DOJ-OGR-00004785.jpg
583 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
3
Events
3
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court opinion & order
File Size:
583 KB
Summary
This document is an Opinion & Order filed on June 25, 2021, by Judge Alison J. Nathan in the case of USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The judge denies Maxwell's motion to suppress evidence obtained via a grand jury subpoena issued to Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, the law firm that represented Virginia Giuffre in a 2015 civil defamation suit against Maxwell. The document outlines the background of the civil suit, noting that Giuffre alleged defamation regarding accusations of sexual abuse by Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant |
Defendant in criminal case 20-cr-330; moving to suppress evidence obtained via subpoena.
|
| Alison J. Nathan | District Judge |
Judge presiding over the case and author of the Opinion & Order denying the suppression motion.
|
| Virginia Giuffre | Plaintiff (Civil Case) |
Sued Maxwell for defamation in late 2015 regarding allegations of sexual abuse.
|
| Jeffrey Epstein | Associate of Defendant |
Mentioned in the context of Giuffre's allegations that she was sexually abused by him and Maxwell.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States District Court Southern District of New York |
Court where the document was filed.
|
|
| United States of America |
Plaintiff/Prosecution in the criminal case.
|
|
| Boies Schiller Flexner LLP |
Law firm (abbreviated BSF) that represented Virginia Giuffre in the civil dispute.
|
|
| Department of Justice |
Implied by footer 'DOJ-OGR'.
|
Timeline (3 events)
2021-06-25
Opinion & Order filed denying Maxwell's motion to suppress evidence.
USDC SDNY
Approx. 2017
Parties in the civil defamation case signed a confidential settlement agreement after about two years of litigation.
Unknown
Late 2015
Virginia Giuffre sued Maxwell for defamation (Case No. 15-cv-7433).
SDNY
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Jurisdiction of the court and location where the AUSA was approached.
|
Relationships (3)
Giuffre sued Maxwell for defamation in 2015.
Giuffre alleged sexual abuse by Epstein and Maxwell.
The law firm Boies Schiller Flexner LLP (BSF) represented Giuffre in the dispute.
Key Quotes (4)
"Maxwell moves to suppress evidence obtained through a grand jury subpoena to a law firm involved in earlier civil litigation against her."Source
DOJ-OGR-00004785.jpg
Quote #1
"She contends that because the documents sought by the subpoena were previously subject to a protective order, the Government obtained them in violation of her rights..."Source
DOJ-OGR-00004785.jpg
Quote #2
"the Court concludes that the evidence should not be suppressed and that Maxwell is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing."Source
DOJ-OGR-00004785.jpg
Quote #3
"Giuffre alleged that Maxwell defamed her by accusing her of lying about Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein sexually abusing her."Source
DOJ-OGR-00004785.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,531 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 307 Filed 06/25/21 Page 1 of 21
USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #:
DATE FILED: 6/25/2021
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #:
DATE FILED: 6/25/2021
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
United States of America,
-v-
Ghislaine Maxwell,
Defendant.
20-cr-330 (AJN)
OPINION & ORDER
ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:
Maxwell moves to suppress evidence obtained through a grand jury subpoena to a law
firm involved in earlier civil litigation against her. She contends that because the documents
sought by the subpoena were previously subject to a protective order, the Government obtained
them in violation of her rights against compelled self-incrimination, against unreasonable
searches and seizures, and to due process of law. For the reasons that follow, the Court
concludes that the evidence should not be suppressed and that Maxwell is not entitled to an
evidentiary hearing.
firm involved in earlier civil litigation against her. She contends that because the documents
sought by the subpoena were previously subject to a protective order, the Government obtained
them in violation of her rights against compelled self-incrimination, against unreasonable
searches and seizures, and to due process of law. For the reasons that follow, the Court
concludes that the evidence should not be suppressed and that Maxwell is not entitled to an
evidentiary hearing.
I. Background
In late 2015, Virginia Giuffre sued Maxwell for defamation. See Giuffre v. Maxwell, No.
15-cv-7433 (S.D.N.Y.). Giuffre alleged that Maxwell defamed her by accusing her of lying
about Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein sexually abusing her. The law firm Boies Schiller Flexner
LLP (BSF) represented Giuffre in the dispute. The parties litigated the case for about two years
before signing a confidential settlement agreement.
15-cv-7433 (S.D.N.Y.). Giuffre alleged that Maxwell defamed her by accusing her of lying
about Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein sexually abusing her. The law firm Boies Schiller Flexner
LLP (BSF) represented Giuffre in the dispute. The parties litigated the case for about two years
before signing a confidential settlement agreement.
Early in the civil litigation, one of the attorneys representing Giuffre approached an
Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) in the Southern District of New York and requested a
Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) in the Southern District of New York and requested a
DOJ-OGR-00004785
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document