. No. 97, is DENIED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 12/28/20)(jw) (Entered: 12/30/2020)
12/31/2020107LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated December 31, 2020 re: Extension of Time . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 12/31/2020)
01/05/2021108MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Ghislaine Maxwell (1) on 107 LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated December 31, 2020 re: Extension of Time. ENDORSEMENT: SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 1/5/2021) (ap) (Entered: 01/05/2021)
01/05/2021Set/Reset Deadlines as to Ghislaine Maxwell: Motions due by 1/25/2021. Responses due by 2/26/2021. Replies due by 3/5/2021. (ap) (Entered: 01/05/2021)
01/08/2021109LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated January 8, 2021 re: Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 01/08/2021)
01/11/2021110SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (jus) (Entered: 01/11/2021)
01/11/2021111SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (jus) (Entered: 01/11/2021)
01/11/2021112MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Ghislaine Maxwell (1) denying 109 LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated January 8, 2021 re: Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal. ENDORSEMENT: The request is denied. Good cause for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal has not been provided. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 1/11/2021) (Inl) (Entered: 01/11/2021)
01/11/2021113NOTICE OF APPEAL by Ghislaine Maxwell from 104 Order. (nd) (Entered: 01/12/2021)
01/11/2021Appeal Remark as to re: 113 Notice of Appeal by Ghislaine Maxwell. $505.00 Appeal filing fee due. (nd) (Entered: 01/12/2021)
01/12/2021Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Certified Copy of Docket Sheet as to Ghislaine Maxwell to US Court of Appeals re: 113 Notice of Appeal. (nd) (Entered: 01/12/2021)
01/12/2021Appeal Record Sent to USCA (Electronic File). Certified Indexed record on Appeal Electronic Files as to Ghislaine Maxwell re: 113 Notice of Appeal were transmitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals. (nd) (Entered: 01/12/2021)
01/13/2021114INTERNET CITATION NOTE as to Ghislaine Maxwell: Material from decision with Internet citation re: 106 Memorandum & Opinion. (sjo) (Entered: 01/13/2021)
01/14/2021115LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated January 14, 2021 re: Laptop Access (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 01/14/2021)
01/15/2021116MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Ghislaine Maxwell on 115 LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated January 14, 2021 re: Laptop Access. ENDORSEMENT: The unobjected-to request is GRANTED. The Bureau of Prisons is ORDERED to give the Defendant access to the laptop computer on weekends and holidays during the hours that she is permitted to review discovery. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 1/15/2021) (Inl) (Entered: 01/15/2021)
01/15/2021USCA Case Number 21-0058 from the U.S. Court of Appeals, 2nd Circ. as to Ghislaine Maxwell, assigned to 113 Notice of Appeal filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (nd) (Entered: 01/15/2021)
01/15/2021USCA Appeal Fees received $ 505.00, receipt number 465401271727 as to Ghislaine Maxwell on 01/15/2021 re: 113 Notice of Appeal filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (nd) (Entered: 01/15/2021)
01/25/2021117ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: On January 25, 2021, the Court received by email the attached letter from the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”). In the letter, the BOP requests that the Court vacate its January 15, 2021 Order, Dkt. No. 116, which directed the BOP to give the Defendant access to her Government provided laptop computer on weekends and holidays during the hours that she is permitted to review discovery. The Defendant and the Government may respond to the BOP’s letter within one week of this Order. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 1/25/2021) (ap) (Entered: 01/25/2021)
01/25/2021118LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Mark S. [REDACTED] dated January 25, 2021 re: Pretrial Motions ([REDACTED], Mark) (Entered: 01/25/2021)
01/25/2021119MOTION for Separate Trial on Counts Ghislaine Maxwell (1) Count 5s-6s,5-6 . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Pagliuca, Jeffrey) (Entered: 01/25/2021)
01/25/2021120MEMORANDUM in Support by Ghislaine Maxwell re 119 MOTION for Separate Trial on Counts Ghislaine Maxwell (1) Count 5s-6s,5-6 .. (Pagliuca, Jeffrey) (Entered: 01/25/2021)
01/25/2021121MOTION to Dismiss Either Count One Or Count Three of the Superseding Indictment as Multiplicitous . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Pagliuca, Jeffrey) (Entered: 01/25/2021)
01/25/2021122MEMORANDUM in Support by Ghislaine Maxwell re 121 MOTION to Dismiss Either Count One Or Count Three of the Superseding Indictment as Multiplicitous .. (Pagliuca, Jeffrey) (Entered: 01/25/2021)
01/25/2021123MOTION to Dismiss Counts One through Four of the Superseding Indictment for Lack of Specificity . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Pagliuca, Jeffrey) (Entered: 01/25/2021)
01/25/2021124MEMORANDUM in Support by Ghislaine Maxwell re 123 MOTION to Dismiss Counts One through Four of the Superseding Indictment for Lack of Specificity .. (Pagliuca, Jeffrey) (Entered: 01/25/2021)
01/25/2021125MOTION to Dismiss the Superseding Indictment as it was Obtained in Violation of the Sixth Amendment . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. ([REDACTED], Mark) (Entered: 01/25/2021)
01/25/2021126MEMORANDUM in Support by Ghislaine Maxwell re 125 MOTION to Dismiss the Superseding Indictment as it was Obtained in Violation of the Sixth Amendment ..

| ------------ | ------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | | 01/26/2021 | 127 | ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: On January 25, 2021, the Defendant filed twelve pre-trial motions. Because there is a request to redact sensitive or confidential information, several of the motions have been filed under temporary seal. The Government may respond to the Defendant’s proposed redactions within two days of this Order. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 1/26/2021) (ap) (Entered: 01/26/2021) | | 01/28/2021 | 128 | LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, Lara Pomerantz, and Andrew Rohrbach dated January 28, 2021 re: Defendant’s Proposed Redactions to Pre-Trial Motions Document filed by USA. (Pomerantz, Lara) (Entered: 01/28/2021) | | 02/01/2021 | 129 | LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, and Lara Pomerantz dated February 1, 2021 re: MDC Laptop Access Document filed by USA. (Comey, Maurene) (Entered: 02/01/2021) | | 02/01/2021 | 130 | LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Bobbi C. Sternheim dated 02/02/2021 re: Opposition to MDC letter (Sternheim, Bobbi) (Entered: 02/01/2021) | | 02/02/2021 | 131 | MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Ghislaine Maxwell on Letter addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Sophia Papapetru ( Staff Attorney, MDC Brooklyn, Federal Bureau of Prisons) dated January 25, 2021. ENDORSEMENT: Having considered the request submitted by the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) that the Court vacate its January 15, 2021 Order, Dkt. No. 117, as well as the Government’s and the Defendant’s responses, Dkt. Nos. 129, 130, the Court hereby DENIES the BOP’s request to vacate the Order. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 2/2/2021)(bw) (Entered: 02/02/2021) | | 02/04/2021 | 132 | ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: The Defendant is hereby ORDERED to docket the redacted documents and corresponding exhibits by no later than February 5, 2021. With respect to Motion 3, the Defendant is ORDERED to docket the version that includes the Government’s proposed redactions in addition to her own. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 2/4/2021)(See ORDER as set forth) (lnl) (Entered: 02/04/2021) | | 02/04/2021 | 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 . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Pagliuca, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/04/2021) | | 02/04/2021 | 134 | MEMORANDUM in Support by Ghislaine Maxwell re 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 .. (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)(Pagliuca, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/04/2021) | | 02/04/2021 | 135 | MOTION to Dismiss Counts Five and Six of the Superseding Indictment Because the Alleged Misstatements are Not Perjurious as a Matter of Law . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Pagliuca, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/04/2021) | | 02/04/2021 | 136 | MEMORANDUM in Support by Ghislaine Maxwell re 135 MOTION to Dismiss Counts Five and Six of the Superseding Indictment Because the Alleged Misstatements are Not Perjurious as a Matter of Law .. (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)(Pagliuca, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/04/2021) | | 02/04/2021 | 137 | MOTION to Dismiss Counts One Through Six of the Superseding Indictment for Pre-Indictment Delay . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Pagliuca, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/04/2021) | | 02/04/2021 | 138 | MEMORANDUM in Support by Ghislaine Maxwell re 137 MOTION to Dismiss Counts One Through Six of the Superseding Indictment for Pre-Indictment Delay .. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Pagliuca, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/04/2021) |

02/04/2021139MOTION 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 . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Pagliuca, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/04/2021)
02/04/2021140MEMORANDUM in Support by 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 . (Pagliuca, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/04/2021)
02/04/2021141MOTION to Dismiss the Superseding Indictment for Breach of Non-Prosecution Agreement . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. ([REDACTED], Mark) (Entered: 02/04/2021)
02/04/2021142MEMORANDUM in Support by Ghislaine Maxwell re 141 MOTION to Dismiss the Superseding Indictment for Breach of Non-Prosecution Agreement .. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C (Sealed), # 4 Exhibit D (Sealed), # 5 Exhibit E (Sealed), # 6 Exhibit F (Sealed), # 7 Exhibit G (Sealed), # 8 Exhibit H (Sealed))([REDACTED], Mark) (Entered: 02/04/2021)
02/04/2021143MOTION to Dismiss Counts One Through Four of the Superseding Indictment as Time-Barred . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. ([REDACTED], Mark) (Entered: 02/04/2021)
02/04/2021144MEMORANDUM in Support by Ghislaine Maxwell re 143 MOTION to Dismiss Counts One Through Four of the Superseding Indictment as Time-Barred .. ([REDACTED], Mark) (Entered: 02/04/2021)
02/04/2021145MOTION to Strike Surplusage from Superseding Indictment . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. ([REDACTED], Mark) (Entered: 02/04/2021)
02/04/2021146MEMORANDUM in Support by Ghislaine Maxwell re 145 MOTION to Strike Surplusage from Superseding Indictment .. ([REDACTED], Mark) (Entered: 02/04/2021)
02/04/2021147MOTION for Bill of Particulars and Pretrial Disclosures. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. ([REDACTED], Mark) (Entered: 02/04/2021)
02/04/2021148MEMORANDUM in Support by Ghislaine Maxwell re 147 MOTION for Bill of Particulars and Pretrial Disclosures.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B (Sealed), # 3 Exhibit C (Sealed), # 4 Exhibit D (Sealed), # 5 Exhibit E)([REDACTED], Mark) (Entered: 02/04/2021)
02/04/2021149AFFIDAVIT of Bobbi C. Sternheim in Support as to Ghislaine Maxwell re 147 MOTION for Bill of Particulars and Pretrial Disclosures.. ([REDACTED], Mark) (Entered: 02/04/2021)
02/05/2021150SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (jri) (Entered: 02/05/2021)
02/05/2021151SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (jri) (Entered: 02/05/2021)
02/05/2021152SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (jri) (Entered: 02/05/2021)
02/05/2021153SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (jri) (Entered: 02/05/2021)
02/05/2021154SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (jri) (Entered: 02/05/2021)
02/05/2021155SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (jri) (Entered: 02/05/2021)
02/05/2021156SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (jri) (Entered: 02/05/2021)
02/05/2021157SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (jri) (Entered: 02/05/2021)
02/05/2021158LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, and Lara Pomerantz dated February 5, 2021 re: MDC Conditions Update Document filed by USA. (Comey, Maurene) (Entered: 02/05/2021)
02/16/2021159LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Bobbi C. Sternheim dated 02/16/2021 re: Conditions of Pretrial Confinement (Sternheim, Bobbi) (Entered: 02/16/2021)
02/23/2021160THIRD MOTION for Bond . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Sternheim, Bobbi) (Entered: 02/23/2021)
02/24/2021161ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: On February 23, 2021, Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell filed a third motion for release on bail. Dkt. No. 160. The Government’s response is due March 9, 2021, and the Defendants reply is due March 16, 2021. SO ORDERED. (Responses due by 3/9/2021. Replies due by 3/16/2021.) (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 2/24/2021) (Inl) (Entered: 02/24/2021)
02/26/2021162LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, Lara Pomerantz, and Andrew Rohrbach dated February 26, 2021 re: Cover Letter for Government Opposition to Defense Pretrial Motions Document filed by USA. (Comey, Maurene) (Entered: 02/26/2021)
03/01/2021163LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated March 1, 2021 re: Extension of Time to File Reply to Government Opposition to Defense Pretrial Motions . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 03/01/2021)
03/01/2021164MEMO ENDORSEMENT 163 LETTER MOTION To request a 10-day extension of time until Monday, March 15, 2021 to file our reply re: 163 LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated March 1, 2021 re: Extension of Time to File Briefing Schedule…ENDORSEMENT…The Defendant’s request is GRANTED. Her reply to the Government’s Omnibus Memorandum in Opposition to the Defendants Pretrial Motions is now due on March 15, 2021. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 3/1/21) (jw) (Entered: 03/01/2021)
03/01/2021Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings as to Ghislaine Maxwell: Defendant Replies due by 3/15/2021 (jw) (Entered: 03/01/2021)
03/09/2021165LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, and Lara Pomerantz dated March 9, 2021 re: Opposition to Third Bail Motion Document filed by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Pomerantz, Lara) (Entered: 03/09/2021)
03/15/2021166LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated March 15, 2021 re: Pretrial Motion Replies (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 03/15/2021)
03/16/2021167LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Bobbi C. Sternheim dated 03/16/2021 re: Letter regarding Reply to Bail Motion (Sternheim, Bobbi) (Entered: 03/16/2021)
03/18/2021168ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. On February 26, 2021, the Government filed its omnibus memorandum of law opposing Defendants’ twelve pretrial motions. It filed the brief, along with the corresponding exhibits, under temporary seal pending the Court’s resolution of its request to redact sensitive or confidential information. See Dkt. No. 162. On March 9, 2021, the Defendant objected to certain of the redactions that the Government had proposed, and she proposed additional redactions. Having considered the parties’ respective positions, the Court will grant the Government’s requests for redactions and sealing, as well as the Defendant’s additional redaction requests, with the exceptions discussed below. Finally, the Court denies the Governments request to file Exhibit 11 entirely under seal. While portions of that transcript have been redacted, other portions are part of the public record. See [REDACTED] v. Maxwell, Case No. 15-cv-7433, Dkt. No. 1212-1. In light of this, the Court sees no basis to file the transcript entirely under seal rather than by redacting the relevant portions. In light of the above, the Government is hereby ORDERED to either docket on ECF their brief and the corresponding exhibits, consistent with this Order, or to file a letter with the Court justifying more tailored redaction and sealing requests regarding pages 1128 and 187188 and Exhibits 8 and 9 by no later than March 22, 2021. The parties are further ORDERED to meet, confer, and jointly propose redactions to the Defendant’s cover letter objecting to the Government’s proposed redactions by March 22, 2021. Finally, the parties are ORDERED to meet, confer, and propose redactions to Exhibit 11 of the Government’s submission by March 22, 2021 (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 3/18/21)(jw) (Entered: 03/18/2021)
03/22/2021169ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell’s third motion for release on bail, Dkt. No. 160, is DENIED. The parties are ORDERED to meet and confer and propose and justify any redactions to the Defendant’s reply brief by March 24, 2021. If they conclude that redactions are unnecessary, the Defendant is ORDERED to docket the unredacted version of the brief by March 24, 2021. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 3/22/2021) (See ORDER set forth) (ap) Modified on 3/23/2021 (ap). (Entered: 03/22/2021)
03/22/2021170LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, Lara Pomerantz, and Andrew Rohrbach dated March 22, 2021 re: Redactions to Government Opposition to Defense Pretrial Motions Document filed by USA. (Pomerantz, Lara) (Entered: 03/22/2021)
03/23/2021171REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support as to Ghislaine Maxwell re: 160 THIRD MOTION for Bond . . (Sternheim, Bobbi) (Entered: 03/23/2021)
03/24/2021172ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. On March 5, 2021, Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell submitted to the Court an application for an order authorizing a subpoena pursuant to Rule 17(c)(3) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The proposed subpoena was directed at a law firm that represents alleged victims of the Defendant. As is standard for Rule 17(c) subpoenas, the application was made ex parte and under seal on the ground that it reveals defense strategy…[*** See this Order ***]… Rule 17(c)(3) provides that “[a]fter [an indictment] is filed, a subpoena requiring the production of personal or confidential information about a victim may be served on a third party only by court order,” but “before entering the order and unless there are exceptional circumstances, the court must require giving notice to the victim so that the victim can move to quash or modify the subpoena or otherwise object.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(c)(3). Consistent with the Rule, on March 12, 2021, in a sealed ex parte Order, the Court required defense counsel to provide notice to alleged victims whose personal or confidential information may be disclosed by the proposed subpoena. The Court also gave the alleged victims an opportunity to object to or request modifications of the subpoena as required by Rule 17(c)(3). On March 19, 2021, the Court received a letter from the law firm indicating that it can provide notice to alleged victims whose personal or confidential information may be elicited by the subpoena. The law firm shall provide notice to any such alleged victims it represents. In that letter, the law firm also interposed substantial objections on behalf of the law firm and the alleged victims it represents. Those objections are functionally the equivalent of a motion to quash, even though the subpoena has not yet issued. So that the Court can receive adversarial briefing on the proposed subpoena comparable to a motion to quash, the law firm shall enter an appearance and file its objections on the public docket. See United States v. Ray, No. 20-CR-110 (LJL), 2020 WL 6939677, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 25, 2020) (“[I]f the Court determines that the subpoena calls for personal or confidential information about a victim, it requires the requesting party have given notice to the victim before it permits the service of the subpoena. If the victim objects, the Court will then determine whether to modify or quash the subpoena, including on grounds that Nixon was not satisfied.”). In advance of noticing an appearance and filing, the law firm shall meet and confer with defense counsel to see if any issues can be narrowed before formal briefing. Moreover, prior to filing, the law firm shall confer with defense counsel as to any proposed, necessary, and tailored redactions to the objections. The law firm’s objections with any proposed redactions shall be filed on or before March 26, 2021. Any redactions must be justified consistent with Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Within one week of the filing of objections, defense counsel may respond to the subpoena objections. The law firm may reply within three days of the Defendant’s response.(See Citation 1 on this Order). Counsel shall confer regarding any proposed redactions for all briefing. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 3/24/2021)(bw) (Entered: 03/24/2021)
03/24/2021173NOTICE OF APPEAL by Ghislaine Maxwell from 169 Order, Terminate Motions. (tp) (Entered: 03/24/2021)
03/24/2021Appeal Remark as to Ghislaine Maxwell re: 173 Notice of Appeal. $505.00 Appeal Fee Due. (tp) (Entered: 03/24/2021)
03/24/2021Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Certified Copy of Docket Sheet as to Ghislaine Maxwell to US Court of Appeals re: 173 Notice of Appeal. (tp) (Entered: 03/24/2021)
03/24/2021Appeal Record Sent to USCA (Electronic File). Certified Indexed record on Appeal
03/24/2021174SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (dn) (Entered: 03/24/2021)
03/24/2021175SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (dn) (Entered: 03/24/2021)
03/24/2021176SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (dn) (Entered: 03/24/2021)

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007

Date: March 29, 2021

Docket #: 21-770

DC Docket #: 1:20-cr-330-1

NOTICE OF RECORD ON APPEAL FILED

In the above referenced case the document indicated below has been filed in the Court.

Record on Appeal - Certified List

Record on Appeal - CD ROM

Record on Appeal - Paper Documents

_X_ Record on Appeal - Electronic Index

Record on Appeal - Paper Index

Inquiries regarding this case may be directed to 212-857-8577.

From: DTZLECEB2SPSISLID=CLUID To: tinDS.QuEttla Subject: Activity in Case 1:20-cr-00330-A1N USA v. Maxwell Appeal Record Sent to USCA - Electronic Ale Date: Wednesday, March 24, 2021 11:31:59 AM

This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended.

***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits aftorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. However, if the referenced document is a transcript, the free copy and 30 page limit do not apply.

U.S. District Court

Notice of Electronic Filing

The following transaction was entered on 3/24/2021 at 11:30 AM EDT and filed on 3/24/2021

Case Name: USA v. Maxwell

Case Number: nataallaAlly

Filer:

Document Number: No document attached

Docket Text:

Appeal Record Sent to USCA (Electronic File). Certified Indexed record on Appeal Electronic Files as to Ghislaine Maxwell re: [173] Notice of Appeal were transmitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals. (tp)

I :20-cr-00330-AJN-1 Notice has been electronically mailed to:

Jeffrey S. Pagliuca jpagliuca®hmflaw.com, nsimmons@hmflaw.com

Laura A. Menninger Imenninger®hmflaw.com, alundberg®hmflaw.com, hrogers@hmflaw.com, nsimmons@hmflaw.com

Bobbi C Stemheim bc@stemheimlaw.com, bestentheim@mac.com, ecf®sternheimlaw.com

Christian R. Everdell ceverdell®cohengresser.com, autodocket@cohengresser.com

Mark Stewart mcohen®cohengresser.com, Mark-=-1234@ecipacerpro.com, autodocket@cohengresser.com, managingclerksoffice@cohengressencom

Lam Elizabeth Pomerantz Lam.Pomerantz@usdoj.gov, CaseView.ECF@usdoj.gov, USANYS.ECF@USDOJ.GOV

Alison Gainfort Moe alison.moe®usdoj.gov, CaseView.ECF®usdoj.gov, USANYS.ECF@USDOJ.GOV

Alex Rossmiller alexander.rossmiller®usdoj.gov, CaseView.ECF®usdoj.gov, USANYS.ECF@USDOJ.GOV

Maurene Ryan Comey maurene.comey®usdoj.gov, CaseView.ECF@usdoj.gov, USANYS.ECF@USDOJ.GOV

Andrew Rohrbach Andrew.Rohrbach@usdoj.gov, caseview.ecf®usdoj.gov, usanys.ecf@usdoj.gov

1:20-cr-00330-AJN-1 Notice has been delivered by other means to:

CRIMINAL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:20-cr-00330-AJN All Defendants**

New York, NY 10022 212-707-7268 Fax: 212-957-4514 Email: ceverdell@cohengresser.com

Denver, CO 80203 (303)-831-7364 Fax: (303)-832-2628

Denver, CO 80203 (303)-831-7364 Fax: (303)-832-2628

New York, NY 10022 (212) 957-7600 Fax: (212)957-4514 Email: mcohen@cohengresser.com

New York, NY 10007

18:371.F CONSPIRACY TO ENTICE MINORS TO TRAVEL TO ENGAGE IN ILLEGAL SEX ACTS

18:371.F CONSPIRACY TO ENTICE MINORS TO TRAVEL TO ENGAGE IN ILLEGAL SEX ACTS

18:2422.F COERCION OR ENTICEMENT OF A MINOT TO TRAVEL TO ENGAGE IN ILLEGAL SEX ACTS

18:2422.F COERCION OR ENTICEMENT OF MINOR TO ENGAGE IN ILLEGAL SEX ACTS

18:371.F CONSPIRACY TO TRANSPORT MINORS WITH INTENT TO ENGAGE IN CRIMINAL SEXUAL ACTIVITY

18:371.F 18:371.F CONSPIRACY TO TRANSPORT MINORS WITH INTENT TO ENGAGE IN CRIMINAL SEXUAL ACTIVITY

18:2423.F COERCION OR ENTICEMENT OF MINOR FEMALE (TRANSPORTATION OF A MINOR WITH INTENT TO ENGAGE IN CRIMINAL SEXUAL ACTIVITY)

18:2423.F TRANSPORTATION OF A MINOR WITH INTENT TO ENGAGE IN CRIMINAL SEXUAL ACTIVITY

18:1623.F FALSE DECLARATIONS BEFORE GRAND JURY/COURT (PERJURY)

New York, NY 10007 (212)-637-2415 Email: alexander.rossmiller@usdoj.gov

New York, NY 10007 (212)-637-2225 Email: alison.moe@usdoj.gov

New York, NY 10007 (212)-637-2324 Email: maurene.comey@usdoj.gov

New York, NY 10007 Email: Andrew.Rohrbach@usdoj.gov

New York, NY 10007 212-637-2343 Email: Lara.Pomerantz@usdoj.gov

| ------------ | ----------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | | 06/29/2020 | 1 | SEALED INDICTMENT as to Sealed Defendant 1 (1) count(s) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5-6. (jm) (Main Document 1 replaced on 7/2/2020) (jm). (Entered: 07/02/2020) | | 07/02/2020 | 2 | Order to Unseal Indictment as to Sealed Defendant 1. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Katharine H. [REDACTED] on 7/2/20)(jm) (Entered: 07/02/2020) | | 07/02/2020 | | INDICTMENT UNSEALED as to Ghislaine Maxwell. (jm) (Entered: 07/02/2020) | | 07/02/2020 | | Case Designated ECF as to Ghislaine Maxwell. (jm) (Entered: 07/02/2020) | | 07/02/2020 | | Case as to Ghislaine Maxwell ASSIGNED to Judge Alison J. Nathan. (jm) (Entered: 07/02/2020) | | 07/02/2020 | | Attorney update in case as to Ghislaine Maxwell. Attorney Alex Rossmiller, Maurene Ryan Comey, Alison Gainfort Moe for USA added. (jm) (Entered: 07/02/2020) | | 07/02/2020 | 4 | MOTION to detain defendant . Document filed by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell. (Moe, Alison) (Entered: 07/02/2020) | | 07/02/2020 | | Arrest of Ghislaine Maxwell in the United States District Court – District of New Hampshire. (jm) (Entered: 07/06/2020) | | 07/05/2020 | 5 | LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, and Alex Rossmiller dated July 5, 2020 re: Request to Schedule Initial Appearance Document filed by USA. (Comey, Maurene) (Entered: 07/05/2020) | | 07/06/2020 | 6 | Rule 5(c)(3) Documents Received as to Ghislaine Maxwell from the United States District Court – District of New Hampshire. (jm) (Entered: 07/06/2020) | | 07/06/2020 | 7 | ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. This matter has been assigned to me for all purposes. In its July 5, 2020 letter, the Government on behalf of the parties requested that the Court schedule an arraignment, initial appearance, and bail hearing in this matter in the afternoon of Friday, July 10. See Dkt. No. 5. In light of the COVID public health crisis, there are significant safety issues related to in-court proceedings. If the Defendant is willing to waive her physical presence, this proceeding will be conducted remotely. To that end, defense counsel should confer with the Defendant regarding waiving her physical presence. If the Defendant wishes to waive her physical presence for this proceeding, she and her counsel should sign the attached form in advance of the proceeding if feasible. If this proceeding is to be conducted remotely, there are protocols at the Metropolitan Detention Center that limit the times at which the Defendant could be produced so that she could appear by video. In the next week, the Defendant could be produced by video at either 9:00 a.m. on July 9, 2020 or sometime during the morning of July 14, 2020. Counsel are hereby ordered to meet and confer regarding scheduling for this initial proceeding in light of these constraints. If counsel does anticipate proceeding remotely, by 9:00 p.m. tonight, counsel should file a joint letter proposing a date and time for the proceeding consistent with this scheduling information, as well as a revised briefing schedule for the Defendant’s bail application.SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 7/6/2020)(jbo) (Entered: 07/06/2020) | | 07/06/2020 | 8 | LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Mark S. [REDACTED] dated July 6, 2020 re: Scheduling ([REDACTED], Mark) (Entered: 07/06/2020) | | 07/07/2020 | 9 | LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Alex Rossmiller dated July 7, 2020 re: scheduling Document filed by USA. (Rossmiller, Alex) (Entered: 07/07/2020) | | 07/07/2020 | 10 | ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. An arraignment, initial conference, and bail hearing in this matter is hereby scheduled to occur as a remote video/teleconference using an internet platform on July 14, 2020 at 1 p.m. In advance of the conference, [REDACTED] will email counsel with further information on how to access the video conference. To optimize the quality of the video feed, only the Court, the Defendant, defense counsel, and counsel for the Government will appear by video for the proceeding; all others may access the audio of the public proceeding by telephone. Due to the limited |

capacity of the internet platform system, only one attorney per party may participate by video. Co-counsel, members of the press, and the public may access the audio feed of the proceeding by calling a dial-in number, which the Court will provide in advance of the proceeding by subsequent order. Given the high degree of public interest in this case, a video feed of the remote proceeding will be available for viewing in the Jury Assembly Room located at the Daniel [REDACTED] Moynihan Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY. Due to social distancing requirements, seating will be extremely limited; when capacity is reached no additional persons will be admitted. Per the S.D.N.Y. COVID-19 Courthouse Entry Program, anyone who appears at any S.D.N.Y. courthouse must complete a questionnaire on the date of the proceeding prior to arriving at the courthouse. All visitors must also have their temperature taken when they arrive at the courthouse. Please see the instructions, attached. Completing the questionnaire ahead of time will save time and effort upon entry. Only persons who meet the entry requirements established by the questionnaire and whose temperatures are below 100.4 degrees will be allowed to enter the courthouse. Face coverings that cover the nose and mouth must be worn at all times. Anyone who fails to comply with the COVID-19 protocols that have been adopted by the Court will be required to leave the courthouse. There are no exceptions. As discussed in the Court’s previous order, defense counsel shall, if possible, discuss the Waiver of Right to be Present at Criminal Proceeding with the Defendant prior to the proceeding. See Dkt. No. 7. If the Defendant consents, and is able to sign the form (either personally or, in accordance with Standing Order 20-MC-174 of March 27, 2020, by defense counsel), defense counsel shall file the executed form at least 24 hours prior to the proceeding. In the event the Defendant consents, but counsel is unable to obtain or affix the Defendant’s signature on the form, the Court will conduct an inquiry at the outset of the proceeding to determine whether it is appropriate for the Court to add the Defendant’s signature to the form. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3771(c)(1), the Government must make their best efforts to see that crime victims are notified of, and accorded, the rights provided to them in that section. This includes [t]he right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding… involving the crime or of any release… of the accused and “[t]he right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving release.” Id. § 3771(a)(2), (4). The Court will inquire with the Government as to the extent of those efforts. So that appropriate logistical arrangements can be made, the Government shall inform the Court by email within 24 hours in advance of the proceeding if any alleged victim wishes to be heard on the question of detention pending trial. Finally, the time between the Defendant’s arrest and July 6, 2020 is excluded under the Speedy Trial Act due to the delay involved in transferring the Defendant from another district. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(F). And the Court further excludes time under the Speedy Trial Act from today through July 14, 2020. Due to the logistical issues involved in conducting a remote proceeding, the Court finds “that the ends of justice served by [this exclusion] outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.” 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). The exclusion is also supported by the need for the parties to discuss a potential protective order, which will facilitate the timely production of discovery in a manner protective of the rights of third parties. See Dkt. No. 5. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 7/7/2020)(jbo) (Entered: 07/07/2020)

07/08/202011MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Ghislaine Maxwell on 9 LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Alex Rossmiller dated July 7, 2020 re: scheduling. ENDORSEMENT: The Court hereby sets the following briefing schedule. The Defense response is due by 1:00 p.m. on July 10, 2020. The Government reply is due by 1:00 p.m. on July 13, 2020. Additionally, defense counsel is ordered to file notices of appearance on the docket by the end of the day today. SO ORDERED. (Responses due by 7/10/2020. Replies due by 7/13/2020.) (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 7/8/2020) (Inl) (Entered: 07/08/2020)
07/08/202012NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Mark Stewart [REDACTED] appearing for Ghislaine Maxwell. Appearance Type: Retained. ([REDACTED], Mark) (Entered: 07/08/2020)
07/08/202013NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Christian R. Everdell appearing for Ghislaine Maxwell. Appearance Type: Retained. (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 07/08/2020)
07/08/202014NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Laura A. Menninger appearing for Ghislaine Maxwell. Appearance Type: Retained. (Menninger, Laura) (Entered:

| ------------ | ----------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | 07/08/2020 | 15 | MOTION for Jeffrey S. Pagliuca to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number ANYSDC-20605229. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk’s Office staff. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Jeffrey S. Pagliuca, # 2 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing, # 3 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Pagliuca, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/08/2020) | | 07/08/2020 | 17 | (S1) SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT FILED as to Ghislaine Maxwell (1) count(s) 1s, 2s, 3s, 4s, 5s-6s. (jm) (Entered: 07/10/2020) | | 07/09/2020 | | >>>NOTICE REGARDING PRO HAC VICE MOTION. Regarding Document No. 15 MOTION for Jeffrey S. Pagliuca to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number ANYSDC-20605229. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk’s Office staff. The document has been reviewed and there are no deficiencies. (aea) (Entered: 07/09/2020) | | 07/09/2020 | 16 | ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. As discussed in its previous order, the Court will hold an arraignment, initial conference, and bail hearing in this matter remotely as a video/teleconference on July 14, 2020 at 1 pm. Members of the press and the public in the United States may access the live audio feed of the proceeding by calling 855-268-7844 and using access code 32091812# and PIN 9921299#. Those outside of the United States may access the live audio feed by calling 214-416-0400 and using the same access code and PIN. These phone lines can accommodate approximately 500 callers on a first come, first serve basis. The Court will provide counsel for both sides an additional dial-in number to be used to ensure audio access to the proceeding for non-speaking co-counsel, alleged victims, and any family members of the Defendant. The United States Attorney’s Office should email [REDACTED] with information regarding any alleged victims who are entitled, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3771(a)(4), to be heard at the bail hearing and who wish to be heard. The Court will then provide information as to the logistics for their dial-in access. As the Court described in a previous order, members of the press and public may watch and listen to the live video feed in the Jury Assembly Room, at the Daniel [REDACTED] Moynihan Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street. See Dkt. No. 10. However, in light of COVID-19, seating will be limited to approximately 60 seats in order to enable appropriate social distancing and ensure public safety. Counsel for the Defendant and the Government may contact [REDACTED] by email if there is a request to accommodate alleged victims or family members of the Defendant. Members of the credentialed in-house press corps may contact the District Executive’s Office about seating. Otherwise, all seating will be allocated on a first come, first serve basis and in accordance with the S.D.N.Y. COVID-19 Courthouse Entry Program and this Court’s previous order of July 7, 2020. See Dkt. No. 10. If conditions change or the Court otherwise concludes that allowing for in-person viewing of the video feed at the courthouse is not consistent with public health, the Court may provide audio access by telephone only. Any photographing, recording, or rebroadcasting of federal court proceedings is prohibited by law. Violation of these prohibitions may result in fines or sanctions, including removal of court issued media credentials, restricted entry to future hearings, denial of entry to future hearings, or any other sanctions deemed necessary by the Court. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 7/9/2020)(jbo) (Entered: 07/09/2020) | | 07/10/2020 | 18 | MEMORANDUM in Opposition by Ghislaine Maxwell re 4 MOTION to detain defendant .. ([REDACTED], Mark) (Entered: 07/10/2020) | | 07/10/2020 | 19 | NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Mark Stewart [REDACTED] appearing for Ghislaine Maxwell. Appearance Type: Retained. ([REDACTED], Mark) (Entered: 07/10/2020) | | 07/10/2020 | 20 | NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Christian R. Everdell appearing for Ghislaine Maxwell. Appearance Type: Retained. (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 07/10/2020) | | 07/10/2020 | 21 | WAIVER of Personal Appearance at Arraignment and Entry of Plea of Not Guilty by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 07/10/2020) | | 07/13/2020 | 22 | REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell re: 4 MOTION to detain defendant .. (Moe, Alison) (Entered: 07/13/2020) |

07/13/2020ORDER granting 15 Motion for Jeffrey Pagliuca to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Ghislaine Maxwell (1). (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 7/13/2020) (kwi) (Entered: 07/13/2020)
07/14/202023ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. For the reasons stated on the record at today’s proceeding, the Governments motion to detain the Defendant pending trial is hereby GRANTED (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 7/14/20)(jw) (Entered: 07/14/2020)
07/14/2020Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Alison J. Nathan:Arraignment as to Ghislaine Maxwell (1) Count 1s,2s,3s,4s,5s-6s held on 7/14/2020. Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell present by video conference with attorney Mark [REDACTED] present by video conference, AUSA Alison Moe, Alex Rossmiller and Maurene Comey for the government present by video conference, Pretrial Service Officer Lea Harmon present by telephone and Court Reporter Kristine Caraannante. Defendant enters a plea of Not Guilty to the S1 indictment. Trial set for July 12, 2021. See Order. Time is excluded under the Speedy Trial Act from today until July 12, 2021. Bail is denied. Defendant is remanded. See Transcript. (jw) (Entered: 07/14/2020)
07/14/2020Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Alison J. Nathan: Plea entered by Ghislaine Maxwell (1) Count 1s,2s,3s,4s,5s-6s Not Guilty. (jw) (Entered: 07/14/2020)
07/14/202024Waiver of Right to be Present at Criminal Proceeding as to Ghislaine Maxwell re: Arraignment, Bail Hearing, Conference. (jw) (Entered: 07/14/2020)
07/15/202025ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. Initial non-electronic discovery, generally to include search warrant applications and subpoena returns, is due by Friday, August 21, 2020. Completion of discovery, to include electronic materials, is due by Monday, November 9, 2020. Motions are due by Monday, December 21, 2020. Motion responses are due by Friday, January 22, 2021. Motion replies are due by Friday, February 5, 2021. Trial is set for Monday, July 12, 2021 ( Discovery due by 8/21/2020., Motions due by 12/21/2020) (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 7/15/20)(jw) (Entered: 07/15/2020)
07/21/202026ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: The Court has received a significant number of letters and messages from non-parties that purport to be related to this case. These submissions are either procedurally improper or irrelevant to the judicial function. Therefore, they will not be considered or docketed. The Court will accord the same treatment to any similar correspondence it receives in the future. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 7/21/2020) (lnl) (Entered: 07/21/2020)
07/21/202027LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Jeffrey S. Pagliuca dated July 21, 2020 re: Local Criminal Rule 23.1 . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Pagliuca, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/21/2020)
07/23/202028ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: The Defense has moved for an order “prohibiting the Government, its agents and counsel for witnesses from making extrajudicial statements concerning this case.” Dkt. No. 27 at 1. The Court firmly expects that counsel for all involved parties will exercise great care to ensure compliance with this Court’s local rules, including Local Criminal Rule 23.1, and the rules of professional responsibility. In light of this clear expectation, the Court does not believe that further action is needed at this time to protect the Defendant’s right to a fair trial by an impartial jury. Accordingly, it denies the Defendant’s motion without prejudice. But the Court warns counsel and agents for the parties and counsel for potential witnesses that going forward it will not hesitate to take appropriate action in the face of violations of any relevant rules. The Court will ensure strict compliance with those rules and will ensure that the Defendant’s right to a fair trial will be safeguarded. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 7/23/2020) (ap) (Entered: 07/23/2020)
07/27/202029LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated July 27, 2020 re: Proposed Protective Order . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Proposed Protective Order))(Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 07/27/2020)
07/27/202030AFFIDAVIT of Christian R. Everdell by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 07/27/2020)
07/27/202031LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Alison Moe dated July 27, 2020 re: requesting until 5 p.m. tomorrow to respond to
defense counsel’s letter, filed July 27, 2020 Document filed by USA. (Moe, Alison)
(Entered: 07/27/2020)
07/27/202032MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Ghislaine Maxwell on 31 LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Alison Moe dated July 27, 2020 re: requesting until 5 p.m. tomorrow to respond to defense counsel’s letter, filed July 27, 2020. ENDORSEMENT: The Government’s response to the Defense’s letter is due by 5 p.m. on July 28, 2020. The Defense may file a reply by 5 p.m. on July 29, 2020. Before the Government’s response is filed, the parties must meet and confer by phone regarding this issue, and any response from the Government must contain an affirmation that the parties have done so. SO ORDERED. (Responses due by 7/28/2020. Replies due by 7/29/2020.) (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 7/27/2020) (Inl) (Entered: 07/27/2020)
07/28/202033LETTER RESPONSE to Motion by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Alex Rossmiller dated July 28, 2020 re: 29 LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated July 27, 2020 re: Proposed Protective Order .. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (proposed protective order))(Rossmiller, Alex) (Entered: 07/28/2020)
07/28/202034AFFIDAVIT of Alex Rossmiller by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell. (Rossmiller, Alex)
(Entered: 07/28/2020)
07/29/202035LETTER REPLY TO RESPONSE to Motion by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated July 29, 2020 re 29 LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated July 27, 2020 re: Proposed Protective Order .. (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 07/29/2020)
07/30/202036PROTECTIVE ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell…regarding procedures to be followed that shall govern the handling of confidential material. SO ORDERED:
(Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 7/30/2020)(bw) (Entered: 07/31/2020)
07/30/202037MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. Both parties have asked for the Court to enter a protective order. While they agree on most of the language, two areas of dispute have emerged. First, Ms. Maxwell seeks language allowing her to publicly reference alleged victims or witnesses who have spoken on the public record to the media or in public fora, or in litigation relating to Ms. Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein. Second, Ms. Maxwell seeks language restricting potential Government witnesses and their counsel from using discovery materials for any purpose other than preparing for the criminal trial in this action. The Government has proposed contrary language on both of these issues. For the following reasons, the Court adopts the Government’s proposed protective order Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(d)(1), “[a]t any time the court may, for good cause, deny, restrict, or defer discovery or inspection, or grant other appropriate relief.” The good cause standard “requires courts to balance several interests, including whether dissemination of the discovery materials inflicts hazard to others… whether the imposition of the protective order would prejudice the defendant,” and “the public’s interest in the information.” United States v. [REDACTED], 985 F. Supp. 2d 506, 522 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). The party seeking to restrict disclosure bears the burden of showing good cause. Cf. Gambale v. Deutsche Bank AG, 377 F.3d 133, 142 (2d Cir. 2004). First, the Court finds that the Government has met its burden of showing good cause with regard to restricting the ability of Ms. Maxwell to publicly reference alleged victims and witnesses other than those who have publicly identified themselves in this litigation. As a general matter, it is undisputed that there is a strong and specific interest in protecting the privacy of alleged victims and witnesses in this case that supports restricting the disclosure of their identities. Dkt. No. 29 at 3 (acknowledging that as a baseline the protective order should “prohibit[] Ms. Maxwell, defense counsel, and others on the defense team from disclosing or disseminating the identity of any alleged victim or potential witness referenced in the discovery materials”); see also United States v. Corley, No. 13-cr-48, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 194426, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2016). The Defense argues this interest is significantly diminished for individuals who have spoken on the public record about Ms. Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein, because they have voluntarily chosen to identify themselves. But not all accusations or public statements are equal. Deciding to participate in or contribute to a criminal investigation or prosecution is a far different matter than simply making a public statement “relating to” Ms. Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein, particularly since such a

statement might have occurred decades ago and have no relevance to the charges in this case. These individuals still maintain a significant privacy interest that must be safeguarded. The exception the Defense seeks is too broad and risks undermining the protections of the privacy of witnesses and alleged victims that is required by law. In contrast, the Government’s proffered language would allow Ms. Maxwell to publicly reference individuals who have spoken by name on the record in this case. It also allows the Defense to “reference[e] the identities of individuals they believe may be relevant… to Potential Defense Witnesses and their counsel during the course of the investigation and preparation of the defense case at trial.” Dkt. No. 33-1, 5. This proposal adequately balances the interests at stake. And as the Government’s letter notes, see Dkt. No. 33 at 4, to the extent that the Defense needs an exception to the protective order for a specific investigative purpose, they can make applications to the Court on a case-by-case basis. Second, restrictions on the ability of potential witnesses and their counsel to use discovery materials for purposes other than preparing for trial in this case are unwarranted. The request appears unprecedented despite the fact that there have been many high-profile criminal matters that had related civil litigation. The Government labors under many restrictions including Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Privacy Act of 1974, and other policies of the Department of Justice and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, all of which the Court expects the Government to scrupulously follow. Furthermore, the Government indicates that it will likely only provide potential witnesses with materials that those witnesses already have in their possession. See Dkt. No. 33 at 6. And of course, those witnesses who do testify at trial would be subject to examination on the record as to what materials were provided or shown to them by the Government. Nothing in the Defense’s papers explains how its unprecedented proposed restriction is somehow necessary to ensure a fair trial. For the foregoing reasons, the Court adopts the Government’s proposed protective order, which will be entered on the docket. This resolves Dkt. No. 29. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 7/30/2020)(bw) (Entered: 07/31/2020)

08/10/202038LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated August 10, 2020 re: Discovery Disclosure and Access . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 08/10/2020)
08/10/202039AFFIDAVIT of Christian R. Everdell by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 08/10/2020)
08/11/202040MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Ghislaine Maxwell on re: 38 LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated August 10, 2020 re: Discovery Disclosure and Access. ENDORSEMENT: The Government is hereby ORDERED to respond to the Defendant’s letter motion by Thursday, August 13, 2020. The Defendant’s reply, if any, is due on or before Monday, August 17, 2020. (Responses due by 8/13/2020. Replies due by 8/17/2020) (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 8/11/2020) (ap) (Entered: 08/11/2020)
08/13/202041LETTER RESPONSE in Opposition by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Alex Rossmiller dated August 13, 2020 re: 38 LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated August 10, 2020 re: Discovery Disclosure and Access .. (Rossmiller, Alex) (Entered: 08/13/2020)
08/17/202042LETTER REPLY TO RESPONSE to Motion by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated August 17, 2020 re 38 LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated August 10, 2020 re: Discovery Disclosure and Access .. (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 08/17/2020)
08/17/202043LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Jeffrey S. Pagliuca dated August 17, 2020 re: Request for Permission to Submit Letter Motion in Excess of Three Pages . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Pagliuca, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/17/2020)
08/18/202044ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: On August 17, 2020, the Defendant filed a letter motion seeking a modification of this Court’s Protective Order, which the Court entered on July 30, 2020. Defendant also moves to file that letter motion under seal. The Governments opposition to Defendant’s letter motion is hereby due Friday, August
21 at 12 p.m. The Defendant’s reply is due on Monday, August 24 at 12 p.m. The parties shall propose redactions to the letter briefing on this issue. Alternatively, the parties shall provide support and argument for why the letter motions should be sealed in their entirety. SO ORDERED. (Responses due by 8/21/2020. Replies due by 8/24/2020.) (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 8/18/2020) (Inl) (Entered: 08/18/2020)
08/20/202045NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE Lara Elizabeth Pomerantz appearing for USA. (Pomerantz, Lara) (Entered: 08/20/2020)
08/20/202050SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (mhe) (Entered: 08/27/2020)
08/21/202046LETTER RESPONSE in Opposition by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Maurene Comey dated August 21, 2020 re: 43 LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Jeffrey S. Pagliuca dated August 17, 2020 re: Request for Permission to Submit Letter Motion in Excess of Three Pages .. (Rossmiller, Alex) (Entered: 08/21/2020)
08/21/202047LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Maurene Comey dated August 21, 2020 re: Proposed redactions to letter briefing, in response to the Court’s Order of August 18, 2020 Document filed by USA. (Rossmiller, Alex) (Entered: 08/21/2020)
08/24/202048LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Laura A. Menninger dated August 24, 2020 re: Request to File Under Seal: Proposed Redactions to Request to Modify Protective Order and Reply in Support Thereof . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura) (Entered: 08/24/2020)
08/25/202049MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: denying without prejudice 38 LETTER MOTION as to Ghislaine Maxwell (1). On August 10, 2020, the Defendant filed a letter motion related to two issues. Dkt. No. 38. First, the Defendant seeks an order directing the Government to disclose to defense counsel immediately the identities of the three alleged victims referenced in the indictment. Second, the Defendant seeks an order directing the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) to release the Defendant into the general population and to provide her with increased access to the discovery materials. For the reasons that follow, Defendant’s requests are DENIED without prejudice…[See this Memorandum Opinion And Order]… III. Conclusion: For the reasons stated above, Defendant’s requests contained in Dkt. No. 38 are DENIED without prejudice. Following the close of discovery, the parties shall meet and confer on an appropriate schedule for pre-trial disclosures, including the disclosure of § 3500 material, exhibit lists, and witness lists, taking into account all relevant factors. The Government is hereby ORDERED to submit written status updates every 90 days detailing any material changes to the conditions of Ms. Maxwell’s confinement, with particular emphasis on her access to legal materials and ability to communicate with defense counsel. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 8/25/2020) (bw) (Entered: 08/25/2020)
09/02/202051MEMORANDUMOPINION AND ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: On August 17, 2020, Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell filed a sealed letter motion seeking an Order modifying the protective order in this case. Specifically, she sought a Court order allowing her to file under seal in certain civil cases (“Civil Cases”) materials (“Documents”) that she received in discovery from the Government in this case. She also sought permission to reference, but not file, other discovery material that the Government produced in this case. For the reasons that follow, Defendant’s requests are DENIED. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 9/2/2020)(See MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER as set forth) (Inl) (Entered: 09/02/2020)
09/02/202052LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan, from Jeffrey S. Pagliuca dated 8/17/2020 re: Defense counsel writes with redacted request to modify protective order. (ap) (Entered: 09/02/2020)
09/04/202055NOTICE OF APPEAL by Ghislaine Maxwell from 51 Memorandum & Opinion. Filing fee $ 505.00, receipt number 465401266036. (tp) (Entered: 09/09/2020)
09/08/202053LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan dated 8/24/2020 re: Proposed Redactions to Request to Modify Protective Order. (jbo) (Entered: 09/08/2020)
09/08/20205,4LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan dated 8/24/2020
09/09/2020Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Certified Copy of Docket Sheet as to Ghislaine
09/09/2020Appeal Record Sent to USCA (Electronic File). Certified Indexed record on Appeal
09/10/202056SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (dn) (Entered: 09/11/2020)
09/10/202057SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (dn) (Entered: 09/11/2020)
09/24/202058SEALED DOCUMENT laced in vault. (mhe) (Entered: 09/24/2020)
10/05/202052NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Bobbi C Sternheim appearing for
10/06/2020fflLETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from
10/06/20205J.AFFIDAVIT of Maurene Comey by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell. (Comey, Maurene)
10/07/202052MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Ghislaine Maxwell on re: fflAccordingly, the
10/07/2020na LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from
10/14/2020SLETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R.
10/20/2020(15LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from
10/23/2020tifi LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Jeffrey S.
10/30/202052 LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from
I I /05/20206KORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: This Order is entered, pursuant to Federal Rule of
11/06/202069LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, and Lara Pomerantz dated November 6, 2020 re: Request to Extend Discovery Deadline for Portion of Electronic Discovery Document filed by USA. (Comey, Maurene) (Entered: 11/06/2020)
11/06/202070AFFIDAVIT of Maurene Comey by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell. (Comey, Maurene) (Entered: 11/06/2020)
11/09/202071MANDATE of USCA (Certified Copy) as to Ghislaine Maxwell re: 55 Notice of Appeal. USCA Case Number 20-3061-cr. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the motion to consolidate is DENIED and the appeal is DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction.. Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk USCA for the Second Circuit. Issued As Mandate: 11/09/2020. (nd) (Entered: 11/09/2020)
11/09/202072MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Ghislaine Maxwell on 69 LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, and Lara Pomerantz dated November 6, 2020 re: Request to Extend Discovery Deadline for Portion of Electronic Discovery. ENDORSEMENT: The Court hereby extends the deadline for the Government’s production of electronic discovery from November 9, 2020 to November 23, 2020. The Court also grants the parties’ request for an extension of the motions deadlines as follows: the Defendant’s motions are due by January 11, 2021, the Government’s responses are due by February 12, 2021, and any replies are due by February 19, 2021. SO ORDERED. (Discovery due by 11/23/2020. Motions due by 1/11/2021. Responses due by 2/12/2021. Replies due by 2/19/2021.) (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 11/9/2020) (Inl) (Entered: 11/10/2020)
11/18/202073MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Ghislaine Maxwell on re: 60 Letter filed by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell re: The Government respectfully requests that the Court approve the Government’s request to delay disclosure of these Materials…ENDORSEMENT…There is no dispute that the materials referenced in the Government’s letter will be turned over to the defense. The Government has indicated that it will do so. The only dispute, then, relates to the timing of such disclosure. See Dkt. Nos. 64, 65. Because the Government has articulated plausible reasons for some delay of disclosure, see Dkt. No. 65 at 4, the Court grants the Government’s request to delay disclosure. However, the Governments proposal to delay disclosure until 8 weeks in advance of trial is insufficient. In order to ensure that the defense can adequately prepare for trial, the Government shall produce the referenced materials, which are not voluminous, to the defense by March 12, 2021. Disclosure of the materials will of course be subject to the protective order entered by the Court, see Dkt. No. 36. (Government Responses due by 3/12/2021) (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 11/18/20)(jw) (Entered: 11/18/2020)
11/23/202074LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, and Lara Pomerantz dated November 23, 2020 re: Update Regarding Conditions of Confinement Document filed by USA. (Comey, Maurene) (Entered: 11/23/2020)
11/24/202075LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Bobbi C. Sternheim dated 11/24/2020 re: Response to 90-day MDC conditions report (Sternheim, Bobbi) (Entered: 11/24/2020)
11/24/202076MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Ghislaine Maxwell on re: 75 LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Bobbi C. Sternheim dated 11/24/2020 re: Response to 90-day MDC conditions report. ENDORSEMENT: The parties are hereby ORDERED to meet and confer regarding Defendant’s request that Warden Heriberto Tellez directly address Defendant’s concerns regarding the conditions of her detention. The parties shall jointly submit a status update within one week of this Order. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 11/24/2020) (ap) (Entered: 11/24/2020)
12/01/202077ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. On November 25, 2020, the Defendant filed a letter request under seal. On November 30, 2020, she filed a second letter request in which she proposed redactions on both letters. The Government is hereby ORDERED to respond to the Defendant’s November 25, 2020 letter request and to the request for proposed redactions by no later than December 2, 2020. The letters shall be
temporarily sealed while the Court resolves the redaction request. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 12/1/2020)(bw) (Entered: 12/01/2020)
12/01/202078LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, and Lara Pomerantz dated December 1, 2020 re: Joint Letter regarding Conditions of Confinement Document filed by USA. (Pomerantz, Lara) (Entered: 12/01/2020)
12/02/202079MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Ghislaine Maxwell on re: 78 LETTER by USA addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, and Lara Pomerantz dated December 1, 2020 re: Joint Letter regarding Conditions of Confinement. ENDORSEMENT: MDC legal counsel shall submit their letter to the Court by December 4, 2020. Upon review of that letter, the Court will determine whether any additional information is required, either orally or in writing. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 12/2/2020)(bw) (Entered: 12/02/2020)
12/02/202080LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, and Lara Pomerantz dated December 2, 2020 re: Defense Requests for Sealing Document filed by USA. (Comey, Maurene) (Entered: 12/02/2020)
12/03/202081ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. On November 25, 2020, counsel for Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell filed a letter request seeking an in camera conference for the presentation of a renewed motion for release on bail and a request to seal the November 25, 2020 letter in its entirety. The Court required justification for the sealing request. On November 30, 2020, the defense counsel filed a second letter no longer fully pressing the unsupported request to file the letter entirely under seal and instead proposing redactions to both the November 25th and November 30th letters. The Government has indicated that it does not oppose the redactions. Dkt. No. 80. After due consideration, the Court will adopt the Defendant’s proposed redactions, which are consented to by the Government. The Court’s decision 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: (i) determine whether the documents in question are “judicial documents;” (ii) assess the weight of the common law presumption of access to the materials; and (iii) 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, 1050 (2d Cir. 1995) (“Amodeo II”)). The proposed redactions satisfy this test. First, the Court finds that the 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 while the Court assumes that the common law presumption of access attaches, in balancing competing considerations against the presumption of access, the Court finds that the arguments the Defendant has put forthincluding, most notably, the privacy interests of the individuals referenced in the lettersfavor her proposed and tailored redactions. The Defendant is hereby ORDERED to docket the redacted versions of the two letters by December 4, 2020. For the reasons outlined in the Government’s letter dated December 2, 2020, Dkt. No. 80, the Court DENIES the Defendant’s request for an in camera conference. In order to protect the privacy interests referenced in the Defendant’s November 25, 2020 letter, the Court will permit the Defendant to make her submission in writing and to propose narrowly tailored redactions. The parties are hereby ORDERED to meet and confer and to jointly prepare a briefing schedule for the Defendant’s forthcoming renewed motion for release on bail. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 12/3/2020)(bw) (Entered: 12/03/2020)
12/03/202082SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (jus) (Entered: 12/03/2020)
12/03/202083SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (jus) (Entered: 12/03/2020)
12/03/202084SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (jus) (Entered: 12/03/2020)
12/04/202085LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated December 4, 2020 re: Briefing Schedule (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 12/04/2020)
12/04/202086LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated 11/25/2020 re: Sealing (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 12/04/2020)
12/04/202087LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated 11/30/2020 re: Sealing (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 12/04/2020)
12/07/202088LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Sophia Papapetru and John Wallace dated 12/4/20 re: This letter is written in response to your order dated December 2, 2020, concerning Ghislaine Maxwell, Reg. 02879-509., an inmate currently confined at the Metropolitan Detention center in Brooklyn, New York. You expressed various concerns regarding Ms. Maxwells confinement and well-being. (jw) (Entered: 12/07/2020)
12/07/202089ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell re: 85 Letter filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. The Court is in receipt of the Defendant’s December 4, 2020 letter, Dkt. No. 85, and hereby sets the following schedule: The Defendants submission is due December 8, 2020; The Government’s response is due December 16, 2020; The Defendant’s reply is due December 18, 2020. After reviewing these submissions, the Court will determine whether a hearing on the renewed bail motion is necessary. The Court grants the Defendants request that the Government shall file its submission under seal with proposed redactions. Any objections to proposed redactions are due within 24 hours after any brief has been filed. Finally, the Defendant is granted leave to file a motion not to exceed 40 pages. The Governments response shall also be limited to 40 pages. The Defendant’s reply shall not exceed 10 pages ( Defendant submission due by 12/8/2020., Defendant Replies due by 12/18/2020., Government Responses due by 12/16/2020) (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 12/7/20)(jw) (Entered: 12/07/2020)
12/07/202090ENDORSED LETTER as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Mark S. [REDACTED] and Christian R. Everdell dated 11/25/20 re: On behalf of my client, Ghislaine Maxwell, we plan to file a Renewed Motion for Release on Bail (the “Motion”) and respectfully request an in camera conference, with all counsel present, to address the appropriate procedures for the filing and consideration of the Motion. For the reasons explained below, we intend to request, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 49.1(d), that the Court permit the filing of portions of the Motion and certain supporting materials under seal and require that any responsive materials be filed under seal…ENDORSEMENT: The Court sees no basis for the sealing of this letter. On or before December 2, 2020, Defendant shall justify why this letter should be sealed (or redacted). Alternatively, the Defendant may file the letter on the public docket by that date. The Court will take no action on the request pending resolution of the initial sealing question. The Defendant’s letter and this memorandum endorsement will be temporarily sealed pending resolution of the sealing request. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 11/25/20)(jw) (Entered: 12/07/2020)
12/07/202091LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Bobbi C. Sternheim dated 12/07/2020 re: Response to MDC Report to Court re: conditions (Sternheim, Bobbi) (Entered: 12/07/2020)
12/08/202092ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: On December 4, 2020, the Court received a letter from MDC legal counsel responding to the concerns that the Defendant raised in her November 24, 2020 letter. See Dkt. Nos. 75, 88; see also Dkt. No. 78. The Defendant responded to the MDC legal counsel’s letter on December 7, 2020, reiterating her request that the Court summon Warden Heriberto Tellez to personally respond to questions from the Court regarding the Defendant’s conditions of confinement. See Dkt. No. 91. Having carefully reviewed the parties’ submissions, along with the MDC legal counsel’s December 4, 2020 letter, the Court DENIES the Defendant’s request to summon the Warden to personally appear and respond to questions. This resolves Dkt. No. 75. Notwithstanding this, as originally provided in Dkt. No. 49, the Government shall continue to submit written status updates detailing any material changes to the conditions of Ms. Maxwell’s confinement, with particular emphasis on her access to legal materials, including legal mail and email, and her ability to communicate with defense counsel. The updates shall also include information on the frequency of searches of the Defendant. The Court hereby ORDERS the Government to submit these written updates every 60 days. Furthermore, the Government shall take all
necessary steps to ensure that the Defendant continues to receive adequate access to her legal materials and her ability to communicate with defense counsel. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 12/8/2020) (ap) (Entered: 12/08/2020)
12/10/202093TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings as to Ghislaine Maxwell re: Conference held on 7/14/2020 before Judge Alison J. Nathan. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Kristen Carannante, (212) 805-0300, Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 12/31/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 1/11/2021. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 3/10/2021. (McGuirk, Kelly) (Entered: 12/10/2020)
12/10/202094NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT as to Ghislaine Maxwell. Notice is hereby given that an official transcript of a Conference proceeding held on 7/14/2020 has 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)
12/14/202095ORDER 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: (i) determine whether the documents in question are “judicial documents;” (ii) assess the weight of the common law presumption of access to the materials; and (iii) 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 Commc’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)
12/14/202096LETTER 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)
12/14/202097MEMORANDUM OF LAW in 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 S, # 20 Exhibit T, # 21 Exhibit U, # 22 Exhibit V, # 23 Exhibit W, # 24 Exhibit X)(Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 12/14/2020)
12/17/202098NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE Andrew Rohrbach appearing for USA. (Rohrbach, Andrew) (Entered: 12/17/2020)
12/18/202099ORDER 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: (i) determine whether the documents in question are “judicial documents;” (ii) assess the weight of the common law presumption access to the materials; and (iii) 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 (“Amodeo II”), 71 F.3d 1044, 1050 (2d Cir. 1995)). The proposed redactions satisfy this test. The Court finds that the Governments submissions 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 Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 602 (1978). Nevertheless, the proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to serve substantial interests, including, most importantly, third parties’ personal privacy interests. See Under Seal v. Under Seal, 273 F. Supp. 3d 460 467 (S.D.N.Y.2017). The Government is hereby ORDERED to docket the redacted documents and corresponding exhibits by no later than December 18, 2 (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 12/18/2020) (ap) (Entered: 12/18/2020)
12/18/2020100MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell Renewed Bail Motion . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Comey, Maurene) (Entered: 12/18/2020)
12/23/2020101ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: On December 18, 2020, the Defendant filed her reply to the Government’s opposition to her renewed application for bail. In accordance with this Court’s December 7, 2020 Order, see Dkt. No. 89, she filed these materials under seal and proposed narrowly tailored redactions on those materials. The Government did not file any opposition to the Defendant’s proposed redactions. The Court will adopt the Defendant’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: (i) determine whether the documents in question are “judicial documents;” (ii) assess the weight of the common law presumption of access to the materials; and (iii) 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 (“Amodeo II”), 71 F.3d 1044, 1050 (2d Cir. 1995)). The proposed redactions satisfy this test. The Court finds that the Defendant’s submissions 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 Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 602 (1978). As with the redactions to her renewed motion for bail, the proposed redactions here are narrowly tailored to serve substantial interests, including, most importantly, third parties personal privacy interests. See Under Seal v. Under Seal, 273 F. Supp. 3d 460, 467 (S.D.N.Y. 2017). See also Dkt. No. 95. The Defendant is hereby ORDERED to docket the redacted documents and corresponding exhibits by no later than December 23, 2020. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 12/23/2020) (Inl) (Entered: 12/23/2020)
12/23/2020102LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated December 18, 2020 re: Cover Letter for Reply Memorandum for Renewed Bail Application (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 12/23/2020)
12/23/2020103REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support by Ghislaine Maxwell re: Renewed Motion for Bail . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 12/23/2020)
12/28/2020104ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. On December 8, 2020, Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell filed a renewed motion for releaseon bail. Dkt No. 97. In an Opinion and Order concurrently filed under temporary seal, the Court DENIES the Defendant’s
motion. In light of the fact that the Opinion includes potentially confidential information that should not be filed on the public docket, the Court will permit the parties 48 hours to propose any redactions to the Courts Opinion and Order and to justify those redactions by reference to the Second Circuits decision in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110(2d Cir. 2006). After determining which, if any, portions of the Opinion and Order should be redacted, the Court will file the Opinion and Order on the public docket. As a result, the Court concludes that the Government has met its burden of persuasion that the Defendant poses a flight risk and that pretrial detention continues to be warranted. On or before December 30, 2020, the parties are ORDERED to submit a joint letter indicating whether they propose any redactions and the justification for any such proposal. This resolves Dkt No. 97. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 12/28/20)(jw) (Entered: 12/28/2020)
12/30/2020105LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, and Lara Pomerantz dated December 30, 2020 re: Joint Letter re December 28, 2020 Opinion and Order Document filed by USA. (Comey, Maurene) (Entered: 12/30/2020)
12/30/2020106OPINION AND ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell has been indicted by a grand jury on charges of conspiracy to entice minors to travel to engage in illegal sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; enticing a minor to travel to engage in illegal sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2422 and 2; conspiracy to transport minors to participate in illegal sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; transporting minors to participate in illegal sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2423 and 2; and two charges of perjury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623. The Court held a lengthy bail hearing on July 14, 2020. After extensive briefing and argument at the hearing, the Court concluded that the Defendant was a clear risk of flight and that no conditions or combination of conditions would ensure her appearance. Defendant Ghislaine Maxwells renewed motion for release on bail, Dkt. No. 97, is DENIED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 12/28/20)(jw) (Entered: 12/30/2020)
12/31/2020107LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated December 31, 2020 re: Extension of Time . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 12/31/2020)
01/05/2021108MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Ghislaine Maxwell (1) on 107 LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated December 31, 2020 re: Extension of Time. ENDORSEMENT: SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 1/5/2021) (ap) (Entered: 01/05/2021)
01/05/2021Set/Reset Deadlines as to Ghislaine Maxwell: Motions due by 1/25/2021. Responses due by 2/26/2021. Replies due by 3/5/2021. (ap) (Entered: 01/05/2021)
01/08/2021109LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated January 8, 2021 re: Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 01/08/2021)
01/11/2021110SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (jus) (Entered: 01/11/2021)
01/11/2021111SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (jus) (Entered: 01/11/2021)
01/11/2021112MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Ghislaine Maxwell (1) denying 109 LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated January 8, 2021 re: Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal. ENDORSEMENT: The request is denied. Good cause for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal has not been provided. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 1/11/2021) (Inl) (Entered: 01/11/2021)
01/11/2021113NOTICE OF APPEAL by Ghislaine Maxwell from 104 Order. (nd) (Entered: 01/12/2021)
01/11/2021Appeal Remark as to re: 113 Notice of Appeal by Ghislaine Maxwell. $505.00 Appeal filing fee due. (nd) (Entered: 01/12/2021)
01/12/2021Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Certified Copy of Docket Sheet as to Ghislaine Maxwell to US Court of Appeals re: 113 Notice of Appeal. (nd) (Entered: 01/12/2021)
01/12/2021Appeal Record Sent to USCA (Electronic File). Certified Indexed record on Appeal Electronic Files as to Ghislaine Maxwell re: 113 Notice of Appeal were transmitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals. (nd) (Entered: 01/12/2021)
01/13/2021114INTERNET CITATION NOTE as to Ghislaine Maxwell: Material from decision with Internet citation re: 106 Memorandum & Opinion. (sjo) (Entered: 01/13/2021)
01/14/2021115LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated January 14, 2021 re: Laptop Access (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 01/14/2021)
01/15/2021116MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Ghislaine Maxwell on 115 LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated January 14, 2021 re: Laptop Access. ENDORSEMENT: The unobjected-to request is GRANTED. The Bureau of Prisons is ORDERED to give the Defendant access to the laptop computer on weekends and holidays during the hours that she is permitted to review discovery. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 1/15/2021) (Inl) (Entered: 01/15/2021)
01/15/2021USCA Case Number 21-0058 from the U.S. Court of Appeals, 2nd Circ. as to Ghislaine Maxwell, assigned to 113 Notice of Appeal filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (nd) (Entered: 01/15/2021)
01/15/2021USCA Appeal Fees received $ 505.00, receipt number 465401271727 as to Ghislaine Maxwell on 01/15/2021 re: 113 Notice of Appeal filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (nd) (Entered: 01/15/2021)
01/25/2021117ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: On January 25, 2021, the Court received by email the attached letter from the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”). In the letter, the BOP requests that the Court vacate its January 15, 2021 Order, Dkt. No. 116, which directed the BOP to give the Defendant access to her Government provided laptop computer on weekends and holidays during the hours that she is permitted to review discovery. The Defendant and the Government may respond to the BOP’s letter within one week of this Order. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 1/25/2021) (ap) (Entered: 01/25/2021)
01/25/2021118LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Mark S. [REDACTED] dated January 25, 2021 re: Pretrial Motions ([REDACTED], Mark) (Entered: 01/25/2021)
01/25/2021119MOTION for Separate Trial on Counts Ghislaine Maxwell (1) Count 5s-6s,5-6 . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Pagliuca, Jeffrey) (Entered: 01/25/2021)
01/25/2021120MEMORANDUM in Support by Ghislaine Maxwell re 119 MOTION for Separate Trial on Counts Ghislaine Maxwell (1) Count 5s-6s,5-6 .. (Pagliuca, Jeffrey) (Entered: 01/25/2021)
01/25/2021121MOTION to Dismiss Either Count One Or Count Three of the Superseding Indictment as Multiplicitous . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Pagliuca, Jeffrey) (Entered: 01/25/2021)
01/25/2021122MEMORANDUM in Support by Ghislaine Maxwell re 121 MOTION to Dismiss Either Count One Or Count Three of the Superseding Indictment as Multiplicitous .. (Pagliuca, Jeffrey) (Entered: 01/25/2021)
01/25/2021123MOTION to Dismiss Counts One through Four of the Superseding Indictment for Lack of Specificity . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Pagliuca, Jeffrey) (Entered: 01/25/2021)
01/25/2021124MEMORANDUM in Support by Ghislaine Maxwell re 123 MOTION to Dismiss Counts One through Four of the Superseding Indictment for Lack of Specificity .. (Pagliuca, Jeffrey) (Entered: 01/25/2021)
01/25/2021125MOTION to Dismiss the Superseding Indictment as it was Obtained in Violation of the Sixth Amendment . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. ([REDACTED], Mark) (Entered: 01/25/2021)
01/25/2021126MEMORANDUM in Support by Ghislaine Maxwell re 125 MOTION to Dismiss the Superseding Indictment as it was Obtained in Violation of the Sixth Amendment ..

| ------------ | ------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | | 01/26/2021 | 127 | ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: On January 25, 2021, the Defendant filed twelve pre-trial motions. Because there is a request to redact sensitive or confidential information, several of the motions have been filed under temporary seal. The Government may respond to the Defendant’s proposed redactions within two days of this Order. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 1/26/2021) (ap) (Entered: 01/26/2021) | | 01/28/2021 | 128 | LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, Lara Pomerantz, and Andrew Rohrbach dated January 28, 2021 re: Defendant’s Proposed Redactions to Pre-Trial Motions Document filed by USA. (Pomerantz, Lara) (Entered: 01/28/2021) | | 02/01/2021 | 129 | LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, and Lara Pomerantz dated February 1, 2021 re: MDC Laptop Access Document filed by USA. (Comey, Maurene) (Entered: 02/01/2021) | | 02/01/2021 | 130 | LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Bobbi C. Sternheim dated 02/02/2021 re: Opposition to MDC letter (Sternheim, Bobbi) (Entered: 02/01/2021) | | 02/02/2021 | 131 | MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Ghislaine Maxwell on Letter addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Sophia Papapetru ( Staff Attorney, MDC Brooklyn, Federal Bureau of Prisons) dated January 25, 2021. ENDORSEMENT: Having considered the request submitted by the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) that the Court vacate its January 15, 2021 Order, Dkt. No. 117, as well as the Government’s and the Defendant’s responses, Dkt. Nos. 129, 130, the Court hereby DENIES the BOP’s request to vacate the Order. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 2/2/2021)(bw) (Entered: 02/02/2021) | | 02/04/2021 | 132 | ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: The Defendant is hereby ORDERED to docket the redacted documents and corresponding exhibits by no later than February 5, 2021. With respect to Motion 3, the Defendant is ORDERED to docket the version that includes the Government’s proposed redactions in addition to her own. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 2/4/2021)(See ORDER as set forth) (lnl) (Entered: 02/04/2021) | | 02/04/2021 | 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 . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Pagliuca, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/04/2021) | | 02/04/2021 | 134 | MEMORANDUM in Support by Ghislaine Maxwell re 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 .. (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)(Pagliuca, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/04/2021) | | 02/04/2021 | 135 | MOTION to Dismiss Counts Five and Six of the Superseding Indictment Because the Alleged Misstatements are Not Perjurious as a Matter of Law . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Pagliuca, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/04/2021) | | 02/04/2021 | 136 | MEMORANDUM in Support by Ghislaine Maxwell re 135 MOTION to Dismiss Counts Five and Six of the Superseding Indictment Because the Alleged Misstatements are Not Perjurious as a Matter of Law .. (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)(Pagliuca, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/04/2021) | | 02/04/2021 | 137 | MOTION to Dismiss Counts One Through Six of the Superseding Indictment for Pre-Indictment Delay . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Pagliuca, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/04/2021) | | 02/04/2021 | 138 | MEMORANDUM in Support by Ghislaine Maxwell re 137 MOTION to Dismiss Counts One Through Six of the Superseding Indictment for Pre-Indictment Delay .. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Pagliuca, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/04/2021) |

02/04/2021139MOTION 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 . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Pagliuca, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/04/2021)
02/04/2021140MEMORANDUM in Support by 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 . (Pagliuca, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/04/2021)
02/04/2021141MOTION to Dismiss the Superseding Indictment for Breach of Non-Prosecution Agreement . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. ([REDACTED], Mark) (Entered: 02/04/2021)
02/04/2021142MEMORANDUM in Support by Ghislaine Maxwell re 141 MOTION to Dismiss the Superseding Indictment for Breach of Non-Prosecution Agreement .. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C (Sealed), # 4 Exhibit D (Sealed), # 5 Exhibit E (Sealed), # 6 Exhibit F (Sealed), # 7 Exhibit G (Sealed), # 8 Exhibit H (Sealed))([REDACTED], Mark) (Entered: 02/04/2021)
02/04/2021143MOTION to Dismiss Counts One Through Four of the Superseding Indictment as Time-Barred . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. ([REDACTED], Mark) (Entered: 02/04/2021)
02/04/2021144MEMORANDUM in Support by Ghislaine Maxwell re 143 MOTION to Dismiss Counts One Through Four of the Superseding Indictment as Time-Barred .. ([REDACTED], Mark) (Entered: 02/04/2021)
02/04/2021145MOTION to Strike Surplusage from Superseding Indictment . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. ([REDACTED], Mark) (Entered: 02/04/2021)
02/04/2021146MEMORANDUM in Support by Ghislaine Maxwell re 145 MOTION to Strike Surplusage from Superseding Indictment .. ([REDACTED], Mark) (Entered: 02/04/2021)
02/04/2021147MOTION for Bill of Particulars and Pretrial Disclosures. Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. ([REDACTED], Mark) (Entered: 02/04/2021)
02/04/2021148MEMORANDUM in Support by Ghislaine Maxwell re 147 MOTION for Bill of Particulars and Pretrial Disclosures.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B (Sealed), # 3 Exhibit C (Sealed), # 4 Exhibit D (Sealed), # 5 Exhibit E)([REDACTED], Mark) (Entered: 02/04/2021)
02/04/2021149AFFIDAVIT of Bobbi C. Sternheim in Support as to Ghislaine Maxwell re 147 MOTION for Bill of Particulars and Pretrial Disclosures.. ([REDACTED], Mark) (Entered: 02/04/2021)
02/05/2021150SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (jri) (Entered: 02/05/2021)
02/05/2021151SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (jri) (Entered: 02/05/2021)
02/05/2021152SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (jri) (Entered: 02/05/2021)
02/05/2021153SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (jri) (Entered: 02/05/2021)
02/05/2021154SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (jri) (Entered: 02/05/2021)
02/05/2021155SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (jri) (Entered: 02/05/2021)
02/05/2021156SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (jri) (Entered: 02/05/2021)
02/05/2021157SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (jri) (Entered: 02/05/2021)
02/05/2021158LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, and Lara Pomerantz dated February 5, 2021 re: MDC Conditions Update Document filed by USA. (Comey, Maurene) (Entered: 02/05/2021)
02/16/2021159LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Bobbi C. Sternheim dated 02/16/2021 re: Conditions of Pretrial Confinement (Sternheim, Bobbi) (Entered: 02/16/2021)
02/23/2021160THIRD MOTION for Bond . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Sternheim, Bobbi) (Entered: 02/23/2021)
02/24/2021161ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: On February 23, 2021, Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell filed a third motion for release on bail. Dkt. No. 160. The Government’s response is due March 9, 2021, and the Defendants reply is due March 16, 2021. SO ORDERED. (Responses due by 3/9/2021. Replies due by 3/16/2021.) (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 2/24/2021) (Inl) (Entered: 02/24/2021)
02/26/2021162LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, Lara Pomerantz, and Andrew Rohrbach dated February 26, 2021 re: Cover Letter for Government Opposition to Defense Pretrial Motions Document filed by USA. (Comey, Maurene) (Entered: 02/26/2021)
03/01/2021163LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated March 1, 2021 re: Extension of Time to File Reply to Government Opposition to Defense Pretrial Motions . Document filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 03/01/2021)
03/01/2021164MEMO ENDORSEMENT 163 LETTER MOTION To request a 10-day extension of time until Monday, March 15, 2021 to file our reply re: 163 LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated March 1, 2021 re: Extension of Time to File Briefing Schedule…ENDORSEMENT…The Defendant’s request is GRANTED. Her reply to the Government’s Omnibus Memorandum in Opposition to the Defendants Pretrial Motions is now due on March 15, 2021. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 3/1/21) (jw) (Entered: 03/01/2021)
03/01/2021Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings as to Ghislaine Maxwell: Defendant Replies due by 3/15/2021 (jw) (Entered: 03/01/2021)
03/09/2021165LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, and Lara Pomerantz dated March 9, 2021 re: Opposition to Third Bail Motion Document filed by USA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Pomerantz, Lara) (Entered: 03/09/2021)
03/15/2021166LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated March 15, 2021 re: Pretrial Motion Replies (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 03/15/2021)
03/16/2021167LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Bobbi C. Sternheim dated 03/16/2021 re: Letter regarding Reply to Bail Motion (Sternheim, Bobbi) (Entered: 03/16/2021)
03/18/2021168ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. On February 26, 2021, the Government filed its omnibus memorandum of law opposing Defendants’ twelve pretrial motions. It filed the brief, along with the corresponding exhibits, under temporary seal pending the Court’s resolution of its request to redact sensitive or confidential information. See Dkt. No. 162. On March 9, 2021, the Defendant objected to certain of the redactions that the Government had proposed, and she proposed additional redactions. Having considered the parties’ respective positions, the Court will grant the Government’s requests for redactions and sealing, as well as the Defendant’s additional redaction requests, with the exceptions discussed below. Finally, the Court denies the Governments request to file Exhibit 11 entirely under seal. While portions of that transcript have been redacted, other portions are part of the public record. See [REDACTED] v. Maxwell, Case No. 15-cv-7433, Dkt. No. 1212-1. In light of this, the Court sees no basis to file the transcript entirely under seal rather than by redacting the relevant portions. In light of the above, the Government is hereby ORDERED to either docket on ECF their brief and the corresponding exhibits, consistent with this Order, or to file a letter with the Court justifying more tailored redaction and sealing requests regarding pages 1128 and 187188 and Exhibits 8 and 9 by no later than March 22, 2021. The parties are further ORDERED to meet, confer, and jointly propose redactions to the Defendant’s cover letter objecting to the Government’s proposed redactions by March 22, 2021. Finally, the parties are ORDERED to meet, confer, and propose redactions to Exhibit 11 of the Government’s submission by March 22, 2021 (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 3/18/21)(jw) (Entered: 03/18/2021)

| 03/22/2021 | 169 | ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell’s third motion for release on bail, Dkt. No. 160, is DENIED. The parties are ORDERED to meet and confer and propose and justify any redactio

This document was truncated for web display. See the linked source PDF for the complete record.

Discuss on Bluesky

Retrieved from https://epstein-index.org/documents/court-us-v-maxwell-0058-efta02843520/.