DOJ-OGR-00019259.jpg
834 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
5
Organizations
2
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
834 KB
Summary
This document is a court order denying the Defendant's request to modify a protective order in a criminal case. The original order, entered on July 30, 2020, restricted the use of discovery materials provided by the Government solely for the defense of the current criminal action. The court's decision upholds this restriction, preventing the Defendant from using the documents for any other purpose.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Calderon | Defendant in a cited case |
Mentioned in the footnote in the case name United States v. Calderon.
|
| Kerik | Defendant in a cited case |
Mentioned in the footnote in the case name United States v. Kerik.
|
| Morales | Defendant in a cited case |
Mentioned in the footnote in the case name United States v. Morales.
|
| Wecht | Defendant in a cited case |
Mentioned in the footnote in the case name United States v. Wecht.
|
Organizations (5)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Government | government agency |
The prosecuting party in the criminal case that produced discovery material.
|
| Teligent, Inc. | company |
Mentioned in a case citation in the footnote (In re Teligent, Inc.).
|
| Second Circuit | judiciary |
Mentioned in the footnote as a court circuit whose standard for modifying protective orders is being discussed.
|
| Fifth Circuit | judiciary |
Mentioned in a case citation in the footnote.
|
| Third Circuit | judiciary |
Mentioned in a case citation in the footnote.
|
Timeline (3 events)
The Government began to produce discovery shortly after the protective order was entered.
Upon receipt of some discovery, the Defendant filed a request to modify the protective order.
Defendant
Relationships (1)
The document describes a criminal case where the Government is the prosecuting party and the Defendant is the accused. They are opposing parties in a legal proceeding concerning a protective order for discovery materials.
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 a court filing)
(Quoted from Dkt. No. 35, indicating agreement on the need for a protective order.)
DOJ-OGR-00019259.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 proposed order, which was included in the Court's final protective order, restricting the use of discovery materials.)
DOJ-OGR-00019259.jpg
Quote #2
"strong presumption against the modification of a protective order."Source
— In re Teligent, Inc. case law
(Cited in the footnote to describe the legal standard in the civil context for modifying protective orders.)
DOJ-OGR-00019259.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,740 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AdDmeDocumentn95202Filed09/03/20aPagef25of 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. 07-CR-1027 (LAP), 2014 WL 12710346 at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 23, 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-00019259
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document