File not found.
DOJ-OGR-00004897.jpg
1.46 MB
Extraction Summary
3
People
5
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
1.46 MB
Summary
This document is a court transcript from a sealed case, filed on July 2, 2021. In the transcript, the judge questions a government representative, Mr. Rossmiller, about a procedural issue: why the government has filed a motion for relief from a protective order on behalf of a third party, rather than the third party's own law firm, Boies Schiller, filing it. The judge expresses skepticism about this arrangement and asserts their judicial authority, referencing the Martindell case as applicable precedent.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| MR. ROSSMILLER | Attorney |
Speaking on behalf of the government, responding to questions from the court.
|
| THE COURT | Judge |
The speaker questioning Mr. Rossmiller about a procedural matter involving a third party.
|
| Martindell |
Mentioned by the court, likely in reference to a legal case or precedent.
|
Organizations (5)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Boies Schiller | law firm |
Identified as the law firm for a third party that the court believes should have filed its own motion for relief from...
|
| government | government agency |
Mentioned as the party that has moved for relief on behalf of a third party.
|
| Second Circuit | government agency |
Mentioned by the court at the end of the page, likely referring to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second ...
|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
Listed at the bottom of the page, likely the court reporting service that transcribed the proceeding.
|
| DOJ-OGR | government agency |
Appears in the footer as part of a document identifier (DOJ-OGR-00004897), likely indicating the Department of Justice.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2021-07-02
A procedural discussion during a court hearing where the judge questions the government's motion for relief from a protective order on behalf of a third party.
Court of the Southern District (implied)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in the footer (SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.), likely referring to the United States District Court for...
|
Relationships (2)
The document is a transcript of a formal court proceeding where a judge (THE COURT) is questioning an attorney (MR. ROSSMILLER).
Mr. Rossmiller, representing the government, is acting on behalf of a client of the law firm Boies Schiller, but states he cannot speak to why Boies Schiller did not file the motion themselves.
Key Quotes (2)
"Why doesn't Boies Schiller make an application for permission to be relieved from the protective order?"Source
— THE COURT
(The judge questioning why the third party's own capable law firm did not file the motion that the government is now bringing on their behalf.)
DOJ-OGR-00004897.jpg
Quote #1
"Because I understand that you don't think that Martindell is applicable here, but I do, and now I'm the judge."Source
— THE COURT
(The judge asserting their authority and interpretation of a legal precedent (Martindell) in disagreement with the position taken by Mr. Rossmiller's side.)
DOJ-OGR-00004897.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,473 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 311-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 4 of 23
3
Xj3q1gra
SEALED
Xj3q1gra
SEALED
1 to be re-legended and it's going to get a miscellaneous docket
2 number.
3 MR. ROSSMILLER: Understood, your Honor. I apologize
4 for that oversight.
5 THE COURT: It's okay.
6 All right. Now my second question, which is a
7 procedural question, the government here has moved for relief
8 on behalf of a third party to whom a grand jury subpoena has
9 issued, and that third party would like to be relieved of its
10 obligations under the protective order, and that third party is
11 a law firm full of brilliant lawyers that are fully capable of
12 making a motion bringing a proceeding to be relieved from the
13 provisions of the protective order. Why are you doing this for
14 them?
15 Why doesn't Boies Schiller make an application for
16 permission to be relieved from the protective order? Because
17 it thought it was going to violate some duty that it had to its
18 client in the underlying actions? Did they give you a reason
19 why they weren't willing to come to court and --
20 MR. ROSSMILLER: No, your Honor. So I can't speak to
21 why Boies Schiller in particular didn't make their own
22 application.
23 THE COURT: Because I understand that you don't think
24 that Martindell is applicable here, but I do, and now I'm the
25 judge. I wish I weren't. You know that the Second Circuit has
2 number.
3 MR. ROSSMILLER: Understood, your Honor. I apologize
4 for that oversight.
5 THE COURT: It's okay.
6 All right. Now my second question, which is a
7 procedural question, the government here has moved for relief
8 on behalf of a third party to whom a grand jury subpoena has
9 issued, and that third party would like to be relieved of its
10 obligations under the protective order, and that third party is
11 a law firm full of brilliant lawyers that are fully capable of
12 making a motion bringing a proceeding to be relieved from the
13 provisions of the protective order. Why are you doing this for
14 them?
15 Why doesn't Boies Schiller make an application for
16 permission to be relieved from the protective order? Because
17 it thought it was going to violate some duty that it had to its
18 client in the underlying actions? Did they give you a reason
19 why they weren't willing to come to court and --
20 MR. ROSSMILLER: No, your Honor. So I can't speak to
21 why Boies Schiller in particular didn't make their own
22 application.
23 THE COURT: Because I understand that you don't think
24 that Martindell is applicable here, but I do, and now I'm the
25 judge. I wish I weren't. You know that the Second Circuit has
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
SDNY_GM_00000855
(212) 805-0300
SDNY_GM_00000855
DOJ-OGR-00004897
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document