DOJ-OGR-00019434.jpg
558 KB
Extraction Summary
8
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
1
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
558 KB
Summary
This legal document, dated September 24, 2020, argues that the government strategically chose not to intervene to prevent the unsealing of Ms. Maxwell's depositions. The filing suggests this inaction allows the government to later claim any violation of a prior ruling was harmless. It supports its argument by citing legal precedents, such as 'Louis Vuitton' and 'SEC v. Boock', which warn of the dangers for defendants who waive their Fifth Amendment rights during civil discovery.
People (8)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Judge Preska | Judge |
Mentioned as the judge before whom the government should have moved to intervene to oppose the unsealing of depositio...
|
| Ms. Maxwell | Subject of depositions |
Her depositions are the subject of the legal argument regarding their potential release to the public.
|
| Judge Nathan | Judge |
The judge to whom the government will argue if Ms. Maxwell's depositions are released.
|
| Martindell | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned in the context of a potential violation of a ruling in the 'Martindell' case.
|
| Doe | Party in a legal case |
A party in the case 'Doe v. Indyke'.
|
| Indyke | Party in a legal case |
A party in the case 'Doe v. Indyke'.
|
| Giuffre | Party in a legal case |
A party in the case 'Giuffre v. Maxwell'.
|
| Boock | Party in a legal case |
A party in the case 'SEC v. Boock'.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| government | government agency |
Discussed in terms of its legal strategy and decision not to intervene in the unsealing of Ms. Maxwell's depositions.
|
| Louis Vuitton | company |
Mentioned as a party in a legal case that set a precedent regarding Fifth Amendment privilege in civil discovery.
|
| SEC | government agency |
The plaintiff in the cited case 'SEC v. Boock'.
|
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, where the 'SEC v. Boock' case was decided.
|
Relationships (1)
The document describes the government's legal strategy concerning Ms. Maxwell's depositions, suggesting it is positioning itself to argue against her in a future proceeding.
Key Quotes (1)
"if civil defendants do not elect to assert their Fifth Amendment privilege, and instead fully cooperate with discovery, their ‘testimony . . . in their defense in the civil action is likely to constitute admissions of criminal conduct in their criminal prosecution.’"Source
— The Court in Louis Vuitton
(Quoted as a legal precedent recognized by the Court concerning the consequences for civil defendants who cooperate with discovery rather than invoking their Fifth Amendment rights.)
DOJ-OGR-00019434.jpg
Quote #1
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,204 characters)
Case 20-3061, Document 60, 09/24/2020, 2938278, Page35 of 58
believed. According to the government, [REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
But if that’s true, then the government should have moved to intervene before Judge Preska to oppose the unsealing of the deposition material, since, in the government’s view, that material is confidential. The (unprincipled) reason for the government’s decision not to intervene is obvious: If Ms. Maxwell’s depositions are released to the public, the government will argue to Judge Nathan that any violation of Martindell was harmless.
It’s immaterial that the court stayed Doe v. Indyke during discovery while discovery in Giuffre v. Maxwell finished in 2017. As this Court recognized in Louis Vuitton, “if civil defendants do not elect to assert their Fifth Amendment privilege, and instead fully cooperate with discovery, their ‘testimony . . . in their defense in the civil action is likely to constitute admissions of criminal conduct in their criminal prosecution.’” 676 F.3d at 98 (quoting SEC v. Boock, No. 09 Civ. 8261(DLC), 2010 WL 2398918, at *2, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59498, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. June 15, 2010) (alteration in original)).
30
DOJ-OGR-00019434
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document