Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 699 Filed 07/12/22 Page1of3
Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.c
Laura A. Menninger
HADDON 150 East 10th Avenue
MORGAN Denver, Colorado 80203
PH 303.831.7364 Fx 303.832.2628
www.hmilaw.com
[email protected]
FOREMAN
March 9, 2021
The Hon. Alison J. Nathan
United States District Court Judge
Southern District of New York
500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10007
Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
Objection to Proposed Redactions of Government’s Omnibus Response &
Exhibit 5
Dear Judge Nathan:
On behalf of defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, we respectfully oppose certain of the redactions
proposed by the government to their Omnibus Memorandum in Opposition to the Defendant’s
Pre-Trial Motions (“Response’’), submitted to the Court on February 26, 2021.
Specifically, we oppose the redactions proposed by the government contained on pages 1-128
and 187-88 of the Response as well as certain of the redactions in Exhibit 5. We believe
additional redactions are appropriate to pages 129-134 of the Response. We hereby attach our
proposed redactions to pages 129-134, 187-88 and Exhibit 5.
The Response and its Exhibits are clearly “judicial documents” presumptively subject to the
public access rights under both the common law and First Amendment. Lugosch v. Pyramid
Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119 (2d Cir. 2006); Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 49 (2d
Cir. 2019). Ms. Maxwell also specifically asserts her right to an open and public trial
pursuant to the Sixth Amendment. Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court (Press-Enterprise
ID), 478 U.S. 1, 7 (1986).
Objections to Redactions Proposed on Pages 1-128
The government’s proposed redactions on pages 1-128 all relate to materially inaccurate
statements made by a prosecutor for the government to Chief Judge McMahon. They also
relate to a sealed proceeding in which the government circumvented decades-old precedent in
this Circuit which held that civil litigation materials subject to a protective order cannot be
obtained absent notice to, and an opportunity to object by, individuals with a privacy interest
in those documents. Numerous civil litigants in the Second Circuit are negotiating protective
orders every day in reliance on Martindell and have the right to know that the protective
orders may be of little to no utility when their civil opponent seeks to have them used as a tool
DOJ-OGR-00011171