DOJ-OGR-00019666.jpg
542 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
3
Events
3
Relationships
0
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
542 KB
Summary
This legal document argues that the government has taken contradictory positions by intervening in one case (Doe v. Indyke) but not another (Giuffre v. Maxwell). The author contends the government's justification is weak and ignores its own arguments for strict confidentiality in a related criminal case involving Ms. Maxwell, suggesting the government should logically oppose unsealing filings in the Giuffre case but has failed to do so without explanation.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Giuffre | Litigant |
Mentioned as a party in the case 'Giuffre v. Maxwell'.
|
| Maxwell | Litigant |
Mentioned as a party in the case 'Giuffre v. Maxwell' and as 'Ms. Maxwell' in the context of a criminal case.
|
| Judge Preska | Judge |
Mentioned as a judge from whom information was allegedly kept secret and with whom Ms. Maxwell is not allowed to shar...
|
| Doe | Litigant |
Mentioned as a party in the case 'Doe v. Indyke'.
|
| Indyke | Litigant |
Mentioned as a party in the case 'Doe v. Indyke'.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| government | Government agency |
Mentioned throughout the document as the entity whose legal decisions and positions in various cases are being critic...
|
| Court | Judicial body |
Mentioned as the judicial body from which information was allegedly kept secret and with which Ms. Maxwell is not all...
|
Timeline (3 events)
The government's decision to remain on the sidelines of the case Giuffre v. Maxwell.
A criminal case involving Ms. Maxwell where the government insists on the secrecy of discovery materials.
government
Ms. Maxwell
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
The location of the court for the case 'Doe v. Indyke, No. 20-cv-00484 (S.D.N.Y.)'.
|
Relationships (3)
They are the opposing parties in the lawsuit 'Giuffre v. Maxwell'.
The document describes a criminal case where the government is taking a position against Ms. Maxwell regarding the sharing of discovery materials.
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,143 characters)
Case 20-3061, Document 94, 10/08/2020, 2948481, Page20 of 23
[REDACTED] Giuffre v. Maxwell but kept secret from Judge Preska and this Court.
Finally, the government offers a halfhearted defense of its decision to intervene in Doe v. Indyke, No. 20-cv-00484 (S.D.N.Y.), while choosing to remain on the sidelines of Giuffre v. Maxwell. Ans.Br. 28–29 n.8. According to the government, there is no need to intervene in Giuffre v. Maxwell because discovery was already completed while discovery in Doe v. Indyke was just beginning. But this distinction ignores the government’s position on the confidentiality of the criminal discovery material in this case. Again, [REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
In the criminal case, the government insists [REDACTED]
[REDACTED], so secret in fact that Ms. Maxwell must not be allowed to share their contents with Judge Preska or this Court, even under seal. But if that’s right, then the government should oppose unsealing any filings from Giuffre v. Maxwell [REDACTED]
[REDACTED] The government, of course, hasn’t done that, and its answer brief offers no explanation why. The reason,
[REDACTED], so secret in fact that Ms. Maxwell must not be allowed to share their contents with Judge Preska or this Court, even under seal. But if that’s right, then the government should oppose unsealing any filings from Giuffre v. Maxwell [REDACTED]
[REDACTED] The government, of course, hasn’t done that, and its answer brief offers no explanation why. The reason,
17
DOJ-OGR-00019666
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document