DOJ-OGR-00001748.jpg
824 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
5
Organizations
2
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
824 KB
Summary
This document is page 2 of a court order filed on September 2, 2020, in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. The court denies the defendant's request to modify a protective order that was previously entered on July 30, 2020. The court's decision is based on the original agreement between the parties, which stipulated that discovery materials provided by the government would be used solely for the defense of the current criminal case and not for any civil proceedings.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Calderon | Defendant |
Mentioned in the footnote as the defendant in a cited case, United States v. Calderon.
|
| Kerik | Defendant |
Mentioned in the footnote as the defendant in a cited case, United States v. Kerik.
|
| Morales | Defendant |
Mentioned in the footnote as the defendant in a cited case, United States v. Morales.
|
| Wecht | Defendant |
Mentioned in the footnote as the defendant in a cited case, United States v. Wecht.
|
Organizations (5)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Government | Government agency |
A party in the legal case, responsible for producing discovery material.
|
| Teligent, Inc. | Company |
Mentioned in a case citation in the footnote (In re Teligent, Inc.).
|
| Second Circuit | Court |
A U.S. Court of Appeals mentioned in the footnote for establishing a standard for modification of protective orders.
|
| Fifth Circuit | Court |
A U.S. Court of Appeals mentioned in a case citation in the footnote.
|
| Third Circuit | Court |
A U.S. Court of Appeals mentioned in a case citation in the footnote.
|
Timeline (2 events)
2020-09-02
The Court denied the Defendant's requests to modify the protective order.
Court
Defendant
Relationships (1)
The document describes a legal dispute between the Government (prosecution) and the Defendant over the terms of a protective order governing discovery materials in a criminal case.
Key Quotes (3)
"The parties have met and conferred, resolving nearly all the issues relating to the proposed protective order."Source
— Parties to the case (via Dkt. No. 35)
(Quoted from a court docket entry to show that the parties had previously agreed that a protective order was warranted.)
DOJ-OGR-00001748.jpg
Quote #1
"[s]hall be used by the Defendant or her Defense Counsel solely for purposes of the defense of this criminal action, and not for any civil proceeding or any purpose other than the defense of this action."Source
— Defendant's Proposed Protective Order
(A provision from the Defendant's own proposed protective order, which was included in the Court's final order, restricting the use of discovery materials.)
DOJ-OGR-00001748.jpg
Quote #2
"strong presumption against the modification of a protective order."Source
— In re Teligent, Inc.
(A legal standard from a cited civil case, which the footnote explains has been applied to criminal cases, regarding the difficulty of modifying protective orders.)
DOJ-OGR-00001748.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,738 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 51 Filed 09/02/20 Page 2 of 5
reference, but not file, other discovery material that the Government produced in this case. For the reasons that follow, Defendant’s requests are DENIED.
Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(d)(1), a Court may enter a protective order only after it finds that good cause exists. Within this framework, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure leave it to the discretion of the Court to determine whether modification of an existing protective order is warranted.² To make that decision, the Court takes into account all relevant factors, including the parties’ reliance on the protective order and whether the moving party has sufficiently substantiated a request to deviate from the status quo in the instant matter.
On July 30, 2020, this Court entered a protective order in this case, having determined that good cause existed. Dkt. No. 36. The parties agreed that a protective order was warranted. See Dkt. No. 35 at 1 (“The parties have met and conferred, resolving nearly all the issues relating to the proposed protective order.”). The Defendant’s Proposed Protective Order included a provision that stated that all discovery produced by the Government “[s]hall be used by the Defendant or her Defense Counsel solely for purposes of the defense of this criminal action, and not for any civil proceeding or any purpose other than the defense of this action.” Dkt. No. 29, Ex. A ¶ 1(a). That language was included in the Court’s July 30, 2020 protective order. See Dkt. No. 36 ¶¶ 1(a), 10(a), 14(a). Shortly thereafter, the Government began to produce discovery.
Upon receipt of some of the discovery, the Defendant filed the instant request, which seeks modification of the protective order in order to use documents produced in the criminal
² In the civil context, there is a “strong presumption against the modification of a protective order.” In re Teligent, Inc., 640 F.3d 53, 59 (2d Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). Courts in the Second Circuit have applied the standard for modification of protective orders in the civil context to the criminal context. See, e.g., United States v. Calderon, No. 3:15-CR-25 (JCH), 2017 WL 6453344, at *2 (D. Conn. Dec. 1, 2017) (applying the civil standard for the modification of a protective order in a criminal case); United States v. Kerik, No. 06-CR-1027 (LAP), 2014 WL 12710346 at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 28, 2014) (same). See also United States v. Morales, 807 F.3d 717, 723 (5th Cir. 2015) (applying the standard for “good cause” in the civil context when evaluating whether to modify a protective order entered in a criminal case); United States v. Wecht, 484 F.3d 194, 211 (3rd Cir. 2007) (same).
2
DOJ-OGR-00001748
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document