DOJ-OGR-00008241.jpg
732 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
3
Organizations
2
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court filing (legal brief/memorandum)
File Size:
732 KB
Summary
This page from a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) argues that attorney-client privilege protects communications between a witness named 'Jane' and her attorney 'Glassman.' It asserts that Glassman could not waive this privilege as it belongs to Jane, and distinguishes the situation from the 'Bergonzi' case precedent regarding documents prepared for the Government.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Jane | Witness/Client |
The holder of attorney-client privilege regarding communications about assisting the Government.
|
| Glassman | Attorney |
Jane's attorney; the document argues his comments did not waive Jane's privilege.
|
| The Defendant | Defendant |
Referenced in footnote 2 as relying on the Bergonzi case (Implied to be Ghislaine Maxwell based on Case ID).
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| General Motors LLC |
Cited in case law (In re General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litig.).
|
|
| Government |
The prosecution/Department of Justice.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (referenced in Bates stamp).
|
Timeline (1 events)
Key Quotes (3)
"In this case, it would have been improper for the Government to ask Jane how Glassman had advised her regarding her decision whether to assist the Government."Source
DOJ-OGR-00008241.jpg
Quote #1
"The reason is that Jane, not Glassman, was holder of the privilege, and it was not Glassman’s to waive."Source
DOJ-OGR-00008241.jpg
Quote #2
"There is no reason to believe that Glassman’s legal advice to Jane was made with the intent to turn over that legal advice to the Government."Source
DOJ-OGR-00008241.jpg
Quote #3
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document