DOJ-OGR-00019454.jpg
719 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
5
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court order / legal opinion (page 10)
File Size:
719 KB
Summary
This document is page 10 of a court order filed on September 14, 2020, discussing 'The Interests of the Court' regarding a motion to stay a civil case involving Ghislaine Maxwell. The court reasons that staying the civil case favors judicial economy because the parallel criminal case (presided over by Judge Alison J. Nathan) may resolve common factual issues and involves strict protective orders that complicate civil discovery. The text references letters from the Government and Moskowitz regarding these discovery limitations.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant |
Subject of pending criminal case and civil litigation; discovery access restricted by protective order.
|
| Alison J. Nathan | Judge (Honorable) |
Judge presiding over Maxwell's criminal matter; issued protective order regarding discovery.
|
| Jeffrey Epstein | Deceased Subject |
Mentioned as the 'Epstein estate' regarding multiple civil cases.
|
| Moskowitz | Attorney (implied) |
Author of a letter referenced by the court (Moskowitz Ltr.).
|
Organizations (5)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Court |
The judicial body issuing this document (Southern District of New York).
|
|
| Government |
Prosecution in the criminal case (DOJ).
|
|
| Sec. & Exch. Comm’n |
Cited in case law precedent (SEC).
|
|
| Abraaj Inv. Mgmt. Ltd. |
Cited in case law precedent.
|
|
| Epstein estate |
Defendant in multiple civil cases in the District.
|
Timeline (2 events)
Ongoing
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Southern District of New York (implied by 'this District' and case citations).
|
Relationships (2)
Maxwell's criminal matter is under the jurisdiction of the Honorable Alison J. Nathan
Maxwell mentioned in context of civil cases against the Epstein estate.
Key Quotes (4)
"staying discovery in the civil case could conserve judicial resources."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019454.jpg
Quote #1
"the pending criminal case against Maxwell may resolve issues of fact common to the two actions"Source
DOJ-OGR-00019454.jpg
Quote #2
"Maxwell’s access to information about the criminal matter is under the jurisdiction of the Honorable Alison J. Nathan"Source
DOJ-OGR-00019454.jpg
Quote #3
"Thus, at least to some extent, the Court’s interest weighs in favor of a stay."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019454.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,110 characters)
Case 1:20-cv-00464-JGK-DGW Document 2820 Filed 09/14/20 Page 10 of 13
5. The Interests of the Court
As for the interest of the Court, it appears that staying discovery in the civil case could
conserve judicial resources. Where a criminal case can potentially streamline the related civil
case, this factor supports a stay. Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Abraaj Inv. Mgmt. Ltd., No. 19cv3244
(AJN), 2019 WL 6498282, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 2019). As observed by the Government, the
pending criminal case against Maxwell may resolve issues of fact common to the two actions,
and may therefore reduce the number of issues to be decided in subsequent proceedings in this
case. (See 9/4/20 Gov’t Ltr., at 2.)
conserve judicial resources. Where a criminal case can potentially streamline the related civil
case, this factor supports a stay. Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Abraaj Inv. Mgmt. Ltd., No. 19cv3244
(AJN), 2019 WL 6498282, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 2019). As observed by the Government, the
pending criminal case against Maxwell may resolve issues of fact common to the two actions,
and may therefore reduce the number of issues to be decided in subsequent proceedings in this
case. (See 9/4/20 Gov’t Ltr., at 2.)
Further, although it should not be the decisive factor, this Court also notes that it has
some interest in coordinating discovery, where appropriate, among the many civil cases that have
been brought in this District against the Epstein estate, and that none of those other cases are
currently going forward. This Court additionally notes that tighter restrictions on discovery may
be imposed in the context of a criminal prosecution than in a civil litigation, and that, if this civil
case were to move forward, restrictions that have already been placed on Maxwell’s access to
information in her criminal case could have a limiting effect on this Court’s ability to supervise
discovery here. (See 9/4/20 Gov’t Ltr., at 3-4 (noting that “Maxwell’s access to information
about the criminal matter is under the jurisdiction of the Honorable Alison J. Nathan, who has
entered a protective order and has issued several rulings regarding the scope of discovery that
Maxwell is entitled to and the manner in which she may or may not use that information”); see
also 8/27/20 Moskowitz Ltr., at 3 (noting that Maxwell had indicated, in her initial disclosures,
that, due to the terms of a protective order entered in the criminal case, she would be prohibited
from disclosing certain information in the civil case).)
some interest in coordinating discovery, where appropriate, among the many civil cases that have
been brought in this District against the Epstein estate, and that none of those other cases are
currently going forward. This Court additionally notes that tighter restrictions on discovery may
be imposed in the context of a criminal prosecution than in a civil litigation, and that, if this civil
case were to move forward, restrictions that have already been placed on Maxwell’s access to
information in her criminal case could have a limiting effect on this Court’s ability to supervise
discovery here. (See 9/4/20 Gov’t Ltr., at 3-4 (noting that “Maxwell’s access to information
about the criminal matter is under the jurisdiction of the Honorable Alison J. Nathan, who has
entered a protective order and has issued several rulings regarding the scope of discovery that
Maxwell is entitled to and the manner in which she may or may not use that information”); see
also 8/27/20 Moskowitz Ltr., at 3 (noting that Maxwell had indicated, in her initial disclosures,
that, due to the terms of a protective order entered in the criminal case, she would be prohibited
from disclosing certain information in the civil case).)
Thus, at least to some extent, the Court’s interest weighs in favor of a stay.
10
DOJ-OGR-00019454
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document