DOJ-OGR-00003025.jpg
622 KB
Extraction Summary
8
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
6
Events
3
Relationships
0
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
622 KB
Summary
This legal document, filed on April 16, 2021, recounts events from 2016 concerning the civil litigation between Giuffre and Maxwell. It details the process of establishing a protective order for discovery materials, initiated by Maxwell's motion on March 2, 2016, contested by Giuffre's counsel (Boies Schiller), and ultimately entered by Judge Robert W. Sweet on March 18, 2016. The document also asserts that the USAO-SDNY did not open an investigation into Epstein or Maxwell in 2016 and that the government has no record of email communication between AUSA-1 and Boies Schiller attorneys after May 3, 2016.
People (8)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| AUSA-1 | Assistant United States Attorney |
Mentioned as not recalling details of a conversation and having no identified email communication with Boies Schiller...
|
| Pottinger | attorney |
Mentioned as an attorney at Boies Schiller with whom AUSA-1 did not have identified email communication after May 3, ...
|
| Edwards | attorney |
Mentioned as an attorney at Boies Schiller with whom AUSA-1 did not have identified email communication after May 3, ...
|
| Skinner | attorney |
Mentioned as an attorney at Boies Schiller with whom AUSA-1 did not have identified email communication after May 3, ...
|
| Epstein |
Mentioned in the context that the USAO-SDNY did not open an investigation into him in 2016.
|
|
| Maxwell | Defendant |
Subject of depositions in April and July 2016; moved for a protective order in the Giuffre v. Maxwell civil litigation.
|
| Robert W. Sweet | United States District Judge |
Mentioned as the judge overseeing the Giuffre v. Maxwell civil litigation who entered a protective order on March 18,...
|
| Giuffre | Plaintiff |
Party in the Giuffre v. Maxwell civil litigation. Represented by Boies Schiller, she opposed the form of a protective...
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Government | government agency |
Stated as not being aware of records documenting a call and not having identified records of email communication from...
|
| Boies Schiller | company |
Law firm representing Giuffre in the civil litigation against Maxwell. They opposed the form of Maxwell's proposed pr...
|
| USAO-SDNY | government agency |
The United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, which reportedly did not open an investiga...
|
Timeline (6 events)
2016-03-04
Boies Schiller, on behalf of Giuffre, represented that they did not oppose a protective order but opposed the specific form proposed by Maxwell.
2016-03-18
Judge Sweet entered a protective order governing discovery and dissemination of confidential information in the Giuffre v. Maxwell case.
Relationships (3)
Giuffre was the plaintiff and Maxwell the defendant in the 'Giuffre v. Maxwell civil litigation'.
The document states that 'Boies Schiller represented that Giuffre did not oppose the entry of a protective order'.
Judge Sweet was 'overseeing the Giuffre v. Maxwell civil litigation' and 'entered a protective order'.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document