DOJ-OGR-00019441.jpg
834 KB
Extraction Summary
6
People
3
Organizations
5
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
834 KB
Summary
This legal document is a court order denying a defendant's request to modify a previously established protective order. The defendant sought permission to use discovery materials, provided by the Government for a criminal case, in a separate civil proceeding. The court references the original protective order from July 30, 2020, which both parties had agreed to and which explicitly forbade such use, and ultimately denies the defendant's request.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Defendant | Defendant |
Party in a criminal case who filed a request to modify a protective order.
|
| Defense Counsel | Legal representative |
Mentioned as a user of discovery materials on behalf of the Defendant.
|
| Calderon | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Calderon'.
|
| Kerik | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Kerik'.
|
| Morales | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Morales'.
|
| Wecht | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Wecht'.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Government | government agency |
The opposing party to the Defendant, which produced discovery material in the criminal case.
|
| Court | judicial body |
The judicial body that entered the protective order and is ruling on the request for modification.
|
| Teligent, Inc. | company |
Mentioned in the case citation 'In re Teligent, Inc.' regarding the standard for modifying protective orders.
|
Timeline (3 events)
The Government began to produce discovery materials to the Defendant.
Locations (5)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in a footnote regarding the legal standard applied by courts within its jurisdiction.
|
|
|
District of Connecticut, mentioned in a case citation in a footnote.
|
|
|
Southern District of New York, mentioned in a case citation in a footnote.
|
|
|
Fifth Circuit, mentioned in a case citation in a footnote.
|
|
|
Third Circuit, mentioned in a case citation in a footnote.
|
Relationships (1)
The document describes them as opposing parties in a criminal case, with the Government providing discovery materials to the Defendant under a protective order, which the Defendant now seeks to modify against the Government's interest.
Key Quotes (3)
"The parties have met and conferred, resolving nearly all the issues relating to the proposed protective order."Source
— Dkt. No. 35
(Quoted from a court docket entry to show that the parties had previously agreed on the need for a protective order.)
DOJ-OGR-00019441.jpg
Quote #1
"[s]hall be used by the Defendant or her Defense Counsel solely for purposes of the defense of this criminal action, and not for any civil proceeding or any purpose other than the defense of this action."Source
— Defendant's Proposed Protective Order
(A provision from the Defendant's own proposed order, which was included in the final court order, restricting the use of discovery materials.)
DOJ-OGR-00019441.jpg
Quote #2
"strong presumption against the modification of a protective order."Source
— In re Teligent, Inc.
(A legal standard from a civil case, cited in a footnote, which courts have applied to criminal cases when considering modifications to protective orders.)
DOJ-OGR-00019441.jpg
Quote #3
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document