DOJ-OGR-00008368.jpg
711 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
3
Events
3
Relationships
6
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
711 KB
Summary
This legal document, part of a court case and addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan, argues that any potential attorney-client privilege regarding statements about a person named Carolyn was waived. The argument posits that because Mr. Scarola disclosed this information to the government, the confidentiality required for privilege was broken. The document cites multiple legal precedents to support the claim that this voluntary disclosure to a third party (the government) results in the forfeiture of the privilege, which is relevant for assessing Carolyn's credibility as she testifies against Ms. Maxwell.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Alison J. Nathan | The Honorable |
The document is addressed to The Honorable Alison J. Nathan.
|
| Scarola |
Mentioned as 'Mr. Scarola' who made statements to the government about Carolyn, which is argued to have waived attorn...
|
|
| Carolyn |
A key individual whose communications and credibility are the central subject of the document. She is cooperating wit...
|
|
| Maxwell |
Mentioned as 'Ms. Maxwell', against whom Carolyn is testifying.
|
|
| Wigmore |
Cited as a legal authority on the concept of waiver of privilege ('as Wigmore points out').
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Steinhardt Partners, L.P. | company |
Mentioned in the case citation 'In re Steinhardt Partners, L.P., 9 F.3d 230, 236 (2d Cir. 1993)'.
|
| U.S. Government | government agency |
Referred to as 'the government' throughout the document, as the recipient of statements from Scarola and the entity w...
|
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Ghavami, 882 F. Supp. 2d 532, 537 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)'.
|
Relationships (3)
The document states that Carolyn is 'testifying against Ms. Maxwell'.
The document mentions 'Carolyn’s motivation for cooperating with the government'.
Mr. Scarola
→
informational
→
the government
The document states that 'Mr. Scarola made the statements to the government'.
Key Quotes (6)
"it was [not] intended to be . . . kept confidential."Source
— Erie, 473 F.3d at 419
(Used to argue that a communication from Scarola about Carolyn was not privileged.)
DOJ-OGR-00008368.jpg
Quote #1
"Wherever the matters communicated to the attorney are intended by the client to be made public or revealed to third persons, obviously the element of confidentiality is wanting."Source
— 1 McCormick on Evid., § 91
(Cited to support the argument that confidentiality, a key element of privilege, was absent.)
DOJ-OGR-00008368.jpg
Quote #2
"It is well-established that voluntary disclosure of confidential material to a third party generally results in forfeiture of any applicable attorney-client privilege."Source
— United States v. Ghavami, 882 F. Supp. 2d 532, 537
(The core legal principle used to argue that privilege was waived by disclosure to the government.)
DOJ-OGR-00008368.jpg
Quote #3
"[w]hen the disclosure [of confidential information] is made in a federal proceeding or to a federal office,” that generally “waives the attorney-client privilege or work-product protection . . . ."Source
— Fed. R. Evid. 502(a)
(Citing a federal rule of evidence to show that disclosure to a federal office constitutes a waiver.)
DOJ-OGR-00008368.jpg
Quote #4
"necessarily decides that the benefits of participation [in the government investigation] outweigh the benefits of confidentiality"Source
— In re Steinhardt Partners, L.P., 9 F.3d 230, 236
(Quoted to explain the rationale behind why voluntary disclosure to the government waives privilege.)
DOJ-OGR-00008368.jpg
Quote #5
"Waiver may be found, as Wigmore points out, not merely from words or conduct expressing an intention to relinquish a known right, but also from conduct such as partial disclosure which would make it unfair for the client to invoke the privilege thereafter."Source
— 1 McCormick On Evid., § 93
(Cited to provide a broad definition of how a waiver of privilege can occur through conduct.)
DOJ-OGR-00008368.jpg
Quote #6
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,095 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 544 Filed 12/14/21 Page 5 of 9
The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
December 13, 2021
Page 5
December 13, 2021
Page 5
Scarola to the government about Carolyn was also not for the purpose of obtaining or providing legal advice, is not a communication by Carolyn, and “it was [not] intended to be . . . kept confidential.” Erie, 473 F.3d at 419; 1 McCormick on Evid., § 91 (“Wherever the matters communicated to the attorney are intended by the client to be made public or revealed to third persons, obviously the element of confidentiality is wanting.”) (8th ed. Jan. 2020 update).
Finally, Carolyn’s motivation for cooperating with the government and testifying against Ms. Maxwell is essential to the jury’s assessment of Carolyn’s credibility.
Finally, Carolyn’s motivation for cooperating with the government and testifying against Ms. Maxwell is essential to the jury’s assessment of Carolyn’s credibility.
But even if the privilege did apply, the privilege was waived. “It is well-established that voluntary disclosure of confidential material to a third party generally results in forfeiture of any applicable attorney-client privilege.” United States v. Ghavami, 882 F. Supp. 2d 532, 537 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). That is exactly what happened here when Mr. Scarola made the statements to the government. As Fed. R. Evid. 502(a) recognizes, “[w]hen the disclosure [of confidential information] is made in a federal proceeding or to a federal office,” that generally “waives the attorney-client privilege or work-product protection . . . .” See Fed. R. Evid. 502(a) (defining the limits of such a waiver as to undisclosed or inadvertently disclosed information); In re Steinhardt Partners, L.P., 9 F.3d 230, 236 (2d Cir. 1993) (when a party voluntarily discloses otherwise privileged information to the government, she “necessarily decides that the benefits of participation [in the government investigation] outweigh the benefits of confidentiality”); 1 McCormick On Evid., § 93 (“Waiver may be found, as Wigmore points out, not merely from words or conduct expressing an intention to relinquish a known right, but also from conduct such as partial disclosure which would make it unfair for the client to invoke the privilege thereafter.”).
DOJ-OGR-00008368
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document