EFTA00009890.pdf
267 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal correspondence / email thread
File Size:
267 KB
Summary
This document is an email thread between defense and government counsel in the US v Maxwell case, dated April 19-20, 2021. The correspondence concerns scheduling a conferral call and negotiating specific redactions for several 'Reply Briefs' and exhibits to be filed on the public docket. Key issues include protecting the identities of accusers, third parties, and AUSAs, as well as handling confidential exhibits under seal.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Laura | Counsel (Defense) |
Author of the initial email initiating the conferral regarding pretrial disclosures and redactions.
|
| Judge Nathan | Judge |
Issued an order on Friday regarding docketing the April 1, 2021 joint letter.
|
| AUSAs | Government Officials |
Referenced in the context of redactions; defense redacted names as a courtesy.
|
| Accusers | Victims/Witnesses |
Referenced in the context of redactions to protect privacy interests.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| US Government |
Prosecution team in US v Maxwell, discussing redactions and filings.
|
|
| Defense Team |
Counsel for Ghislaine Maxwell, discussing redactions and filings.
|
|
| Court |
SDNY, issuing orders and managing the docket.
|
Timeline (2 events)
2021-04-16
2021-04-20
Scheduled call between counsel to confer on pretrial disclosures and redactions.
Teleconference
Defense Counsel
Government Counsel
Relationships (1)
Defense Counsel
→
Opposing Counsel
→
Government Counsel
Exchange of emails negotiating redactions and scheduling conferrals in US v Maxwell.
Key Quotes (3)
"The Government agrees with the defense’s proposed redactions to Reply Brief 3, which are narrowly tailored to cover information implicating the personal privacy interests of victims and third parties."Source
EFTA00009890.pdf
Quote #1
"As to the AUSAs, we made those redactions as a courtesy because we did not think it was necessary or appropriate to publicly name the AUSAs."Source
EFTA00009890.pdf
Quote #2
"The defense does not believe the redaction on p.4 is necessary. Given the agreement between the parties, we will file the brief unredacted."Source
EFTA00009890.pdf
Quote #3
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document