DOJ-OGR-00002894.jpg
782 KB
Extraction Summary
6
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
5
Events
3
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
782 KB
Summary
This legal document, page 5 of a filing from April 5, 2021, presents the U.S. Government's argument for having legal standing to challenge subpoenas issued to third parties. Citing multiple court precedents (including Nachamie, Cole, and Carton), the Government asserts its legitimate interest in preventing witness harassment, controlling the timing of disclosures (such as Giglio material), and protecting its own communications. The document argues that allowing the Government to intervene is the only way to protect these interests, especially when a subpoena recipient may not be fully aware of the case's context.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Nachamie | Party in a cited case |
Cited in the case United States v. Nachamie, 91 F. Supp. 2d 552, 558-60 (S.D.N.Y. 2000).
|
| Giglio | Party in a cited case |
Referenced as 'Giglio or 3500 material', which pertains to disclosure requirements for impeachment evidence against g...
|
| Cole | Party in a cited case |
Cited in the case United States v. Cole, No. 19 Cr. 869 (ER), 2021 WL 912425.
|
| Bergstein | Party in a cited case |
Cited in the case Bergstein, 2017 WL 6887596.
|
| Carton | Party in a cited case |
Cited in the case United States v. Carton, 17 Cr. 680 (CM), 2018 WL 5818107.
|
| Ray | Party in a cited case |
Cited in the case Ray, 2020 WL 6939677, in a footnote regarding the Government's standing to challenge a subpoena.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| U.S. Government | government agency |
Referred to as 'the Government' throughout the document, arguing for its standing to challenge subpoenas to protect w...
|
| S.D.N.Y. | government agency |
Abbreviation for the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, where several of the cited c...
|
| Courts | government agency |
Mentioned in a footnote as having acknowledged the Government's standing to challenge certain subpoenas.
|
Timeline (5 events)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
The location (Southern District of New York) of the court that heard the cited cases.
|
Relationships (3)
The document argues that the Government has a legitimate interest in protecting cooperating and vulnerable witnesses from undue harassment via subpoenas.
The document states the Government has an interest in the timing of disclosures about victims and has standing to challenge subpoenas at their request.
The footnote explains that the Government has standing to challenge a subpoena on behalf of a third-party if authorized by that party.
Key Quotes (4)
"Preventing the undue harassment of a cooperating witness is a legitimate governmental interest giving rise to standing in this context."Source
— Court in case cited as 2017 WL 6887596
(Quoted to support the argument that the Government has standing to challenge subpoenas.)
DOJ-OGR-00002894.jpg
Quote #1
"publicly identified by the Government as trial witnesses, or as particularly vulnerable witnesses"Source
— Court in United States v. Nachamie
(Used to distinguish a past case where the Government failed to establish a legitimate interest because witnesses were not identified as such.)
DOJ-OGR-00002894.jpg
Quote #2
"controlling the timing of disclosures as to” witnesses who are expected to testify at trial"Source
— Unspecified court
(Used to argue that the Government has a cognizable interest in managing when information about its witnesses is released.)
DOJ-OGR-00002894.jpg
Quote #3
"Courts have acknowledged that the Government has standing to challenge Rule 17(c) subpoenas directed to a non-party when the non-party authorizes the Government to assert his or her right by request or by indicating its joinder in a motion to quash."Source
— Court in Ray, 2020 WL 6939677
(Quoted in a footnote to provide further support for the Government's standing to challenge subpoenas on behalf of third parties.)
DOJ-OGR-00002894.jpg
Quote #4
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document