DOJ-OGR-00019329.jpg
833 KB
Extraction Summary
6
People
3
Organizations
5
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
833 KB
Summary
This legal document is a court order denying a defendant's request to modify a protective order. The court notes that on July 30, 2020, it entered a protective order, which both the defendant and the government had agreed to, stipulating that discovery materials could only be used for the defense of the current criminal case. The defendant's subsequent request to use these materials for other purposes is denied, with the court referencing the prior agreement and legal standards.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Defendant | Party in a criminal case |
Mentioned throughout as the party whose requests for modification of a protective order are being denied.
|
| Defense Counsel | Legal representative |
Mentioned as being restricted, along with the Defendant, in the use of discovery materials.
|
| Calderon | Defendant in a cited case |
Mentioned in the footnote case citation 'United States v. Calderon'.
|
| Kerik | Defendant in a cited case |
Mentioned in the footnote case citation 'United States v. Kerik'.
|
| Morales | Defendant in a cited case |
Mentioned in the footnote case citation 'United States v. Morales'.
|
| Wecht | Defendant in a cited case |
Mentioned in the footnote case citation 'United States v. Wecht'.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Government | government agency |
The opposing party in the criminal case that produced discovery material under a protective order.
|
| United States | government agency |
Mentioned as the plaintiff in several case citations in the footnote (e.g., 'United States v. Calderon').
|
| Teligent, Inc. | company |
Mentioned in a case citation in the footnote ('In re Teligent, Inc.').
|
Timeline (3 events)
The Government began to produce discovery materials to the Defendant shortly after the protective order was entered.
Locations (5)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in a footnote as the circuit where courts have applied civil standards for protective orders to criminal ca...
|
|
|
District of Connecticut, mentioned in a case citation in the footnote.
|
|
|
Southern District of New York, mentioned in a case citation in the footnote.
|
|
|
Mentioned in a case citation in the footnote.
|
|
|
Mentioned in a case citation in the footnote.
|
Relationships (1)
The document describes them as opposing parties in a criminal case, with the Government providing discovery materials to the Defendant under a protective order, and the Defendant seeking to modify that order against the Government's implied interest.
Key Quotes (3)
"The parties have met and conferred, resolving nearly all the issues relating to the proposed protective order."Source
— Parties to the case (via Dkt. No. 35)
(Quoted from a court docket entry (Dkt. No. 35 at 1) to show that the parties had previously agreed that a protective order was warranted.)
DOJ-OGR-00019329.jpg
Quote #1
"[s]hall be used by the Defendant or her Defense Counsel solely for purposes of the defense of this criminal action, and not for any civil proceeding or any purpose other than the defense of this action."Source
— Defendant (in Proposed Protective Order)
(A provision from the Defendant's own Proposed Protective Order (Dkt. No. 29, Ex. A ¶ 1(a)) which was later included in the Court's final protective order.)
DOJ-OGR-00019329.jpg
Quote #2
"strong presumption against the modification of a protective order."Source
— In re Teligent, Inc. case
(Quoted from a 2nd Circuit case in a footnote to explain the legal standard in the civil context for modifying protective orders.)
DOJ-OGR-00019329.jpg
Quote #3
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document