DOJ-OGR-00003029.jpg
724 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
724 KB
Summary
This legal document page, filed on April 16, 2021, describes court proceedings from March 2019. Following the death of Judge Sweet, Chief Judge McMahon took over the case and held a hearing on March 26, 2019, to question the Government about its application and why the law firm Boies Schiller had not sought to be relieved from a protective order.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Chief Judge McMahon | Chief Judge |
Presided over hearings regarding the Government's application after Judge Sweet's death.
|
| Judge Sweet | Judge |
Passed away in March 2019 before ruling on the Government's application.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Boies Schiller | company |
A party in the case that did not make an application to be relieved from a protective order.
|
| The Government | government agency |
A party in the litigation that submitted an application and arguments to the court.
|
Timeline (2 events)
2019-03-26
Chief Judge McMahon held the first of two ex parte and sealed hearings to inquire about the Government's application and why Boies Schiller had not sought relief from a protective order.
Relationships (1)
Chief Judge McMahon took over the Government's application in the case after Judge Sweet's death.
Key Quotes (4)
"specific knowledge of the subject matter of discovery materials is relatively limited, due to the confidential nature"Source
— The Government
(From the Government's letters, explaining its limited knowledge of discovery materials.)
DOJ-OGR-00003029.jpg
Quote #1
"any presumption against modification of a protective order is unreasonable where, as here, the protective order is on its face temporary or limited."Source
— The Government
(The Government's argument that the Martindell balancing test should not apply.)
DOJ-OGR-00003029.jpg
Quote #2
"speak to why Boies Schiller in particular didn’t make their own application."Source
— The Government
(The Government's reply to Chief Judge McMahon's inquiry during the March 26, 2019 hearing.)
DOJ-OGR-00003029.jpg
Quote #3
"simply isn’t in a position to be able to describe the investigation in the way that we have in our submission."Source
— The Government
(The Government's explanation for Boies Schiller's situation.)
DOJ-OGR-00003029.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,129 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 95 of 239
materials in violation of a protective order, without first obtaining authorization from the court, because the court would have granted such authorization had it been sought. (Id.). The court also stated that such formal judicial approval could be obtained ex parte if sufficient reason was provided. (Id.). In its letters, the Government noted that its “specific knowledge of the subject matter of discovery materials is relatively limited, due to the confidential nature” of the litigation. (Id. at 2 n.1). The Government also submitted that the court need not employ the Martindell balancing test to evaluate the Government’s ability to obtain access to materials covered by a protective order because (1) the Martindell balancing test generally relates to “instances where the Government sought protected information without [ ] grand jury process” and (2) “any presumption against modification of a protective order is unreasonable where, as here, the protective order is on its face temporary or limited.” (Id. at 3-4).
6. Proceedings before Chief Judge McMahon
a. March 26, 2019 Hearing
Judge Sweet passed away in March 2019 before ruling on the Government’s application. After Judge Sweet’s death, but before the civil case was reassigned to a new judge, Chief Judge McMahon took up the Government’s application. Chief Judge McMahon subsequently inquired about the Government’s application in two transcribed ex parte and sealed hearings. (Def. Mot. 3, Exs. D & E). At the first hearing, on March 26, 2019, Chief Judge McMahon inquired as to why Boies Schiller did not make an application for permission to be relieved from the protective order, to which the Government replied that it could not “speak to why Boies Schiller in particular didn’t make their own application.” (Def. Mot. 3, Ex. D at 3). The Government further noted that Boies Schiller “simply isn’t in a position to be able to describe the investigation in the way that we have in our submission.” (Id. at 11-12). Chief Judge McMahon noted that she believed that
68
DOJ-OGR-00003029
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document