DOJ-OGR-00002800.jpg
707 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
2
Organizations
2
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
1
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
707 KB
Summary
This legal document, filed on March 24, 2021, is a court order outlining the procedure for a law firm representing alleged victims to object to a proposed subpoena. The Court acknowledges receipt of a letter from the firm on March 19, 2021, and sets a deadline of March 26, 2021, for the firm to formally file its objections. The order mandates that the law firm must first confer with defense counsel to potentially narrow the issues and discuss redactions, citing legal precedents for these procedures.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ray | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Ray, No. 20-CR-110 (LJL), 2020 WL 6939677'.
|
| Nixon | Party in a legal case |
Referenced as a legal standard in the phrase 'on grounds that Nixon was not satisfied', alluding to the precedent set...
|
| Lugosch | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006)'.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Court | government agency |
The judicial body presiding over the case, giving instructions and receiving filings.
|
| Pyramid Co. of Onondaga | company |
Mentioned as a party in the cited case 'Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga'.
|
Timeline (3 events)
2021-03-26
Deadline for the law firm to file its objections to the proposed subpoena on the public docket.
the law firm
The law firm is ordered to meet and confer with defense counsel before filing objections to narrow issues and discuss redactions.
the law firm
defense counsel
Relationships (1)
the law firm
→
professional
→
defense counsel
The document describes an adversarial legal relationship where the two parties are required by the Court to 'meet and confer' on procedural matters like narrowing issues and redacting objections before formal briefing.
Key Quotes (1)
"[I]f the Court determines that the subpoena calls for personal or confidential information about a victim, it requires the requesting party have given notice to the victim before it permits the service of the subpoena. If the victim objects, the Court will then determine whether to modify or quash the subpoena, including on grounds that Nixon was not satisfied."Source
— The Court in United States v. Ray
(Quoted as legal precedent to explain the procedure for handling subpoenas that request a victim's personal or confidential information.)
DOJ-OGR-00002800.jpg
Quote #1
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document