Legal Document - DOJ-OGR-00019521 | Trove Document Archive

Processing Document...

0%

Initializing...

Extraction Summary

5

People

3

Organizations

1

Locations

1

Events

1

Relationships

1

Quotes

Document Information

Type: Legal document

File Size: 549 KB

Summary

This legal document, dated July 28, 2020, is a filing from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York to Judge Alison J. Nathan. The prosecution argues against a defendant's motion to impose restrictions on the government and third parties, labeling the request as unprecedented and without legal basis. The government urges the court to deny the defendant's motion and instead implement the government's own proposed protective order.

People (5)

Name	Role	Context
Alison J. Nathan	Honorable (Judge)	The document is addressed to The Honorable Alison J. Nathan.
AUDREY STRAUSS	Acting United States Attorney	Listed as the signatory on behalf of the Government.
Alex Rossmiller	Assistant United States Attorney	Listed as one of the attorneys submitting the document.
Alison Moe	Assistant United States Attorney	Listed as one of the attorneys submitting the document.
Maurene Comey	Assistant United States Attorney	Listed as one of the attorneys submitting the document.

Organizations (3)

Name	Type	Context
Government	government agency	Mentioned throughout as a party in the legal case, referring to the U.S. Government/prosecution.
Court	government agency	Referenced as the body that should rule on the motions presented.
United States Attorney, Southern District of New York	government agency	The office submitting the document, as indicated in the signature block.

Timeline (1 events)

2020-07-28

The U.S. Attorney's office filed a document arguing against a defendant's motion and in favor of its own proposed protective order.

Southern District of New York

AUDREY STRAUSS Alex Rossmiller Alison Moe Maurene Comey Alison J. Nathan

View

Locations (1)

Location	Context
Southern District of New York	Mentioned in the signature block as the jurisdiction of the United States Attorneys.

Relationships (1)

Government → adversarial → defendant

The document details the Government's opposition to a motion made by the defendant in a criminal case.

Key Quotes (1)

"on equal footing with the defense"

Source

— The defendant (Quoted as the defendant's counter-argument that the Court should put third parties on equal footing with the defense.)

DOJ-OGR-00019521.jpg

Quote #1

Full Extracted Text

Complete text extracted from the document (1,430 characters)

Case 1:20-mj-00330-AJN Document 24 Filed 07/28/20 Page 7 of 7

The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
July 28, 2020
Page 7

of such materials provided by the defendant to the Government. But there is no basis to add additional restrictions upon the Government’s use of materials gathered by the Government itself.

The defendant’s only counter-argument, as noted—that this Court should put third parties “on equal footing with the defense”—is both unlikely to be relevant given the Government’s standard practice, as described above, and, the Government submits, an irrelevant consideration in the context of a criminal protective order. Indeed, the Government respectfully submits that neither it nor this Court is well-positioned to, or should, become the arbiter of what is appropriate or permissible in civil cases.

In sum, the defendant’s attempt to restrict the Government and to restrict third parties in this way appears to be unprecedented, and is without legal basis, and should be denied.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, the Court should enter the Government’s proposed protective order, which is enclosed, and deny the defendant’s motion.

Respectfully submitted,

AUDREY STRAUSS
Acting United States Attorney

By: /s/
Alex Rossmiller / Alison Moe / Maurene Comey
Assistant United States Attorneys
Southern District of New York
Tel: (212) 637-2415

Cc: All counsel of record (via ECF)

App.062
DOJ-OGR-00019521

View Original PDF