HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016503.jpg
1.82 MB
Extraction Summary
2
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal brief / memorandum of law
File Size:
1.82 MB
Summary
This document is page 16 of a legal filing submitted by 'the Post' (likely a media organization) arguing against the wholesale sealing of appellate briefs in a case involving Jeffrey Epstein. Citing New York Civil Rights Law and case precedents, the Post argues that the District Attorney should only be permitted to redact the names of victims to protect their identities, rather than keeping the entire record sealed. The document includes a footnote discussing the Post's inability to notify victims directly due to lack of knowledge of their identities.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Epstein | Subject of Case/Perpetrator |
Mentioned in context of 'Epstein's victims' whose identities need protection.
|
| District Attorney | Prosecutor/Respondent |
The party being requested to redact specific names rather than seal entire documents.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Post |
Media organization (likely New York Post) acting as intervenor requesting access to documents.
|
|
| District Attorney's Office |
Government office responsible for the case and potential redactions.
|
|
| Maxim, Inc. |
Cited in case law precedent (Maxim, Inc., 145 A.D.3d at 518).
|
|
| House Oversight Committee |
Implied by the Bates stamp 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT'.
|
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Implied by citations to N.Y.S.2d and N.Y. Civ. Rights Law.
|
Relationships (1)
The Post requests an order directing the District Attorney to redact only names rather than seal documents.
Key Quotes (4)
"Because the Post cannot review any part of the briefs, it is impossible for the Post to know whether the information it seeks is in the procedural history section of the People’s brief or in other parts of the briefing filed in the Appeal."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016503.jpg
Quote #1
"administrative convenience is not a compelling reason to justify sealing."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016503.jpg
Quote #2
"Since the only information protected by the statute is identity of Epstein’s victims, the Post respectfully requests an order directing the District Attorney to redact only the names of Epstein’s victims."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016503.jpg
Quote #3
"the Post is unable to notify any of the victims on its own because it has no knowledge of which victims (if any) may be identified in the requested documents."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016503.jpg
Quote #4
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document