DOJ-OGR-00019636.jpg
621 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
621 KB
Summary
This legal document, page 23 of a court filing dated October 2, 2020, argues that Judge Nathan correctly denied a motion by Maxwell. Maxwell sought to use discovery materials from her criminal case in a separate civil litigation, but the judge found her reasons to be "vague, speculative, and conclusory." The document notes that Maxwell had previously consented to a Protective Order prohibiting this and that she was aware the Government had charged her with perjury related to civil cases.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Judge Nathan | Judge |
Mentioned as the judge who did not abuse her discretion in entering a challenged Order against Maxwell.
|
| Maxwell | Litigant/Appellant |
The subject of the legal discussion, whose arguments and appeal regarding the use of criminal discovery materials in ...
|
| Wecht | Party in a cited case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Wecht'.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States | Government |
Mentioned as a party in the case citation 'United States v. Wecht'.
|
| 3rd Cir. | Court |
Mentioned in a case citation, referring to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
|
| Government | Government agency |
Mentioned as the entity providing discovery material in a criminal case and having charged Maxwell with perjury.
|
Timeline (3 events)
Judge Nathan entered a 'challenged Order' denying Maxwell's request to use criminal discovery materials in a civil case.
The Government charged Maxwell with perjury in connection with civil cases.
Relationships (2)
Judge Nathan ruled on Maxwell's motion and arguments, finding them insufficient and denying her request.
The Government is the opposing party in a criminal case against Maxwell, provided discovery materials under a Protective Order, and charged her with perjury.
Key Quotes (3)
"ensure the fair adjudication of issues being litigated in those civil matter,"Source
— Maxwell (as part of her argument)
(Quoted as part of Maxwell's argument for why she needed to disclose criminal discovery materials.)
DOJ-OGR-00019636.jpg
Quote #1
"vague, speculative, and conclusory,"Source
— Judge Nathan
(Judge Nathan's finding regarding Maxwell's proffered reasons for her request.)
DOJ-OGR-00019636.jpg
Quote #2
"plainly fail to establish good cause."Source
— Judge Nathan
(Judge Nathan's conclusion about Maxwell's arguments.)
DOJ-OGR-00019636.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,572 characters)
Case 20-3061, Document 82, 10/02/2020, 2944267, Page29 of 37
23
modify a protective order entered in a criminal case);
United States v. Wecht, 484 F.3d 194, 211 (3rd Cir.
2007) (same).
United States v. Wecht, 484 F.3d 194, 211 (3rd Cir.
2007) (same).
B. Discussion
Judge Nathan did not abuse her discretion when
entering the challenged Order. In reaching her deci-
sion, Judge Nathan applied the correct legal standard,
evaluated Maxwell’s argument that she needed to dis-
close certain criminal discovery materials to the rele-
vant judicial officers to “ensure the fair adjudication of
issues being litigated in those civil matter,” found that
Maxwell’s proffered reasons for the request were
“vague, speculative, and conclusory,” and concluded
that Maxwell’s arguments “plainly fail to establish
good cause.” (A. 101). At no point did Judge Nathan
fail to apply established law, and it cannot be said that
her careful review of the parties’ arguments was not
within the bounds of permissible discretion.
entering the challenged Order. In reaching her deci-
sion, Judge Nathan applied the correct legal standard,
evaluated Maxwell’s argument that she needed to dis-
close certain criminal discovery materials to the rele-
vant judicial officers to “ensure the fair adjudication of
issues being litigated in those civil matter,” found that
Maxwell’s proffered reasons for the request were
“vague, speculative, and conclusory,” and concluded
that Maxwell’s arguments “plainly fail to establish
good cause.” (A. 101). At no point did Judge Nathan
fail to apply established law, and it cannot be said that
her careful review of the parties’ arguments was not
within the bounds of permissible discretion.
First, Maxwell still fails to articulate any legal ba-
sis for the use of discovery material received from the
Government in a criminal case to litigate a separate
civil case. Maxwell expressly consented to the entry of
a Protective Order prohibiting her from using criminal
discovery materials in civil litigation.7 In her motion
to modify that Protective Order, Maxwell cited no legal
authority for the use of criminal discovery in civil liti-
gation. Her appeal points to no such authority, and she
sis for the use of discovery material received from the
Government in a criminal case to litigate a separate
civil case. Maxwell expressly consented to the entry of
a Protective Order prohibiting her from using criminal
discovery materials in civil litigation.7 In her motion
to modify that Protective Order, Maxwell cited no legal
authority for the use of criminal discovery in civil liti-
gation. Her appeal points to no such authority, and she
7 Maxwell did so knowing that the Government
had charged her with perjury in connection with civil
cases.
had charged her with perjury in connection with civil
cases.
DOJ-OGR-00019636
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document