DOJ-OGR-00001933.jpg
630 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
630 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript where a speaker, likely an attorney, argues that a woman is not a flight risk for changing her email and phone number. The speaker explains that her personal information was inadvertently released to the public through unsealed court documents related to a case involving Mr. Epstein, leading to her receiving strange emails and her phone being hacked. She kept the hacked phone, which contains correspondence with her counsel, as evidence for her own civil litigation.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Mr. Epstein |
Mentioned in the context of his arrest in August 2019, around which time the Second Circuit ruled to unseal civil cas...
|
|
| Your Honor | Judge |
The speaker is addressing the judge directly.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| the government | government agency |
Mentioned as an entity that should have known about the public release of documents.
|
| the Second Circuit | government agency |
A court that ruled certain records in a civil case should be unsealed and released to the public.
|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
Listed at the bottom of the page, likely the court reporting service that transcribed the proceedings.
|
Timeline (3 events)
2019-08
The Second Circuit ruled that certain records in a civil case should be unsealed and released to the public.
An unnamed woman's phone was hacked after her personal information was revealed in unsealed court documents.
Unnamed female subject
Relationships (1)
Unnamed female subject
→
professional
→
her counsel
The document mentions 'correspondence with her counsel in civil litigation'.
Key Quotes (2)
"She is a risk of flight because she changed her e-mail and phone number. That's what we heard in the opening brief."Source
— Unknown speaker (likely an attorney)
(The speaker is recounting an argument made against an unnamed woman.)
DOJ-OGR-00001933.jpg
Quote #1
"Her obligation is to keep evidence, not destroy it, and is advised that a way to keep it"Source
— Unknown speaker (likely an attorney)
(Explaining why the woman kept her hacked phone, as it contains evidence for her civil litigation.)
DOJ-OGR-00001933.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,545 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 93 Filed 12/10/20 Page 56 of 91
k7e2MaxC kjc
k7e2MaxC kjc
hiding. She is a risk of flight because she changed her e-mail and phone number. That's what we heard in the opening brief.
Well, what happened? Something the government, frankly, should know about, because it was certainly public, last year, in a civil litigation, in August of 2019, right around the time of the arrest of Mr. Epstein, the Second Circuit ruled that certain records in one of the civil cases should be unsealed and released to the public. That was done. There was no stay at the moment. The demand was issued, and the documents were released. Certain of those documents were supposed to be redacted and sometimes they were and sometimes they were not, documents including e-mail addresses, Social Security numbers, names, phone numbers, the sorts of things your Honor, I am sure, has to deal with all the time in these kinds of situations.
But as it turned out, for whatever reason, some of the documents were not redacted and her e-mail address was revealed. Shortly after that, she starts getting strange e-mails. Her phone is hacked, and she had to change e-mails and change the account.
Now she has got a phone that has legal materials on it, correspondence with her counsel in civil litigation that's been hacked, so she keeps it. Why does she keep it? Because she is in civil litigation. Her obligation is to keep evidence, not destroy it, and is advised that a way to keep it
Well, what happened? Something the government, frankly, should know about, because it was certainly public, last year, in a civil litigation, in August of 2019, right around the time of the arrest of Mr. Epstein, the Second Circuit ruled that certain records in one of the civil cases should be unsealed and released to the public. That was done. There was no stay at the moment. The demand was issued, and the documents were released. Certain of those documents were supposed to be redacted and sometimes they were and sometimes they were not, documents including e-mail addresses, Social Security numbers, names, phone numbers, the sorts of things your Honor, I am sure, has to deal with all the time in these kinds of situations.
But as it turned out, for whatever reason, some of the documents were not redacted and her e-mail address was revealed. Shortly after that, she starts getting strange e-mails. Her phone is hacked, and she had to change e-mails and change the account.
Now she has got a phone that has legal materials on it, correspondence with her counsel in civil litigation that's been hacked, so she keeps it. Why does she keep it? Because she is in civil litigation. Her obligation is to keep evidence, not destroy it, and is advised that a way to keep it
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00001933
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document