EFTA00024166.pdf
165 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court order
File Size:
165 KB
Summary
This is a court order issued by Judge Alison J. Nathan on March 24, 2021, in the case of USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The order addresses a defense application to subpoena a law firm representing alleged victims for personal or confidential information. The court establishes a schedule for the law firm to formally file its objections (treated as a motion to quash) by March 26, 2021, and outlines procedures for redactions and subsequent responses.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant |
Subject of the criminal case; submitted application for subpoena.
|
| Alison J. Nathan | District Judge |
Judge presiding over the case and issuing the order.
|
| Unnamed Victims | Alleged Victims |
Individuals whose personal or confidential information is sought by the defense subpoena.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States District Court Southern District of New York |
Venue of the legal proceedings.
|
|
| Unnamed Law Firm |
Represents alleged victims; received proposed subpoena; ordered to file objections.
|
|
| United States of America |
Prosecuting party in the case.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2021-03-26
Deadline for the law firm to file objections to the subpoena on the public docket.
Public Docket
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location of the court and where the order was signed.
|
Relationships (1)
The proposed subpoena was directed at a law firm that represents alleged victims of the Defendant.
Key Quotes (4)
"The proposed subpoena was directed at a law firm that represents alleged victims of the Defendant."Source
EFTA00024166.pdf
Quote #1
"Those objections are functionally the equivalent of a motion to quash, even though the subpoena has not yet issued."Source
EFTA00024166.pdf
Quote #2
"Rule 17(c)(3) provides that '[a]fter [an indictment] is filed, a subpoena requiring the production of personal or confidential information about a victim may be served on a third party only by court order,'"Source
EFTA00024166.pdf
Quote #3
"Any redactions must be justified consistent with Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga"Source
EFTA00024166.pdf
Quote #4
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document