Document EFTA 02830173¶
U.S. Department of Justice¶
United States Attorney Southern District of New York¶
The Silvia1. Mollo Building One Saint Andrew’s Plaza New• York. New York 10007¶
January 28, 2021¶
BY ECF & ELECTRONIC MAIL¶
The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007¶
Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (MN)¶
Dear Judge Nathan:¶
The Government respectfully submits this letter in response to the Court’s order dated January 26, 2021 providing the Government with an opportunity to respond to the defendant’s proposed redactions to its pre-trial motions filed on January 25, 2021. The Government notes at the outset that the defendant has not proposed any redactions to certain motions filed on the docket. (Motions 5, 8, 9, & 12; Dkts. 119-126). The Government agrees that no redactions are necessary as to those particular motions. The Government agrees with the defendant’s proposed redactions to the remaining pre-trial motions for the following reasons:¶
- The proposed redactions to the defendant’s motion to dismiss for breach of the nonprosecution agreement (Motion I) and the motion to dismiss for pre-indictment delay (Motion 7) refer to documents designated by the Government as “Confidential” within the meaning of the Protective Order in this case (see Protective Order1115 (Dkt. 36)), and the proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to protect the integrity of the Government’s ongoing investigation. See, e.g., Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U.S. 211, 218 n.9 (1979) (“Since the 17th century, grand jury proceedings have been closed to the public; and records of such proceedings have been kept from the public eye. The rule of grand jury secrecy … is an integral part of our criminal justice system.”).
- The proposed redactions to the defendant’s motion to dismiss Counts One through Four of the Superseding Indictment as time-barred (Motion 2) and her motion to strike surplusage from the Superseding Indictment (Motion 6) protect the privacy interests of victim-witnesses.
- The proposed redactions to the motion to dismiss Counts Five and Six (Motion 4) refer to documents designated by the Government as “Confidential” within the
January 28, 2021¶
Page 2¶
meaning of the Protective Order in this case, and relate to third-party privacy interests or materials that remain sealed in the civil proceeding.¶
- The proposed redactions to the defendant’s motion for a bill of particulars and pretrial disclosures (Motion 10) protect the privacy interests of victim-witnesses and protect the integrity of the Government’s ongoing investigation.
- The proposed redactions to the defendant’s motion to suppress under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments (Motion 11) are narrowly tailored to protect the integrity of the Government’s ongoing investigation.
In addition, the Government has no objection to the defendant’s proposed redactions to her motion to suppress under the Due Process Clause (Motion 3) as the proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to protect the Government’s ongoing investigation. The Government respectfully submits that a limited number of additional redactions would be appropriate with respect to Motion 3 in order to be consistent with the other redactions proposed by the defendant in that particular motion. The Government will submit those additional proposed redactions under seal by email.¶
Respectfully submitted,¶
AUDREY STRAUSS United States Attorney¶
By: 5/¶
Maurene Comey / Alison Moe / Lam Pomerantz / Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York Tel: (212) 637-2324¶
Cc: All counsel of record, by email¶