Page 1 of 3
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 37 Filed 07/30/20 Rage :
| USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT |
ELECTRONICALLY FILED |
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOC
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DATE FILED:7/30/2020_
United States of America,
_y_
20-CR-330 (AJN)
Ghislaine Maxwell,
MEMORANDUM
Defendant. OPINION & ORDER
ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:
Both parties have asked for the Court to enter a protective order. While they agree on
most of the language, two areas of dispute have emerged. First, Ms. Maxwell seeks language
allowing her to publicly reference alleged victims or witnesses who have spoken on the public
record to the media or in public fora, or in litigation relating to Ms. Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein.
Second, Ms. Maxwell seeks language restricting potential Government witnesses and their
counsel from using discovery materials for any purpose other than preparing for the criminal trial
in this action. The Government has proposed contrary language on both of these issues. For the
following reasons, the Court adopts the Government’s proposed protective order.
Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(d)(1), “[a]t any time the court may, for
good cause, deny, restrict, or defer discovery or inspection, or grant other appropriate relief.”
The good cause standard “requires courts to balance several interests, including whether
dissemination of the discovery materials inflicts hazard to others . . . whether the imposition of
the protective order would prejudice the defendant,” and “the public’s interest in the
information.” United States v. Smith, 985 F. Supp. 2d 506, 522 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). The party
seeking to restrict disclosure bears the burden of showing good cause. Cf Gambale v. Deutsche
Bank AG, 377 F.3d 133, 142 (2d Cir. 2004).
DOJ-OGR-00001702