Epstein Data Wiki

Alison J. Nathan

Properties2
tagsperson, judge, southern-district-of-new-york, second-circuit, us-v-maxwell, sealing, unsealing, jury, sentencing
aliasesAlison Nathan, Alison J. Nathan, Nathan, Alison, Judge Nathan, Hon. Alison J. Nathan, Alison Julie Nathan

29 min read

What this page is built on, and what it leaves out

Judge Nathan’s rulings in United States v. Maxwell quote the testimony of women and girls who were abused. None of that content appears here in any form: not quoted, not summarised, not characterised, not counted. This page is built on the second body of paper a trial judge generates, the record of how the proceeding was run. Orders, scheduling, sealing and unsealing decisions, docket entries, and her own signature blocks. Where an order names a complainant, the name is not reproduced here.

Name as printedALISON J. NATHAN in every signature block read for this page123456
Office at the time of trialUnited States District Judge, Southern District of New York. She signed as District Judge as late as 11 February 20222
Office at sentencingUnited States Circuit Judge, Sitting by Designation, the style on her orders from 1 April 2022 onward34567
The caseUnited States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20-CR-330 (AJN) (S.D.N.Y.)8
She took the pleaAt the arraignment and bail hearing of 14 July 2020, conducted by teleconference9
The ruling that kept the case alive16 April 2021: a 34-page Opinion and Order resolving twelve pre-trial motions, excluding those to suppress8; renewed and denied again on 13 August 202110
She signed in inkEvery order rendered for this page carries a manuscript signature over the rule, not a typed /s/123456
The openness rulingsShe refused wholesale sealing of the new-trial papers, denied a juror’s motion to intervene and docketed it anyway, and refused to redact written statements submitted for sentencing25
The docket record of her own benchHer 29 June 2022 order states that five court orders “failed to be docketed during trial”6
One day, two entriesOn 1 April 2022, the day she denied the motion for a new trial, the docket records a deleted reassignment notice and a remark that the case had been reassigned to another judge by administrative error and then returned to her11

Alison J. Nathan presided over the prosecution of Ghislaine Maxwell as a United States District Judge in the Southern District of New York, and by the time she sentenced Maxwell she was signing the orders in that case as a United States Circuit Judge sitting by designation.9237 She took the not-guilty plea in July 2020, refused bail, resolved the pre-trial motions, presided at trial, denied the motion for a new trial, decided which counts judgment would enter on, and imposed the sentence.912834713

What the files read for this page hold of hers is her own instruments: orders, opinions, memo endorsements and scheduling directions, signed in ink, in a prosecution whose running dispute was how much of itself the record would show.1235614

Before the trial

Maxwell was arrested on 2 July 202013 and appeared twelve days later. The transcript of that proceeding names the presiding judge on one line and prints “District Judge” on the next, and records an arraignment and bail hearing conducted by teleconference on 14 July 2020 at 3:05 p.m.9

Bail was refused at that hearing and again in December, the December order recording that it denied the renewed application “for substantially the same reasons as the Court determined that detention was warranted in the initial bail hearing”.12 On 28 December 2020 she signed a two-sheet run whose first sheet records that the Opinion and Order denying the renewed application had been “concurrently filed under temporary seal”, and gives the parties 48 hours to propose redactions and to justify them by reference to Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga.15 The second sheet of that run carries the reasoning and the disposition: that the Government “does not contend that the Defendant poses a danger to the community”, that the other three statutory factors nonetheless warrant detention, and that “pre-trial detention continues to be warranted”.12

On 16 April 2021 she filed a 34-page Opinion and Order resolving Maxwell’s pre-trial motions. Its first sheet states its own scope: “This Opinion resolves all of Maxwell’s currently pending pretrial motions other than those seeking to suppress evidence, which the Court will resolve in due course.”8 Among the motions it disposed of was Maxwell’s contention that a non-prosecution agreement barred the charges against her. She rejected it, and when the argument was renewed against the second superseding indictment she rejected it again on 13 August 2021, “for substantially the same reasons set forth in its April 16 opinion”, explaining why neither the new charges nor the supplemental authority changed “the Court’s conclusion that the NPA does not bar the charges against her”.10 That ruling became the first of the five questions Maxwell took to the Second Circuit, and the single question she later put to the Supreme Court.13

She also intervened in the conditions of Maxwell’s custody. On 26 April 2021 defence counsel told her that Maxwell’s legal materials had been seized two days earlier by staff at the Metropolitan Detention Center; on 29 April she ordered the Bureau of Prisons’ counsel to answer a short list of questions, including “[w]hether Ms. Maxwell is permitted to bring confidential legal materials to in-person meetings with defense counsel without those materials being seized” and “[w]hat steps have been or will be taken to ensure the confidentiality of Ms. Maxwell’s lawyer-client communications.”16 The same order records that “Defense counsel’s requests are denied in all other respects.”16

Jury selection, and the paper the public was not shown

The jury in this case was selected from written questionnaires, and the questionnaire itself became a contested document. On 27 August 2021 she amended the pre-trial schedule “[i]n light of the jury selection dates provided by the Clerk’s Office” and directed the parties to meet, confer and submit a joint proposed juror questionnaire and voir dire.17 They delivered it to her chambers by e-mail on 11 October 2021, with a covering request that “the Court accept the joint proposed juror questionnaire and voir dire under seal”.18 A message in the same thread asks counsel whether they consent to the letter carrying that request being filed publicly; the sender’s own value is covered on the sheet and no sender is supplied here.19

On 20 October 2021, the day the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and seventeen news organisations wrote to her opposing the sealing, she entered a one-page order about it. She would hear counsel at the next day’s conference “regarding the unopposed request to seal their joint proposed juror questionnaire and voir dire”, and she extended the inquiry to her own drafts: “The Court will also inquire as to whether the sealing request extends to the Court’s draft questionnaire and voir dire and any justification for such sealing.”20 The same order records that she would transmit her own draft questionnaire and draft voir dire to the parties by e-mail that day so the drafts could be discussed at the conference.20 NBCUniversal Media, LLC was the third signatory in the right-hand column of the news organisations’ letter.21

She also addressed the position of the complainants in the Rule 412 litigation. A conference was set for 10 November 2021 to hear Maxwell’s motion under Federal Rule of Evidence 412 and her motion to exclude expert evidence. On 8 November 2021 she ordered the parties “to confirm by 12:00 p.m. tomorrow, November 9, 2021, that the alleged victims referenced in the Defendant’s Rule 412 Motion have been notified of the November 10 hearing and of their right to attend.”1

Two weeks before trial, addressed as a circuit judge

On 15 November 2021 Maxwell’s counsel wrote to complain that disclosures posted by the Government on 6 November had reached Maxwell at the Metropolitan Detention Center only that day, “especially since trial commences in two weeks”, and asked the court to direct delivery by Federal Express Next Day Delivery with tracking.22 Its address block prints her name, then “United States Circuit Judge”, then “United States Courthouse” and “40 Foley Square”, on four separate lines, two weeks before the trial over which she presided as a district judge began.22

She endorsed the letter the same day. Her memo endorsement records that the mail appears to have been sent before an earlier endorsement of the Government’s 8 November letter, and then rules anyway: “In any event, as this matter is less than two weeks before trial, the Government is ordered to send materials via FedEx and provide the tracking number to defense counsel. SO ORDERED.”23

Trial began on 29 November 2021 and the jury returned its verdict on 29 December.13

After the verdict: what the Court would and would not seal

Maxwell moved for a new trial on the ground that a juror had answered a jury-selection question inaccurately, and asked that everything connected with the motion be sealed, at least temporarily. On 11 February 2022, signing still as a district judge, she refused.

Her seven-page order opens by naming the field: she had the parties’ letters, the Government’s opposition, and a motion to intervene from the juror, and “Several media organizations have also filed letters seeking unsealing.”24 Her first holding is flat: “the Defendant’s motion to temporarily seal in their entirety all documents related to the motion for a new trial is DENIED.”24 The reason is stated as a principle and applied as a test: “Any sealing of judicial documents must be narrowly tailored to serve competing interests”, the competing interests here being the integrity of any inquiry and juror anonymity and privacy, which “can plainly be accomplished through tailored redactions”, after which “all redactions will be promptly unsealed except those necessary to protect any continuing interest in juror anonymity and privacy.”24

The order then disposes of the juror’s own application, which both sides opposed, and of Maxwell’s request to suppress it, which neither side supported. She denied the motion to intervene, holding that the juror was “the potential subject of a post-verdict inquiry, not a party with an interest in the criminal case”, and refused Maxwell’s request to strike or seal that motion, because “it is a judicial document to which the presumption in favor of public access applies and no interests are served by maintaining it under seal.”2526 On the argument that press attention justified sealing, her answer is one sentence: “The possibility of media attention does not outweigh the presumption of access.”27 She also ordered Maxwell to docket two exhibits to her motion and the Government to docket all exhibits to its opposition, “all of which are publicly available documents.”28

An evidentiary hearing followed on 8 March 2022,13 and on 1 April 2022 she denied the motion. The opinion runs to 40 pages and opens on the jury rather than on the defendant: “Central to our system of justice is a defendant’s right to have guilt adjudged by a lay jury of one’s peers.”29 Its last page records the disposition: “The requirements for a new trial under McDonough are not satisfied. The Defendant’s motion for a new trial pursuant to Rule 33 is therefore DENIED.”3 Beneath the rule on that sheet the printed block gives her name, then “United States Circuit Judge”, then “Sitting by Designation”, on three separate lines.3

The same day, in the same docket

The district court docket for 1 April 2022, as reproduced in the Second Circuit’s record, carries three entries in sequence. The first is a deleted entry printed in blue: “***DELETED DOCUMENT. Deleted docket entry, no document number. NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT, as to Ghislaine Maxwell. The document was incorrectly filed in this case.”11 The second is a remark: “REMARK as to USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell. Case reassigned to Judge Broderick due to an administrative error. Case returned to Judge Nathan.”11 The third is the Rule 33 opinion itself, the docket recording it as “(Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 4/1/2022)”.11

So on the day she denied the new-trial motion the docket records the case reassigned away from her by administrative error and then returned to her, with no document number attached to either event.

Which counts judgment entered on

On 29 April 2022 she filed a 45-page Opinion and Order on the remaining post-trial motions. She denied the Rule 29 motion, denied the motions founded on constructive amendment or variance and on pre-indictment delay, and granted one: “The Government concedes that Count One is multiplicitous with Count Three, and the Court further concludes that Count Five is multiplicitous with Count Three.”4 The consequence follows two sentences later: “Accordingly, the Court will enter judgment of conviction on Counts Three, Four, and Six.”4 Two of the five counts the jury had returned therefore never became convictions of record.13

Three days earlier she had set the timetable that led to sentencing. The docket records an order of 26 April 2022 fixing seven dates between 24 May and 28 June 2022 for disclosure of the presentence report, objections, responses and the two sentencing submissions.11

Sentencing, and the statements she refused to redact

On 24 June 2022 she ruled on Maxwell’s request that the written statements submitted for sentencing be redacted. She refused. The order records the Government’s position and adopts it: “while these statements do implicate privacy interests that might justify certain redactions, those interests here belong to the witnesses themselves”. Applying Lugosch again, she held that the defendant had failed to present anything weighty enough “to override the presumption in favor of public access”, deemed all seven written statements the Court had received part of the record, and directed the Government to docket them without redactions.5 The names printed in that paragraph are not reproduced here.5

Sentencing was held on 28 June 2022 at 11:00 a.m. The transcript’s appearance page names her on one line and prints “United States Circuit Judge Sitting by Designation” on the next.7 She imposed 240 months.13

The orders that were never docketed

The day after sentencing she entered a two-sheet order that is, on its face, housekeeping, and in substance a finding about the completeness of her own trial record. It opens: “As a post-trial house-keeping matter, the Court has determined that a few miscellaneous court orders failed to be docketed during trial”.6 Five are listed by date and subject: a memorandum opinion and order of 19 November 2021 concerning a trial witness; two further memorandum opinions and orders of 22 November 2021 concerning expert witnesses; a scheduling order of 30 November 2021 on pseudonym conferral; and an order of 15 December 2021 on a response schedule.6 The names in that list are not reproduced here.6

She docketed all five, and then widened the inquiry: “In order to ensure a complete docket, the parties are ORDERED to confer and determine whether any letters or briefing submitted to the Court without a redaction or sealing request remain to be docketed.”6 She gave an example of her own, that the parties had failed to docket their letter briefing of 15 December and a joint letter of 16 December 2021, and set a deadline of 12 July 2022.6

The sequence raises a question the records read for this page do not answer: how a court that had refused wholesale sealing and required prompt unsealing reached the end of a trial with five of its own orders off the docket, and what else had not been filed. Her order treats it as an error to be corrected and says nothing about its cause.6

From district judge to circuit judge

The records read for this page bracket the change of office but do not fix the date it took effect. The last order read here in which she styles herself a district judge is the sealing order of 11 February 2022, whose printed signature block gives her name over the single line “United States District Judge”.2 The first in which she styles herself a circuit judge is the Rule 33 opinion of 1 April 2022, headed “ALISON J. NATHAN, Circuit Judge, sitting by designation” and signed beneath a printed block giving her name over the lines “United States Circuit Judge” and “Sitting by Designation”.329 Every order of hers read for this page after that date carries the designation form.4567 Counsel had addressed her as a circuit judge, at a courthouse address other than the one on her own orders, as early as 15 November 2021.22

Her protective order in the criminal case was still governing the record years afterwards. In December 2025 the judge who then had the case modified it so that the trial discovery could be released under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, subject to a mechanism to protect complainants’ identities.13

What this page does not cover

This page covers Judge Nathan’s conduct of the criminal prosecution and the records about it. It does not cover the civil actions brought against Jeffrey Epstein’s estate, it does not cover her work on matters unconnected with Epstein, and it does not reach anything she decided after the sentencing beyond the orders named above. It makes no allegation against her and records none. Nothing on it is a finding of wrongdoing by anyone named.

A search of this project’s index under the name forms set out in the notes returns 2,081 documents. This page names thirty-eight document identifiers, and makes no attempt to characterise the documents it did not read. That figure is a property of the index, not of what the release holds.14

Notes

Footnotes

  1. Order, Document 421, filed 8 November 2021, one sheet. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00027649 p.1. Read at the page image at native 96 ppi, fetched read-only with a firing negative control in the same call. The head reads “ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:” and the signature is a manuscript mark over the rule. The conference it sets concerns Dkt. No. 378 (Rule 412) and Dkt. No. 386 (Rule 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993)). A second copy is at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00027654. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  2. Order, Document 596, filed 11 February 2022, seven sheets, served p.7. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02836747 p.7. Read at the page image at native 96 ppi, from the local asset store, the three-way asset test returning a regular file and not an alias. The sheet is dated 11 February 2022 and signed with a manuscript mark over the rule, above a printed block giving her name and, on the next line, “United States District Judge”. A copy is at https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00008909. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7

  3. Opinion and Order, Document 653, filed 1 April 2022, 40 sheets, served p.40. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02838162 p.40. Read at the page image at native 96 ppi, from the local asset store, the three-way asset test returning a regular file and not an alias. The sheet carries a manuscript signature over the rule, above a printed block giving her name and, on the two lines beneath it, “United States Circuit Judge” and “Sitting by Designation”. The released text of this sheet renders that last line “Sifting by Designation” and the statutory citation ”§ 3161(h)(7XA)”; the image prints “Sitting by Designation” and ”§ 3161(h)(7)(A)”, and the image is used. Copies are at https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00010324 and, within the appellate record, at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02844213 p.599. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8 ↩9

  4. Opinion and Order, Document 657, filed 29 April 2022, 45 sheets, served p.45. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00156400 p.45. Read at the page image at native 96 ppi, fetched read-only with a negative control on the same route returning HTTP 403 at 111 bytes in the same call; the served file’s 45 pages reconcile with this project’s index. The sheet is signed with a manuscript mark over the rule, above a printed block giving her name and, on the two lines beneath it, “United States Circuit Judge” and “Sitting by Designation”. The released text of this sheet renders “pre-indictment delay” as “pit-indictment delay”; the image prints “pre-indictment”, and the image is used. The two quotations are each given whole, and they are not consecutive: one sentence stands between them on the sheet, characterising the conduct charged, and it is not reproduced here. A copy is at https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00010367. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7

  5. Order, Document 682, filed 24 June 2022, four sheets, served p.4. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02838582 p.4. Read at the page image at native 96 ppi, from the local asset store, the three-way asset test returning a regular file and not an alias. The sheet is signed with a manuscript mark over the rule, above a printed block giving her name and, on the two lines beneath it, “United States Circuit Judge,” and “sitting by designation”, and is dated 24 June 2022. The quoted clause is given whole; the clause that follows it in the same sentence, and the sentence naming the individuals who might speak at sentencing, are not reproduced here. The Government’s position the order adopts is at Dkt. No. 673 at 2, and the authority applied is Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 124 (2d Cir. 2006). ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8

  6. Order, Document 689, filed 29 June 2022, two sheets. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02838945 p.1 and p.2. Both sheets read at the page image at native 96 ppi, from the local asset store, the three-way asset test returning a regular file and not an alias. The head of p.1 reads “ALISON J. NATHAN, Circuit Judge, sitting by designation:”; p.2 carries a manuscript signature over the rule, above a printed block giving her name and, on the two lines beneath it, “United States Circuit Judge” and “Sitting by Designation”, and is dated 29 June 2022. The five items are given on p.1 as a bulleted list with dates; the witness names in that list are not reproduced here. The two quotations are given whole. A copy is at https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00011107. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8 ↩9 ↩10 ↩11 ↩12

  7. Transcript of sentencing, 28 June 2022 at 11:00 a.m., Document 779, 101 sheets, served p.1. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02842586 p.1. Read at the page image at native 96 ppi, from the local asset store, the three-way asset test returning a regular file and not an alias. The appearance page prints her name on one line and “United States Circuit Judge Sitting by Designation” on the next. The same transcript is in the release as Document 737 at https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00011520. Nothing said at the hearing is quoted on this page; the sentencing remarks are quoted and sourced on the defendant’s page. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  8. Opinion and Order, Document 207, filed 16 April 2021, 34 sheets, served p.1. The head reads “ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:” and the caption box prints “20-cr-330 (AJN)”. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00020261 p.1. Read at the page image at the sheet’s native 96 ppi, fetched read-only, with a negative control on the same route returning HTTP 403 at 111 bytes in the same call. The released text of this sheet renders “S1 superseding indictment” as “Si” and “SI”; the image prints “S1”, and the image is used. Further copies of the same opinion are in the release at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00022091 and https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00085225, and a document bearing the number 208 and the same filing date carries an identical final sheet; which of the two is the sealed version and which the public one is not established here and is not asserted. The quotation is the first sentence of the sheet’s third paragraph, given whole; that paragraph continues and the remainder is not quoted. This sheet carries no printed Bates stamp and none is asserted; the document is cited with its served page. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  9. Transcript of arraignment and bail hearing (teleconference), United States v. Maxwell, 14 July 2020 at 3:05 p.m., Document 93, served p.1. The appearance page prints her name on one line and “District Judge” on the next. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02829716 p.1. A second copy of the same 91-sheet transcript is in the release at https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00001878 and is the copy cited on the defendant’s page. Read in the released text only for the appearance page; the arraignment itself is not quoted here. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  10. Opinion and Order, Document 317, filed 13 August 2021, 14 sheets, served p.3. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00023895 p.3. Read in the released text and the sheet rendered at native 96 ppi. The sheet denies the renewed motion “for substantially the same reasons set forth in its April 16 opinion” and states that it will “briefly explain why neither the new charges in the S2 superseding indictment nor the supplemental authority Maxwell cites change the Court’s conclusion that the NPA does not bar the charges against her”. ↩ ↩2

  11. District court docket sheet in United States v. Maxwell as reproduced in the Second Circuit’s record for appeal No. 22-1426, served p.88 of a 1,523-sheet production. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02844213 p.88. Read at the page image at native 96 ppi, from the local asset store, the three-way asset test returning a regular file and not an alias. The sheet’s own appellate header prints “Page86 of 91”, which is the appellate document’s internal folio and not the served sheet number; the pin here is the served page. The deleted entry is printed in blue capitals and is reproduced as printed. The order of 26 April 2022 appears on the same sheet as entry 656, with the seven dates, and the Rule 33 opinion as entry 653. The entry for 29 April 2022 on this sheet reproduces part of the conclusion of Document 657 and is not quoted here. The released text of this sheet renders the signing date in the entry for Document 653 as “4/112022”, dropping a stroke; the image prints “4/1/2022”, and the image is used. This sheet carries no printed Bates stamp and none is asserted. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  12. The second sheet of the same served run, carrying the reasoning and the disposition, signed with a manuscript mark over the rule, above a printed block giving her name and, on the next line, “United States District Judge”, and dated 28 December 2020. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00083350 p.2. Read at the page image at native 96 ppi. This page does not assert that the two sheets of the run are one instrument: the first announces an Opinion and Order filed separately under temporary seal, and the second carries substantive reasoning ending “This resolves Dkt No. 97.” Both are signed the same day. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  13. Certain facts on this page are taken from Ghislaine Maxwell rather than established again here, and this footnote states exactly which, so that the borrowing is as wide as the list and no wider: the arrest of 2 July 2020; the trial beginning on 29 November 2021 and the verdict of 29 December 2021; the evidentiary hearing of 8 March 2022; the counts on which the jury convicted and acquitted; the five claims raised on appeal and the single question presented to the Supreme Court; the sentence of 240 months; and the modification in December 2025 of the protective order she had entered. That page sources them to the Second Circuit’s opinion at https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00000002, the Government’s sentencing memorandum at https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00010536, the sentencing transcript at https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00011520 and the district court’s opinion of 9 December 2025. This page re-states none of them from a source of its own and asserts nothing further about them. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8

  14. Counts taken on 27 October 2026 against this project’s full-text index of the released material, 2,925,025 sheets across 1,425,556 documents, with a known-positive control returning 752,295 sheets and an invented control returning none in the same run. The phrase “Alison Nathan” returns 100 sheets across 85 documents; the phrase “Alison J. Nathan” returns 5,023 sheets across 2,006 documents; the union is 5,120 sheets across 2,081 documents, of which 75 carry only the first form and 1,996 only the second. The index classifies 1,329 of those 2,081 documents as court filings and 86 as court orders. Index counts are a floor and the classification is this project’s, not a producer’s; the figures are not a measure of what the release holds. ↩ ↩2

  15. Order, dated 28 December 2020, served p.1 of a two-sheet run. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00083350 p.1. Read at the page image at native 96 ppi. The order records that the Opinion and Order denying the renewed bail motion was “concurrently filed under temporary seal”, gives the parties 48 hours to propose redactions, and requires them to be justified by reference to Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). The caption box’s case number is rendered “(MN)” in the released text and “(AJN)” on sibling sheets read at the image; the case number here is taken from the sheets where it is legible and not from this one. ↩

  16. Order, Document 255, filed 29 April 2021, two sheets. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00031606 p.1 and p.2. Read in the released text; p.2 was also fetched read-only and rendered at native 96 ppi. The order recites that defence counsel advised the Court on 26 April 2021 of an incident of 24 April 2021 in which Maxwell’s legal materials were seized by staff at the Metropolitan Detention Center. The two quoted questions are items (b) and (c) of the list on the second sheet and are quoted with their bracketed opening letters supplied, the sheet printing them as continuations of a lead-in on the first sheet. A second copy is in the release at https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00004052. ↩ ↩2

  17. Order, Document 330, filed 27 August 2021, two sheets, served p.2. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00011442 p.2. Read in the released text only; the page image was not opened for this sheet. Further copies are at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00085794, https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00083543 and https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00093483. ↩

  18. Electronic mail to the Court transmitting the joint proposed juror questionnaire and voir dire, with the covering request quoted, served p.2 of two. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00011135 p.2. Read in the released text only. Every correspondent value on the sheet is covered; the signature block that prints gives, on separate lines, “Assistant United States Attorney”, “United States Attorney’s Office” and “Southern District of New York”. No name is sought or supplied. A sibling sheet in the same thread prints the chambers line “Chambers of the Hon. Alison J. Nathan”. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00011113 p.2. ↩

  19. Electronic mail in the same thread, dated Tue, 12 Oct 2021 23:31:35 +0000, asking counsel to confirm whether they consent to the public filing of the letter in which the sealing was requested, served p.1 of two. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00016714 p.1. Read in the released text only. The sender value is covered on the sheet and is not supplied here; this page attributes the message to nobody. ↩

  20. Order, dated 20 October 2021, one sheet. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00094723 p.1. Read at the page image at native 96 ppi, fetched read-only with a negative control on the same route returning HTTP 403 at 111 bytes in the same call. The head reads “ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:”, the caption box prints “20-CR-330 (AJN)”, and the signature is a manuscript mark over the rule, above a printed block giving her name and, on the next line, “United States District Judge”. The sealing request it refers to is Dkt. No. 339. A second copy is at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00087795, whose released text renders the case number “(MN)”; the reading here is from the image of the copy cited. This sheet carries no printed Bates stamp and none is asserted. ↩ ↩2

  21. The letter of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and seventeen news media organisations, Document 362, filed 20 October 2021, and the position of NBCUniversal Media, LLC in its signatory list, are set out and sourced on the company’s own page, which cites https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02833107 pp.1, 3 and 4. That page records the application and does not record this Court’s disposition of it. ↩

  22. Letter of Bobbi C. Sternheim to the Court, dated 15 November 2021, Document 464, one sheet. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02834889 p.1. Read at the page image at native 96 ppi. The address block prints, on five separate lines, her name, “United States Circuit Judge”, “United States Courthouse”, “40 Foley Square” and “New York, NY 10007”; the Re: line prints the case name on one line and “S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)” on the next. The subscription is a conformed “/s/” over the typed name; there is no ink on this sheet. A copy is at https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00007051. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  23. The same letter as memo-endorsed by the Court and entered with a filing stamp of 15 November 2021. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00007339 p.1. Read in the released text only; this identifier does not render through the route used for this page, and the endorsement was not read at the image. The quotation is the second sentence of the endorsement, given whole. The endorsement also refers to Dkt. Nos. 422 and 425. ↩

  24. The same order, served p.1. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02836747 p.1. Read at the page image at native 96 ppi. The head reads “ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:”. Five spans are quoted from this sheet on the page, in the order the sheet prints them. One is a whole sentence; the other four each begin part-way into a sentence, which their lower-case opening shows. No mark has been added to any of them: every terminal stop inside quotation marks is the one the sheet prints, and two of the five carry no terminal mark because none was taken. The letters it refers to are Dkt. Nos. 590, 594 and 595. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  25. The same order, served p.2, on the docketing of the juror’s motion. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02836747 p.2. Read in the released text only; this sheet was not opened at the image. ↩

  26. The same order, served p.6, on intervention and on the request to strike. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02836747 p.6. Read in the released text only. The sheet cites Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 51-52 (2d Cir. 2019). ↩

  27. The same order, served p.7. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02836747 p.7. Read at the page image at native 96 ppi. The quoted sentence stands in the first paragraph of the sheet. ↩

  28. The same order, served p.5, on the exhibits to be docketed. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02836747 p.5. Read in the released text only. ↩

  29. The same opinion, served p.1. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02838162 p.1. Read at the page image at native 96 ppi. The head reads “ALISON J. NATHAN, Circuit Judge, sitting by designation:” and the quoted sentence is the opinion’s first. The remainder of that sheet describes the ground of the motion and the hearing, and is not quoted here. ↩ ↩2

Backlinks