DOJ-OGR-00002358(2).jpg
626 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
626 KB
Summary
This legal document describes the aftermath of a 2017 defamation case settlement between Giuffre and Maxwell, noting Maxwell's unsuccessful attempts to have confidential information returned by the law firm Boies Schiller. It then alleges that in August 2020, Maxwell discovered the government had improperly obtained a file related to the case through an ex parte proceeding, violating a Protective Order that required notice to all parties.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Giuffre |
Party in a defamation claim against Maxwell that was settled in 2017.
|
|
| Maxwell |
Party in a defamation claim with Giuffre, and the subject of a later indictment. The document alleges the government ...
|
|
| Brown |
Mentioned in a case citation, 'vacated and remanded sub nom. Brown, 929 F.3d 41'.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Boies Schiller | law firm |
Refused Maxwell's demand to return or destroy confidential information after a case was settled.
|
| The Government | government agency |
Accused of making false statements and improperly obtaining a file via grand jury subpoena and an ex parte proceeding.
|
| district court | judicial body |
Found that confidentiality was a significant factor in the settlement between Giuffre and Maxwell.
|
Timeline (3 events)
2020-08
Maxwell learned that the government had obtained a file by grand jury subpoena and had instituted an ex parte proceeding.
S.D.N.Y.
The government instituted an ex parte proceeding to overcome the strictures of a Protective Order.
S.D.N.Y.
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in a case citation (S.D.N.Y. 2018) and as the location of an ex parte proceeding.
|
Relationships (2)
They were opposing parties in a defamation claim that was settled in 2017.
Maxwell demanded the return of confidential information, and Boies Schiller (representing Giuffre) refused.
Key Quotes (2)
"a significant, if not determinative, factor"Source
— district court
(Describing the role of confidentiality in reaching the settlement between Giuffre and Maxwell.)
DOJ-OGR-00002358(2).jpg
Quote #1
"for good cause shown following notice to all parties and an opportunity to be heard."Source
— Protective Order, Paragraph 14
(Quoted to show the legal requirement for modifying the Protective Order, which the government allegedly violated.)
DOJ-OGR-00002358(2).jpg
Quote #2
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document