DOJ-OGR-00003064.jpg
664 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
4
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
6
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
664 KB
Summary
This legal document is a filing by the Government arguing against the defendant's (Maxwell's) claims. The Government refutes the defendant's assertion that she was protected by a civil protective order when giving deposition testimony, citing case law (e.g., Andover Data Servs., Davis) to establish that such orders do not provide the same protections as the Fifth Amendment. The document also dismisses the defendant's claim that the Government's conduct violated her due process rights as "meritless."
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Martindell |
Mentioned as having allegedly authorized the defendant to give deposition testimony under a protective order.
|
|
| Maxwell | Defendant |
Mentioned in the heading "The Government Did Not Violate Maxwell’s Due Process Rights", indicating she is the defenda...
|
| Davis |
Party in a cited legal case (Davis, 702 F.2d at 421-22).
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Second Circuit | government agency |
Cited as a court that has recognized legal precedent regarding protective orders.
|
| 4th Cir. | government agency |
The Fourth Circuit court, mentioned in a case citation (In re Grand Jury Subpoena).
|
| Government | government agency |
A party in the legal case, accused by the defendant of violating due process rights.
|
| Andover Data Servs. | company |
A party in a cited legal case (Andover Data Servs., 876 F.2d at 1083).
|
Timeline (2 events)
Deposition testimony given by the defendant under a protective order.
defendant (Maxwell)
Martindell
A grand jury subpoenaed civil evidence for production.
Relationships (2)
The document outlines a legal dispute where Maxwell (the defendant) is making claims against the Government, which the Government is refuting.
The defendant claims Martindell "authorized her to give deposition testimony," suggesting an advisory or representative role.
Key Quotes (6)
"authorized her to give deposition testimony under the shield of the Protective Order without worrying whether the government could ‘insinuate itself’ into the case and use her own words against her."Source
— Martindell (as argued by the defendant)
(The defendant's argument about what Martindell told her regarding her deposition.)
DOJ-OGR-00003064.jpg
Quote #1
"[i]t is well-settled here and elsewhere . . . that a Rule 26(c) protective order may be overturned or modified based on a finding of improvidence, extraordinary circumstances or compelling need[,]"Source
— Second Circuit
(A legal principle recognized by the Second Circuit regarding the limitations of protective orders.)
DOJ-OGR-00003064.jpg
Quote #2
"as a practical matter it is clear that the protections afforded by a Rule 26(c) order are not as extensive as those afforded by the fifth amendment, or by a statutory grant of use immunity, and that a protective order therefore cannot be used to abridge a witness’ fifth amendment rights."Source
— Andover Data Servs. case
(A quote from a legal case explaining that protective orders do not provide the same level of protection as the Fifth Amendment.)
DOJ-OGR-00003064.jpg
Quote #3
"Uncertainty about the ultimate outcome of a protective order will mean that no deponent may always effectively rely on a protective order to secure his right against self-incrimination."Source
— In re Grand Jury Subpoena case
(A quote from a legal case explaining the unreliability of protective orders for securing Fifth Amendment rights.)
DOJ-OGR-00003064.jpg
Quote #4
"Absent applicable grounds for exception, such as a previously asserted Fifth Amendment privilege, no shield protects the civil evidence [ ] from compellable production before the grand jury which subpoenaed it"Source
— Davis case
(A quote from a legal case stating that civil evidence is not shielded from a grand jury subpoena without a valid exception.)
DOJ-OGR-00003064.jpg
Quote #5
"cannot be squared with elemental due process."Source
— The defendant
(The defendant's claim regarding the Government's conduct.)
DOJ-OGR-00003064.jpg
Quote #6
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,909 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 130 of 239
The defendant argues that Martindell “authorized her to give deposition testimony under the shield of the Protective Order without worrying whether the government could ‘insinuate itself’ into the case and use her own words against her.” (Def. Mot. 11 at 15-16). That is not the law, and the defendant cannot use the protective order to cloak her testimony. The Second Circuit has recognized that because “[i]t is well-settled here and elsewhere . . . that a Rule 26(c) protective order may be overturned or modified based on a finding of improvidence, extraordinary circumstances or compelling need[,]” “as a practical matter it is clear that the protections afforded by a Rule 26(c) order are not as extensive as those afforded by the fifth amendment, or by a statutory grant of use immunity, and that a protective order therefore cannot be used to abridge a witness’ fifth amendment rights.” Andover Data Servs., 876 F.2d at 1083 (emphasis in original); see id. at 1084 (“‘Uncertainty about the ultimate outcome of a protective order will mean that no deponent may always effectively rely on a protective order to secure his right against self-incrimination.’”) (quoting In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 836 F.2d 1468, 1478 (4th Cir. 1988))); Davis, 702 F.2d at 421-22 (“Absent applicable grounds for exception, such as a previously asserted Fifth Amendment privilege, no shield protects the civil evidence [ ] from compellable production before the grand jury which subpoenaed it”).
4. The Government Did Not Violate Maxwell’s Due Process Rights
The defendant also claims that the Government’s conduct “cannot be squared with elemental due process.” (Def. Mot. 3 at 14 (citing U.S. Const. amend. V)). This claim is meritless. Because there was no Government misconduct—let alone the type of outrageous Government
103
DOJ-OGR-00003064
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document