DOJ-OGR-00002800.jpg
707 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
2
Organizations
2
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
1
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
707 KB
Summary
This legal document, filed on March 24, 2021, is a court order outlining the procedure for a law firm representing alleged victims to object to a proposed subpoena. The Court acknowledges receipt of a letter from the firm on March 19, 2021, and sets a deadline of March 26, 2021, for the firm to formally file its objections. The order mandates that the law firm must first confer with defense counsel to potentially narrow the issues and discuss redactions, citing legal precedents for these procedures.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ray | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Ray, No. 20-CR-110 (LJL), 2020 WL 6939677'.
|
| Nixon | Party in a legal case |
Referenced as a legal standard in the phrase 'on grounds that Nixon was not satisfied', alluding to the precedent set...
|
| Lugosch | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006)'.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Court | government agency |
The judicial body presiding over the case, giving instructions and receiving filings.
|
| Pyramid Co. of Onondaga | company |
Mentioned as a party in the cited case 'Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga'.
|
Timeline (3 events)
2021-03-26
Deadline for the law firm to file its objections to the proposed subpoena on the public docket.
the law firm
The law firm is ordered to meet and confer with defense counsel before filing objections to narrow issues and discuss redactions.
the law firm
defense counsel
Relationships (1)
the law firm
→
professional
→
defense counsel
The document describes an adversarial legal relationship where the two parties are required by the Court to 'meet and confer' on procedural matters like narrowing issues and redacting objections before formal briefing.
Key Quotes (1)
"[I]f the Court determines that the subpoena calls for personal or confidential information about a victim, it requires the requesting party have given notice to the victim before it permits the service of the subpoena. If the victim objects, the Court will then determine whether to modify or quash the subpoena, including on grounds that Nixon was not satisfied."Source
— The Court in United States v. Ray
(Quoted as legal precedent to explain the procedure for handling subpoenas that request a victim's personal or confidential information.)
DOJ-OGR-00002800.jpg
Quote #1
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,086 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 172 Filed 03/24/21 Page 2 of 3
by the proposed subpoena. The Court also gave the alleged victims an opportunity to object to or request modifications of the subpoena as required by Rule 17(c)(3).
On March 19, 2021, the Court received a letter from the law firm indicating that it can provide notice to alleged victims whose personal or confidential information may be elicited by the subpoena. The law firm shall provide notice to any such alleged victims it represents.
In that letter, the law firm also interposed substantial objections on behalf of the law firm and the alleged victims it represents. Those objections are functionally the equivalent of a motion to quash, even though the subpoena has not yet issued. So that the Court can receive adversarial briefing on the proposed subpoena comparable to a motion to quash, the law firm shall enter an appearance and file its objections on the public docket. See United States v. Ray, No. 20-CR-110 (LJL), 2020 WL 6939677, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 25, 2020) (“[I]f the Court determines that the subpoena calls for personal or confidential information about a victim, it requires the requesting party have given notice to the victim before it permits the service of the subpoena. If the victim objects, the Court will then determine whether to modify or quash the subpoena, including on grounds that Nixon was not satisfied.”).
In advance of noticing an appearance and filing, the law firm shall meet and confer with defense counsel to see if any issues can be narrowed before formal briefing. Moreover, prior to filing, the law firm shall confer with defense counsel as to any proposed, necessary, and tailored redactions to the objections. The law firm’s objections with any proposed redactions shall be filed on or before March 26, 2021. Any redactions must be justified consistent with Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Within one week of the filing of objections, defense counsel may respond to the subpoena objections. The law firm may reply
2
DOJ-OGR-00002800
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document