DOJ-OGR-00015157.jpg
692 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
692 KB
Summary
This legal document, a court filing from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, discusses factors weighing against unsealing grand jury records, including testimony from a mayoral candidate and information related to the Epstein-Maxwell investigation. It argues that the Government's broad claims of public interest are not sufficiently linked to the materials at issue, and that a blanket request for disclosure, rather than tailored release, is a factor against unsealing. The document emphasizes the significance of the specificity of information sought for disclosure.
People (4)
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Government | government agency |
the Government’s stated rationale for its motion; the Government makes broad proclamations; the Government has failed...
|
| DOJ-OGR | government agency |
DOJ-OGR-00015157 (document identifier prefix)
|
Key Quotes (3)
"grounds that justify disclosure under the existing exceptions listed in Rule 6(e)."Source
DOJ-OGR-00015157.jpg
Quote #1
"Many questions remain unanswered, and the public’s interest remains."Source
DOJ-OGR-00015157.jpg
Quote #2
"The specificity of the data sought is significant in at least two ways."Source
DOJ-OGR-00015157.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,016 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 809 Filed 08/11/25 Page 25 of 31
testimony of mayoral candidate exposing as false his representation to the public that he had
answered all questions before grand jury). And the Government’s stated rationale for its motion
bears no resemblance to any “grounds that justify disclosure under the existing exceptions listed
in Rule 6(e).” In re Craig, 131 F.3d at 106.
answered all questions before grand jury). And the Government’s stated rationale for its motion
bears no resemblance to any “grounds that justify disclosure under the existing exceptions listed
in Rule 6(e).” In re Craig, 131 F.3d at 106.
In arguing that this factor favors disclosure, the Government makes broad proclamations
about the public’s interest in learning more about the Epstein-Maxwell investigation. See Gov’t
Mem. at 5 (“Many questions remain unanswered, and the public’s interest remains.” (quoting In
re AHA, 49 F. Supp. 2d at 294)). That interest is undeniable. But the Government has failed to
connect it to the materials at issue, which would not answer any of the public’s questions.
about the public’s interest in learning more about the Epstein-Maxwell investigation. See Gov’t
Mem. at 5 (“Many questions remain unanswered, and the public’s interest remains.” (quoting In
re AHA, 49 F. Supp. 2d at 294)). That interest is undeniable. But the Government has failed to
connect it to the materials at issue, which would not answer any of the public’s questions.
This factor decisively weighs against unsealing.
4. What Specific Information Is Being Sought for Disclosure
“The specificity of the data sought is significant in at least two ways.” In re Craig, 131
F.3d at 106.
F.3d at 106.
First, there are obvious differences between releasing one witness’[s] testimony,
the full transcript, or merely the minutes of the proceeding. And, second, it is highly
relevant whether the disclosure is general or limited to a specified number of people
under special circumstances.
the full transcript, or merely the minutes of the proceeding. And, second, it is highly
relevant whether the disclosure is general or limited to a specified number of people
under special circumstances.
Id. at 106–107 (citation omitted).
Here, the Government does not seek tailored disclosure of discrete items within a grand
jury record. Nor does it seek leave to disseminate grand jury materials to a specified audience.
It seeks disclosure to the public at large of the entire proceedings before the Maxwell grand jury,
subject only to redactions aimed at protecting privacy.
jury record. Nor does it seek leave to disseminate grand jury materials to a specified audience.
It seeks disclosure to the public at large of the entire proceedings before the Maxwell grand jury,
subject only to redactions aimed at protecting privacy.
This factor weighs against unsealing. The Government has identified no information of
consequence within the grand jury record that is not already public. And, under In re Craig, the
blanket quality of the motion to unseal weighs against unsealing.
consequence within the grand jury record that is not already public. And, under In re Craig, the
blanket quality of the motion to unseal weighs against unsealing.
25
DOJ-OGR-00015157
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document