DOJ-OGR-00004794.jpg
626 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
0
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
626 KB
Summary
This legal document, filed on June 25, 2021, argues that a person named Maxwell has no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding documents produced during a prior civil litigation. It asserts that because a protective order allowed these documents to be widely shared among various parties (attorneys, witnesses, court staff), they were not truly private. The document cites Supreme Court and Second Circuit precedents, such as Carpenter and Andover, to support the position that such information can be used by the Government in a subsequent criminal prosecution.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Maxwell | Litigant |
Subject of the legal argument, who is claimed to have no reasonable expectation of privacy in documents from a civil ...
|
| Carpenter | Party in a legal case |
Referenced as part of a legal precedent (See Carpenter, 138 S. Ct. at 2219–20) concerning privacy expectations.
|
| Andover | Party in a legal case |
Referenced as part of a legal precedent (See Andover, 876 F.2d at 1083) concerning civil protective orders.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Supreme Court | Judiciary |
Cited for its holding on reasonable expectation of privacy in geographical information from cell phones.
|
| Second Circuit | Judiciary |
Cited for its precedent regarding civil protective orders and their lack of guarantee against use in subsequent crimi...
|
| Government | Government agency |
Mentioned as the entity with which Maxwell's information was shared, to her objection.
|
Timeline (2 events)
A civil litigation in which Maxwell produced documents that were shared with various parties under a protective order.
Maxwell
The parties to the case
Attorneys involved in the case
People employed by or associated with attorneys involved in the case
Expert witnesses
Fact witnesses
Potential witnesses
Court personnel and stenographers
Relationships (1)
The document describes Maxwell objecting to the Government having access to information she shared in a prior civil litigation, indicating a legal conflict.
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,786 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 307 Filed 06/25/21 Page 10 of 21
Supreme Court has held that people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in geographical
information obtained from their cell phones, because that information provides a comprehensive
account of a person’s movements akin to invasive physical surveillance. See Carpenter, 138 S.
Ct. at 2219–20.
information obtained from their cell phones, because that information provides a comprehensive
account of a person’s movements akin to invasive physical surveillance. See Carpenter, 138 S.
Ct. at 2219–20.
Under this standard, Maxwell had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the documents
produced during the civil litigation. Those documents may not have been public, but they were
hardly private. The protective order allowed them to be shared freely with each of the following
categories of people:
produced during the civil litigation. Those documents may not have been public, but they were
hardly private. The protective order allowed them to be shared freely with each of the following
categories of people:
• The parties to the case.
• Attorneys involved in the case.
• People employed by or associated with attorneys involved in the case.
• Expert witnesses.
• Fact witnesses.
• Potential witnesses.
• Court personnel and stenographers.
• Attorneys involved in the case.
• People employed by or associated with attorneys involved in the case.
• Expert witnesses.
• Fact witnesses.
• Potential witnesses.
• Court personnel and stenographers.
It also allowed any documents to be publicly used at trial. This is not a case like Carpenter
where new technology has allowed police to access heretofore “unknowable” information about
a person’s private life. Id. at 2218. This is a case where Maxwell shared information with third
parties through the routine process of civil litigation and now objects that they shared it with the
Government, too.
where new technology has allowed police to access heretofore “unknowable” information about
a person’s private life. Id. at 2218. This is a case where Maxwell shared information with third
parties through the routine process of civil litigation and now objects that they shared it with the
Government, too.
Second Circuit precedent makes clear that Maxwell had no reasonable expectation that
documents covered by the protective order would remain shielded from view of the public or
prosecutors. The Second Circuit has cautioned civil litigants that a civil protective order is no
guarantee against the use of evidence in a subsequent criminal prosecution. See Andover, 876
F.2d at 1083. Second Circuit precedent allows a court in a subsequent proceeding to modify a
documents covered by the protective order would remain shielded from view of the public or
prosecutors. The Second Circuit has cautioned civil litigants that a civil protective order is no
guarantee against the use of evidence in a subsequent criminal prosecution. See Andover, 876
F.2d at 1083. Second Circuit precedent allows a court in a subsequent proceeding to modify a
10
DOJ-OGR-00004794
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document