DOJ-OGR-00019548.jpg

637 KB
View Original

Extraction Summary

1
People
5
Organizations
2
Locations
1
Events
3
Relationships
0
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Legal document
File Size: 637 KB
Summary

This is a court order issued by United States District Judge Alison J. Nathan on July 30, 2020. The order grants the Government's proposed protective order concerning discovery materials, finding the Defense's arguments against the restrictions to be unwarranted and unprecedented. The ruling resolves docket item number 29 in the case.

People (1)

Name Role Context
ALISON J. NATHAN United States District Judge
Signed the order as the presiding judge.

Organizations (5)

Name Type Context
Government Government Agency
A party in the legal case whose proposed protective order was adopted by the court.
Defense Legal Team
A party in the legal case whose arguments against restrictions on discovery materials were deemed unwarranted.
Court Judicial Body
The entity making the ruling on the protective order.
Department of Justice Government Agency
Mentioned as having policies that the Government is expected to follow.
U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York Government Agency
Mentioned as having policies that the Government is expected to follow.

Timeline (1 events)

2020-07-30
The Court adopted the Government's proposed protective order and resolved Dkt. No. 29.
New York, New York

Locations (2)

Location Context
The location where the document was dated and issued.
The jurisdiction of the U.S. Attorney's Office mentioned in the document.

Relationships (3)

Government Adversarial (Legal) Defense
The document describes a legal dispute between the Government and the Defense over a proposed protective order for discovery materials, with the Court ultimately siding with the Government.
Court Judicial Government
The Court, presided over by Judge Alison J. Nathan, ruled in favor of the Government by adopting its proposed protective order.
Court Judicial Defense
The Court ruled against the Defense's position, finding its request for fewer restrictions on discovery materials to be 'unwarranted' and its proposed restriction 'unprecedented'.

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document