Epstein Secrets

h proposed redactions. The Government's proposed redactions are consistent with the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Although the Government's motions in limine are judicial documents subject to the common law presumption o

U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of New York The Silvio!. Mollo Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, New York 10007 October 18, 2021 BY ECF The Honorable Alison J. Natha

redacted version this letter motion. The proposed redactions are consistent with the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Although this letter motion is a judicial document subject to the common law presumption of access, the p

U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of New York The SihioJ. Mollo Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York. New York 10007 November 18, 2021 BY E-MAIL The Honorable Alison J. Na

fore November 22, 2021, and to justify any requested redactions by reference to the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 11/19/21)(jw) 1:20-cr-00330-AJN-1 Notice has been electronically mail

to this e- mail because the mail box is unattended. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS••• There is no charge for viewing opinions. U.S. District Court Southern District of New York Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 11/19/2021 at 11:21 AM EST and filed on 11/19/2021 Case Name: US

uments under seal if "countervailing factors" in the common law framework or "higher values" in the First Amendment framework so demand. Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 124 (2d Cir. 2006); see also Unites States v. Wey, 256 F. Supp. 3d 355, 411 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (Nathan, J.) (granting motion

ED PURSUANT TO SECTION 2(3) OF JUDGE NATHAN'S INDIVIDUAL PRACTICES IN CRIMINAL CASES) The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (MN) Dear Judge Nathan: BOO Thad Avenue

uments under seal if "countervailing factors" in the common law framework or "higher values" in the First Amendment framework so demand. Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 124 (2d Cir. 2006); see also Unites States v. Wey, 256 F. Supp. 3d 355, 411 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (Nathan, J.) (granting motion

ED PURSUANT TO SECTION 2(3) OF JUDGE NATHAN'S INDIVIDUAL PRACTICES IN CRIMINAL CASES) The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (MN) Dear Judge Nathan: BOO Thad Avenue

arties referenced in the document. These proposed redactions are consistent with the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Today the Government is submitting to the Court by email its proposed redactions to Exhibit C, which the

U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of New York BY ECF The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse May 20, 2