DOJ-OGR-00002356(1).jpg
669 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
669 KB
Summary
This document, a legal filing from February 2021, discusses the handling of confidential material under a Protective Order and details events surrounding Maxwell's April and July 2016 depositions. It notes Maxwell's agreement to testify without invoking self-incrimination privilege and Giuffre's subsequent motion to compel further answers. A footnote also highlights concerns about the misuse and leaking of confidential information by the plaintiff and her lawyers to the media, other claimants, and the government.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Maxwell |
Declined to invoke privilege against self-incrimination but agreed to testify at April 2016 deposition; subject of Gi...
|
|
| Giuffre |
Moved to compel Maxwell to answer additional questions following a deposition.
|
|
| Plaintiff |
Mentioned in footnote 2 as having concerns about misuse and abuse of information, including misleading leaking of con...
|
|
| Lawyers |
Mentioned in footnote 2 as having concerns about misuse and abuse of information, including misleading leaking of con...
|
|
| Claimants |
Mentioned in footnote 2 as "other false claimants" in the context of misleading leaking of confidential material.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Boies Schiller | Law Firm |
Assured the district court that certain questions for Maxwell were appropriate.
|
| District Court | Government Agency |
The judicial body that Boies Schiller assured regarding the appropriateness of questions.
|
| Government | Government Agency |
Mentioned in footnote 2 regarding concerns about misleading leaking of confidential material.
|
Timeline (3 events)
Key Quotes (2)
"[a]t the conclusion of this case, unless other arrangements are agreed upon, each document and all copies thereof which have been designated as CONFIDENTIAL shall be returned to the party that designated it CONFIDENTIAL, or the parties may elect to destroy CONFIDENTIAL documents. Where the parties agree to destroy CONFIDENTIAL documents, the destroying party shall provide all parties with an affidavit confirming destruction."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002356(1).jpg
Quote #1
"[s]uch questions are entirely appropriate in the discovery phase of this case, particularly where any answers will be maintained as confidential under the Protective Order in this case."Source
— Boies Schiller
(Statement made to the district court in support of Giuffre's motion to compel Maxwell.)
DOJ-OGR-00002356(1).jpg
Quote #2
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document