DOJ-OGR-00001703.jpg
754 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court order / legal filing
File Size:
754 KB
Summary
This document is page 2 of a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) dated July 30, 2020. The Court rules in favor of the Government regarding a protective order, restricting Ghislaine Maxwell and her defense team from publicly disclosing the identities of alleged victims and witnesses, even those who may have previously made public statements about Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein. The judge argues that participating in a criminal investigation warrants privacy protection distinct from previous voluntary public statements.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant |
Subject of the protective order; restricted from publicly referencing alleged victims.
|
| Jeffrey Epstein | Associate/Deceased |
Mentioned in relation to public statements made by individuals relating to him or Maxwell.
|
| Alison J. Nathan | Judge |
Implied by case number suffix 'AJN' and references to 'the Court'.
|
| Defense Counsel | Legal Team |
Representing Maxwell; arguing for broader ability to reference individuals.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Court |
Southern District of New York (SDNY) issuing the ruling.
|
|
| The Government |
Argued for good cause to restrict Maxwell's ability to reference victims.
|
|
| Department of Justice |
Indicated by footer 'DOJ-OGR'.
|
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Southern District of New York, cited in legal precedent.
|
Relationships (1)
Document discusses public statements made 'relating to' Ms. Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein jointly.
Key Quotes (4)
"the Court finds that the Government has met its burden of showing good cause with regard to restricting the ability of Ms. Maxwell to publicly reference alleged victims"Source
DOJ-OGR-00001703.jpg
Quote #1
"Deciding to participate in or contribute to a criminal investigation or prosecution is a far different matter than simply making a public statement “relating to” Ms. Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein"Source
DOJ-OGR-00001703.jpg
Quote #2
"These individuals still maintain a significant privacy interest that must be safeguarded."Source
DOJ-OGR-00001703.jpg
Quote #3
"prohibit[] Ms. Maxwell, defense counsel, and others on the defense team from disclosing or disseminating the identity of any alleged victim or potential witness referenced in the discovery materials"Source
DOJ-OGR-00001703.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,261 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 37 Filed 07/30/20 Page 2 of 3
First, the Court finds that the Government has met its burden of showing good cause with
regard to restricting the ability of Ms. Maxwell to publicly reference alleged victims and
witnesses other than those who have publicly identified themselves in this litigation. As a
general matter, it is undisputed that there is a strong and specific interest in protecting the
privacy of alleged victims and witnesses in this case that supports restricting the disclosure of
their identities. Dkt. No. 29 at 3 (acknowledging that as a baseline the protective order should
“prohibit[] Ms. Maxwell, defense counsel, and others on the defense team from disclosing or
disseminating the identity of any alleged victim or potential witness referenced in the discovery
materials”); see also United States v. Corley, No. 13-cr-48, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 194426, at
*11 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2016). The Defense argues this interest is significantly diminished for
individuals who have spoken on the public record about Ms. Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein, because
they have voluntarily chosen to identify themselves. But not all accusations or public statements
are equal. Deciding to participate in or contribute to a criminal investigation or prosecution is a
far different matter than simply making a public statement “relating to” Ms. Maxwell or Jeffrey
Epstein, particularly since such a statement might have occurred decades ago and have no
relevance to the charges in this case. These individuals still maintain a significant privacy
interest that must be safeguarded. 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. In contrast, the Government’s proffered language would allow Ms. Maxwell to publicly
reference individuals who have spoken by name on the record in this case. It also allows the
Defense to “referenc[e] the identities of individuals they believe may be relevant . . . to Potential
Defense Witnesses and their counsel during the course of the investigation and preparation of the
defense case at trial.” Dkt. No. 33-1, ¶ 5. This proposal adequately balances the interests at
regard to restricting the ability of Ms. Maxwell to publicly reference alleged victims and
witnesses other than those who have publicly identified themselves in this litigation. As a
general matter, it is undisputed that there is a strong and specific interest in protecting the
privacy of alleged victims and witnesses in this case that supports restricting the disclosure of
their identities. Dkt. No. 29 at 3 (acknowledging that as a baseline the protective order should
“prohibit[] Ms. Maxwell, defense counsel, and others on the defense team from disclosing or
disseminating the identity of any alleged victim or potential witness referenced in the discovery
materials”); see also United States v. Corley, No. 13-cr-48, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 194426, at
*11 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2016). The Defense argues this interest is significantly diminished for
individuals who have spoken on the public record about Ms. Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein, because
they have voluntarily chosen to identify themselves. But not all accusations or public statements
are equal. Deciding to participate in or contribute to a criminal investigation or prosecution is a
far different matter than simply making a public statement “relating to” Ms. Maxwell or Jeffrey
Epstein, particularly since such a statement might have occurred decades ago and have no
relevance to the charges in this case. These individuals still maintain a significant privacy
interest that must be safeguarded. 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. In contrast, the Government’s proffered language would allow Ms. Maxwell to publicly
reference individuals who have spoken by name on the record in this case. It also allows the
Defense to “referenc[e] the identities of individuals they believe may be relevant . . . to Potential
Defense Witnesses and their counsel during the course of the investigation and preparation of the
defense case at trial.” Dkt. No. 33-1, ¶ 5. This proposal adequately balances the interests at
2
DOJ-OGR-00001703
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document