DOJ-OGR-00019619.jpg
662 KB
Extraction Summary
1
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
4
Events
1
Relationships
0
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
662 KB
Summary
This legal document, dated October 2, 2020, outlines the procedural history of a case between the Government and a defendant named Maxwell. It details the Government's arguments against Maxwell's motion to modify a Protective Order, citing her failure to justify using criminal discovery materials in civil litigation. The document also describes conflicting rulings from two courts, "Court-1" and "Court-2," regarding the Government's applications related to sealed grand jury subpoenas.
People (1)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Maxwell | criminal defendant |
Mentioned as the subject of a criminal case, whose motion to modify a Protective Order was argued against by the Gove...
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Government | government agency |
A party in a criminal case against Maxwell, making applications to courts, arguing against Maxwell's motions, and pro...
|
| Court-1 | judicial body |
A court that granted the Government's application regarding grand jury materials and ordered related filings to remai...
|
| Court-2 | judicial body |
A court that denied the Government's application regarding grand jury materials and ordered related filings to remain...
|
Timeline (4 events)
Court-2 denied the Government's application.
The Government argued that Maxwell's motion to modify the Protective Order should be denied.
Court-1 granted the Government's application first.
Relationships (1)
The document describes the Government prosecuting a criminal case against Maxwell and arguing against her legal motions in court.
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,676 characters)
Case 20-3061, Document 82, 10/02/2020, 2944267, Page12 of 37
6
quently, the second court (“Court-2”) denied the Gov-
ernment’s application.3 (A. 91). Because the relevant
grand jury investigation remains ongoing, both Court-
1 and Court-2 have ordered that the filings regarding
the Subpoenas remain under seal, except that both
have expressly permitted the Government to produce
those filings to Maxwell as part of its discovery obliga-
tions in this criminal case. (A. 91).
ernment’s application.3 (A. 91). Because the relevant
grand jury investigation remains ongoing, both Court-
1 and Court-2 have ordered that the filings regarding
the Subpoenas remain under seal, except that both
have expressly permitted the Government to produce
those filings to Maxwell as part of its discovery obliga-
tions in this criminal case. (A. 91).
After providing that factual background, the Gov-
ernment argued that Maxwell’s motion should be de-
nied for failing to show good cause to modify the Pro-
tective Order for several reasons. First, Maxwell had
consented to the portions of the Protective Order that
prohibit use of criminal discovery materials produced
by the Government in any civil litigation. (A. 91-92).
Second, Maxwell had cited no authority to support the
argument that a criminal defendant should be permit-
ted to use criminal discovery in civil cases. (A. 93).
Third, Maxwell utterly failed to explain how the crim-
inal discovery materials at issue supported any legal
argument she wished to make in civil litigation.
(A. 94). The Government also noted that to the extent
Maxwell sought to challenge the process by which the
Government sought compliance with the Subpoenas
and obtained certain materials that it intended to use
in prosecuting its criminal case, she would have a full
ernment argued that Maxwell’s motion should be de-
nied for failing to show good cause to modify the Pro-
tective Order for several reasons. First, Maxwell had
consented to the portions of the Protective Order that
prohibit use of criminal discovery materials produced
by the Government in any civil litigation. (A. 91-92).
Second, Maxwell had cited no authority to support the
argument that a criminal defendant should be permit-
ted to use criminal discovery in civil cases. (A. 93).
Third, Maxwell utterly failed to explain how the crim-
inal discovery materials at issue supported any legal
argument she wished to make in civil litigation.
(A. 94). The Government also noted that to the extent
Maxwell sought to challenge the process by which the
Government sought compliance with the Subpoenas
and obtained certain materials that it intended to use
in prosecuting its criminal case, she would have a full
3 The Government notes that Court-1 granted the
Government’s application first, and then the Govern-
ment provided a copy of Court-1’s decision to Court-2.
Court-2 then denied the Government’s application.
(A. 207-37).
Government’s application first, and then the Govern-
ment provided a copy of Court-1’s decision to Court-2.
Court-2 then denied the Government’s application.
(A. 207-37).
DOJ-OGR-00019619
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document