DOJ-OGR-00003042.jpg
894 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
4
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
894 KB
Summary
This document is a legal filing, likely from the Government, arguing against a motion by a defendant named Maxwell to suppress evidence. The Government contends that Maxwell has no legal basis for suppression under the 'Martindell' precedent and that the court should decline to review a prior, coequal judge's (Chief Judge McMahon) decision to modify a protective order. The filing cites several Second Circuit cases to support its position that suppression is not the proper remedy and that pre-existing documents are not covered by the protective order's presumptions.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Maxwell | Defendant/Movant |
Mentioned throughout as the individual offering a motion for suppression of evidence and asking the court to review a...
|
| McMahon | Chief Judge |
Mentioned as the judge whose decision to modify a protective order is being challenged by Maxwell.
|
| Martindell |
Referenced as a legal precedent or case name (the 'Martindell factors' and 'Martindell presumption').
|
|
| Palmieri |
Referenced as a legal case name in a citation (Palmieri, 779 F.2d at 862).
|
|
| Davis |
Referenced as a legal case name in a citation (Davis, 702 F.2d at 422).
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Government | government agency |
Mentioned as the party opposing Maxwell's motion, which sought court approval to enforce a subpoena.
|
| Second Circuit | court |
Mentioned as the appellate court where Maxwell could have sought review of Chief Judge McMahon's order, and as the so...
|
| TheStreet.com | company |
Mentioned in a case citation (TheStreet.com, 273 F.3d at 234-235).
|
Timeline (4 events)
2020-08-12
Chief Judge McMahon's order modifying the civil protective order, along with the Government's application and related materials, were produced to the defense.
Government
Maxwell's defense
The Government sought court approval to enforce a subpoena.
Relationships (2)
Maxwell filed a motion for suppression against evidence obtained by the Government, and the Government is arguing against this motion.
Key Quotes (4)
"on whether the protective order was improvidently granted or whether the government had made a showing of exceptional circumstances or a compelling need"Source
— In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Apr. 19, 1991, 945 F.2d at 1224
(Quoted from a legal case to describe the findings for which the case was remanded.)
DOJ-OGR-00003042.jpg
Quote #1
"express finding"Source
— Palmieri, 779 F.2d at 862
(Quoted from a legal case describing what a district court failed to make regarding a protective order modification.)
DOJ-OGR-00003042.jpg
Quote #2
"remand[ing] for further proceedings consistent with this opinion"Source
— Palmieri, 779 F.2d at 862
(Quoted from a legal case describing the outcome of an appeal.)
DOJ-OGR-00003042.jpg
Quote #3
"sound discretion"Source
— In re “Agent Orange” Prod. Liab. Litig., 821 F.2d at 147
(Quoted from a legal case to describe the basis on which Chief Judge McMahon's decision was made.)
DOJ-OGR-00003042.jpg
Quote #4
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document