📄 Extracted Text (303 words)
Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1086 Filed 07/30/20 Page 1 of 1
July 30, 2020
VIA ECF
The Honorable Loretta A. Preska
District Court Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10007
Re: Giuffre v. Maxwell,
Case No. 15-cv-7433-LAP
Dear Judge Preska,
As a follow up to my letter from earlier today, we are now in receipt of the unredacted
version of Ms. Menninger’s letter alleging that we made errors in our redactions. First, Ms.
Menninger claims that we erred in the redaction of DE 172 by redacting names at pages 9 and 15
but not at page i. But DE 172, page i is presently publicly available on the docket with no
redactions. Accordingly we did not redact what is already publicly available. Second, although
we disagree that the word “mother” that was not redacted on DE 173-6, page 39 identifies the
nonparty at issue, we will agree to redact the word “mother” in an abundance of caution. Third,
we disagree with the allegation that there is an error in the redactions on DE 173-6, page 63.
As to the remainder of the letter, we fundamentally disagree with Ms. Menninger’s
objections to our redactions (DE 173-6 at pages 59-63, 104, 117, 158-59, 166-67) because they do
not involve a nonparty’s identity or testimony as to any specific conduct in accordance with the
Court’s Order. We are of course not in a position to provide our views on Ms. Menninger’s
redactions because she has still not provided us with a set of the documents that are due to be
released today.
Again, Plaintiff stands ready to file the documents that this Court unsealed on July 23, 2020
at the Court’s direction.
Sincerely,
/s/ Sigrid S. McCawley
Sigrid S. McCawley, Esq.
cc: Counsel of Record (via ECF)
ℹ️ Document Details
SHA-256
f32557b2bbc8bcc80f2e4a2b29f29cdec32b35deac355770008b0ceacd9bc240
Bates Number
gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1086.0
Dataset
giuffre-maxwell
Document Type
document
Pages
1
Comments 0