DOJ-OGR-00019755.jpg
1.36 MB
Extraction Summary
5
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
3
Events
3
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court docket / legal filing record
File Size:
1.36 MB
Summary
This document is a court docket page from the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 21-58). It details legal maneuvers regarding discovery disclosure and protective orders between July and August 2020, including a ruling by Judge Alison J. Nathan denying a defense request deemed 'unprecedented' and 'too broad' regarding witness privacy. The docket lists filings by defense attorneys Christian Everdell and Jeffrey Pagliuca, and opposition by Assistant US Attorney Alex Rossmiller.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant |
Subject of the court case and filings; filed motions regarding discovery disclosure.
|
| Alison J. Nathan | Judge |
District Judge signing orders and overseeing the case.
|
| Christian R. Everdell | Defense Attorney |
Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell; filed letter motions and affidavits regarding discovery.
|
| Alex Rossmiller | Assistant US Attorney (Government) |
Filed letter response in opposition to Maxwell's motion on behalf of the USA.
|
| Jeffrey S. Pagliuca | Defense Attorney |
Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell; filed a motion requesting permission to submit a letter in excess of page limits.
|
Organizations (4)
Timeline (3 events)
2020-07-30
Judge Nathan signed an order regarding a protective order and privacy interests.
Court
Judge Alison J. Nathan
2020-08-11
Memo Endorsement ordering Government to respond to Defendant's letter motion.
Court
Judge Alison J. Nathan
2020-08-17
Defendant filed a letter motion seeking modification of the Court's Protective Order.
Court
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
Relationships (3)
Filings by Everdell on behalf of Maxwell
Filings by Pagliuca on behalf of Maxwell
Rossmiller filed Letter Response in Opposition by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell
Key Quotes (4)
"The exception the Defense seeks is too broad and risks undermining the protections of the privacy of witnesses and alleged victims that is required by law."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019755.jpg
Quote #1
"The request appears unprecedented despite the fact that there have been many high-profile criminal matters that had related civil litigation."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019755.jpg
Quote #2
"Nothing in the Defense's papers explains how its unprecedented proposed restriction is somehow necessary to ensure a fair trial."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019755.jpg
Quote #3
"For the foregoing reasons, the Court adopts the Government's proposed protective order, which will be entered on the docket."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019755.jpg
Quote #4
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document