594 [DOJ-OGR-00008893—DOJ-OGR-00008897]

__ Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document594_ Filed 02/04/22 Page1of5 aN U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of New York The Silvio J. Mollo Building One Saint Andrew’s Plaza New York, New York 10007 February 4, 2022 BY ECF 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 (AJN) Dear Judge Nathan: The Government respectfully submits this letter in response to the Court’s Order dated January 26, 2022, which provided that the Government “may file on ECF” a response to the defendant’s letter filed on February 1, 2022 in which the defendant argued that her motion for a new trial (the “Defense Motion”) and its exhibits should be sealed. (Dkt. No. 585). For the reasons discussed herein, the Government respectfully submits that the defendant has not justified her sealing request and, accordingly, the Defense Motion and its exhibits should be publicly docketed. In examining whether there is a common law right of access to documents submitted to a court—and thus whether sealing is permissible—courts undertake a three-part inquiry. Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). First, a court must determine whether the record or document in question is a “judicial document,” that is, whether the document is ‘relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process,’” such that a presumption of access attaches. /d. at 119 (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995)). Second, if a document is indeed a “judicial document,” the court must determine the weight to be accorded the presumption of access. Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 119. Finally, after DOJ-OGR-00008893