DOJ-OGR-00019576.jpg
712 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
7
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
712 KB
Summary
This legal document, dated August 24, 2020, is page 3 of a filing to Judge Alison J. Nathan on behalf of Ms. Maxwell. It argues against the U.S. Government's position, refuting the claim that materials Ms. Maxwell seeks to file under seal are 'Confidential' or would compromise a 'secret' investigation. The filing cites legal precedent and states that the subpoena recipient is already aware of the information in question.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Alison J. Nathan | Honorable (Judge) |
The document is addressed to The Honorable Alison J. Nathan.
|
| Ms. Maxwell |
A party in the legal case who is seeking to file materials under seal.
|
|
| Kerik |
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Kerik'.
|
|
| Palmieri |
Mentioned in a case citation reference 'see also Palmieri'.
|
Organizations (7)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| State of New York | government agency |
Mentioned in the case citation 'v. State of New York'.
|
| Abbott Laboratories | company |
A party in the case citation 'Abbott Laboratories v. Adelphia Supply USA'.
|
| Adelphia Supply USA | company |
A party in the case citation 'Abbott Laboratories v. Adelphia Supply USA'.
|
| United States Government | government agency |
Referred to as 'the Government', it is the opposing party in the legal matter, making arguments against Ms. Maxwell's...
|
| Second Circuit | judicial body |
Mentioned in a legal citation and a quote regarding the enforcement of protective orders.
|
| S.D.N.Y. | judicial body |
Abbreviation for the Southern District of New York, mentioned in multiple case citations.
|
| DOJ | government agency |
Implied by the footer 'DOJ-OGR-00019576', likely referring to the Department of Justice.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2020-08-24
A legal document was filed in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, arguing on behalf of Ms. Maxwell's request to file materials under seal.
S.D.N.Y.
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned as 'State of New York' and in the court designation 'S.D.N.Y.' (Southern District of New York).
|
Relationships (1)
The document presents arguments on behalf of Ms. Maxwell against the position taken by 'the Government' in a legal proceeding.
Key Quotes (4)
"In the Second Circuit, there is a presumption in favor of enforcing protective orders against grand jury subpoenas."Source
— Abbott Laboratories v. Adelphia Supply USA case ruling
(Cited as legal precedent to support an argument.)
DOJ-OGR-00019576.jpg
Quote #1
"Confidential"Source
— The Government
(The government's description of the materials at issue, which the author of this document is refuting.)
DOJ-OGR-00019576.jpg
Quote #2
"full scope and details"Source
— The Government
(Part of the government's reasoning for why materials are confidential, quoted by the author.)
DOJ-OGR-00019576.jpg
Quote #3
"have not been made public"Source
— The Government
(Part of the government's reasoning for why materials are confidential, quoted by the author.)
DOJ-OGR-00019576.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,485 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 254-1 Filed 08/24/20 Page 3 of 5
The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
August 24, 2020
Page 3
August 24, 2020
Page 3
v. State of New York, 779 F.2d 861 (2d Cir. 1987); Abbott Laboratories v. Adelphia Supply USA, Case 2015-cv-5826 (CBA) (MDG), 2016 WL 11613256 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 22, 2016) (“In the Second Circuit, there is a presumption in favor of enforcing protective orders against grand jury subpoenas.”); United States v. Kerik, 07 CR 1027, 2014 WL 12710346 (S.D.N.Y. July 23, 2014). It seems that a majority of courts in this district have rejected the claimed “standard practice” arguments made by the Government [REDACTED]. A notable difference is that the other applications were not conducted ex parte. [REDACTED]
[REDACTED] Ms. Maxwell is not asking this Court to decide that question today.
[REDACTED] Ms. Maxwell is not asking this Court to decide that question today.
But Ms. Maxwell is seeking [REDACTED]
The Government Does Not Explain How Any “Secret” Investigation Will be Compromised. Third, the government claims that the materials at issue are “Confidential” because the “full scope and details” of their very-public proclamations of an ongoing criminal investigation “have not been made public.” Resp. at 3. This argument too is nonsensical: the sealed materials that Ms. Maxwell seeks to file, under seal, [REDACTED]
[REDACTED] Certainly the subpoena recipient, otherwise known as counsel for the adverse party to the Civil Litigation, knows the two things that Ms. Maxwell seeks to file under seal in [REDACTED]
App.117
DOJ-OGR-00019576
DOJ-OGR-00019576
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document