DOJ-OGR-00004800.jpg
728 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
5
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court filing / legal opinion (case 1:20-cr-00330-pae)
File Size:
728 KB
Summary
This court document (page 16 of a filing from June 2021) denies Ghislaine Maxwell's argument that the Government deliberately misrepresented facts to Judge McMahon regarding communications with the Boies Schiller firm (BSF). The court rules that the prosecutor's failure to mention a 2016 email/meeting with Giuffre's attorneys during an April 2019 hearing was likely because the question was understood to refer only to the *current* investigation, not all historical contacts. The text references the standard set by *Chemical Bank v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co.* regarding coordination between civil litigants and criminal prosecutors.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant |
Argued that the Government misrepresented facts to Judge McMahon; Court rejected this argument.
|
| Judge McMahon | Judge |
Presided over a related civil proceeding (April 9, 2019); questioned the Government about contacts with Boies Schiller.
|
| Virginia Giuffre | Plaintiff (implied) |
Mentioned in relation to her attorneys meeting with an AUSA in 2016.
|
| Prosecutor / AUSA | Government Attorney |
Unnamed Assistant U.S. Attorney who addressed Judge McMahon regarding contacts with BSF.
|
Organizations (5)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States Attorney’s Office |
The Government / Prosecution.
|
|
| Boies Schiller firm |
Also referred to as BSF; law firm representing Giuffre.
|
|
| Chemical Bank |
Plaintiff in cited case law.
|
|
| Affiliated FM Ins. Co. |
Defendant in cited case law.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (referenced in Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00004800).
|
Timeline (2 events)
2019-04-09
Second proceeding concerning Government application to modify protective order.
Court
Judge McMahon
Government Prosecutors
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Jurisdiction mentioned in case citation.
|
Relationships (2)
Text refers to 'Boies Schiller firm' and later 'Giuffre’s attorneys' in context of the same interactions.
Discussion of contacts regarding document requests and protective orders.
Key Quotes (2)
"Maxwell has not made a substantial preliminary showing that the Government’s statement was a deliberate or reckless misrepresentation."Source
DOJ-OGR-00004800.jpg
Quote #1
"contacts between the United States Attorney’s Office and the Boies Schiller firm prior to the issuance of the subpoena on the subject of your investigation."Source
DOJ-OGR-00004800.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,091 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 307 Filed 06/25/21 Page 16 of 21
deliberately or recklessly misrepresented facts to Judge McMahon. Second, she must make a
substantial preliminary showing that Judge McMahon would have denied the Government’s
application absent any such misrepresentation. The Court finds that Maxwell has not made a
substantial preliminary showing on either prong.
substantial preliminary showing that Judge McMahon would have denied the Government’s
application absent any such misrepresentation. The Court finds that Maxwell has not made a
substantial preliminary showing on either prong.
Maxwell’s argument here centers on the Government’s statements to Judge McMahon
during the second proceeding on April 9, 2019, concerning its application to modify the
protective order. At that proceeding, Judge McMahon explained that she wanted to make sure
the Government’s request did not present a similar situation to that in Chemical Bank v.
Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 154 F.R.D. 91 (S.D.N.Y. 1994), where a party in civil litigation urged
prosecutors to instigate a criminal investigation and then provided confidential documents in
violation of a protective order. To that end, she asked the Government to explain “contacts
between the United States Attorney’s Office and the Boies Schiller firm prior to the issuance of
the subpoena on the subject of your investigation.” The prosecutor at that hearing informed
Judge McMahon about all communications between the U.S. Attorney’s Office and BSF after
the current investigation began—namely, that the Government told the firm that it intended to
make a document request and that the firm told the Government that some of the materials were
subject to a protective order. Although the prosecutor was included on an email several months
earlier from the AUSA who met with Giuffre’s attorneys in 2016, he did not inform Judge
McMahon about any communications with BSF before the current investigation began.
during the second proceeding on April 9, 2019, concerning its application to modify the
protective order. At that proceeding, Judge McMahon explained that she wanted to make sure
the Government’s request did not present a similar situation to that in Chemical Bank v.
Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 154 F.R.D. 91 (S.D.N.Y. 1994), where a party in civil litigation urged
prosecutors to instigate a criminal investigation and then provided confidential documents in
violation of a protective order. To that end, she asked the Government to explain “contacts
between the United States Attorney’s Office and the Boies Schiller firm prior to the issuance of
the subpoena on the subject of your investigation.” The prosecutor at that hearing informed
Judge McMahon about all communications between the U.S. Attorney’s Office and BSF after
the current investigation began—namely, that the Government told the firm that it intended to
make a document request and that the firm told the Government that some of the materials were
subject to a protective order. Although the prosecutor was included on an email several months
earlier from the AUSA who met with Giuffre’s attorneys in 2016, he did not inform Judge
McMahon about any communications with BSF before the current investigation began.
Maxwell has not made a substantial preliminary showing that the Government’s
statement was a deliberate or reckless misrepresentation. The AUSA could reasonably have
understood Judge McMahon’s question to concern only communications about the
Government’s current investigation. Maxwell contends that the question asked for any
statement was a deliberate or reckless misrepresentation. The AUSA could reasonably have
understood Judge McMahon’s question to concern only communications about the
Government’s current investigation. Maxwell contends that the question asked for any
16
DOJ-OGR-00004800
DOJ-OGR-00004800
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document