DOJ-OGR-00002358(2).jpg
626 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
626 KB
Summary
This legal document describes the aftermath of a 2017 defamation case settlement between Giuffre and Maxwell, noting Maxwell's unsuccessful attempts to have confidential information returned by the law firm Boies Schiller. It then alleges that in August 2020, Maxwell discovered the government had improperly obtained a file related to the case through an ex parte proceeding, violating a Protective Order that required notice to all parties.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Giuffre |
Party in a defamation claim against Maxwell that was settled in 2017.
|
|
| Maxwell |
Party in a defamation claim with Giuffre, and the subject of a later indictment. The document alleges the government ...
|
|
| Brown |
Mentioned in a case citation, 'vacated and remanded sub nom. Brown, 929 F.3d 41'.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Boies Schiller | law firm |
Refused Maxwell's demand to return or destroy confidential information after a case was settled.
|
| The Government | government agency |
Accused of making false statements and improperly obtaining a file via grand jury subpoena and an ex parte proceeding.
|
| district court | judicial body |
Found that confidentiality was a significant factor in the settlement between Giuffre and Maxwell.
|
Timeline (3 events)
2020-08
Maxwell learned that the government had obtained a file by grand jury subpoena and had instituted an ex parte proceeding.
S.D.N.Y.
The government instituted an ex parte proceeding to overcome the strictures of a Protective Order.
S.D.N.Y.
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in a case citation (S.D.N.Y. 2018) and as the location of an ex parte proceeding.
|
Relationships (2)
They were opposing parties in a defamation claim that was settled in 2017.
Maxwell demanded the return of confidential information, and Boies Schiller (representing Giuffre) refused.
Key Quotes (2)
"a significant, if not determinative, factor"Source
— district court
(Describing the role of confidentiality in reaching the settlement between Giuffre and Maxwell.)
DOJ-OGR-00002358(2).jpg
Quote #1
"for good cause shown following notice to all parties and an opportunity to be heard."Source
— Protective Order, Paragraph 14
(Quoted to show the legal requirement for modifying the Protective Order, which the government allegedly violated.)
DOJ-OGR-00002358(2).jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,676 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 134 Filed 02/04/21 Page 11 of 23
C. The Settlement And Boies Schiller’s Refusal To Comply With The Protective Order
In 2017, the parties settled the defamation claim, and the case was dismissed. Giuffre v. Maxwell, 325 F. Supp. 3d 428, 436 (S.D.N.Y. 2018), vacated and remanded sub nom. Brown, 929 F.3d 41. As the district court found, “a significant, if not determinative, factor” in reaching a settlement was its confidentiality. Id. at 446.
After the case was settled and concluded, Maxwell repeatedly invoked Paragraph 12 of the Protective Order and demanded that Giuffre either return or destroy all confidential information, including her deposition transcripts. Boies Schiller refused. [REDACTED]
D. The Government’s False Statements To [REDACTED]
Only in August 2020, after she was indicted in this case, did Maxwell finally learn that the government had obtained the [REDACTED] file by grand jury subpoena. Maxwell also learned that, to overcome the strictures of the Protective Order, the government had instituted an ex parte proceeding before [REDACTED] (S.D.N.Y.). [REDACTED]. Needless to say, neither Maxwell nor her attorneys were given the opportunity to oppose that application or to contest the government’s representations in support of the application. This was all in direct violation of Paragraph 14 of the Protective Order, which provides that the order may be modified by the court only “for good cause shown following notice to all parties and an opportunity to be heard.” Ex. A ¶ 14 (emphasis added).
In its ex parte application, the prosecutors professed that they had sought out [REDACTED]
6
DOJ-OGR-00002358
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document