Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
efta-efta00077956DOJ Data Set 9Other

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK United States of America, —v— Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC S. DATE FILED: 11 /1 /21 20-CR-330 (AJN) ORDER ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: The Court is in receipt of the parties' proposed redactions to the parties' motions in limine, responses in opposition, replies in support, and related exhibits. As the Court indicated at today's conference, some of the parties' proposed redactions are overbroad considering the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). In particular, for the reasons stated at today's conference, the Court denies the Government's request to redact section ten of the Government's motion in limine. See Dkt. No. 380. The Court will also not permit redactions pertaining to the general description of evidence or anticipated testimony as such redactions are unnecessary to pr

Date
Unknown
Source
DOJ Data Set 9
Reference
EFTA 00077956
Pages
2
Persons
1
Integrity

Summary

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK United States of America, —v— Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC S. DATE FILED: 11 /1 /21 20-CR-330 (AJN) ORDER ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: The Court is in receipt of the parties' proposed redactions to the parties' motions in limine, responses in opposition, replies in support, and related exhibits. As the Court indicated at today's conference, some of the parties' proposed redactions are overbroad considering the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). In particular, for the reasons stated at today's conference, the Court denies the Government's request to redact section ten of the Government's motion in limine. See Dkt. No. 380. The Court will also not permit redactions pertaining to the general description of evidence or anticipated testimony as such redactions are unnecessary to pr

Persons Referenced (1)

Tags

eftadataset-9vol00009

Ask AI About This Document

0Share
PostReddit

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK United States of America, —v— Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC S. DATE FILED: 11 /1 /21 20-CR-330 (AJN) ORDER ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: The Court is in receipt of the parties' proposed redactions to the parties' motions in limine, responses in opposition, replies in support, and related exhibits. As the Court indicated at today's conference, some of the parties' proposed redactions are overbroad considering the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). In particular, for the reasons stated at today's conference, the Court denies the Government's request to redact section ten of the Government's motion in limine. See Dkt. No. 380. The Court will also not permit redactions pertaining to the general description of evidence or anticipated testimony as such redactions are unnecessary to protect the privacy interests of the individuals implicated. Accordingly, the parties must propose more tailored redactions consistent with the Court's discussion at today's conference. The parties are ORDERED to submit the proposals to the Court via email by November 4, 2021. In order to facilitate the Court's review of the requests, the Court requires the parties to submit the proposed redactions as a single document and with the proposed redactions highlighted. The Defendant's proposed redactions should be highlighted in one color, and the Government's a different color. The Court will rule on the proposed redactions expeditiously. 1 EFTA00077956 SO ORDERED. Dated: November 1, 2021 New York, New York ALISON J. NATHAN United States District Judge EFTA00077957

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.