DOJ-OGR-00003040.jpg
813 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court filing / legal memorandum (government response in criminal case)
File Size:
813 KB
Summary
This document is page 106 of a legal filing (Document 204) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on April 16, 2021. The text details the Government's argument that it did not circumvent the 'Martindell' legal standard when seeking evidence previously under protective orders, specifically referring to a subpoena issued to the law firm Boies Schiller. It notes that Judges McMahon and Netburn ruled that the Government had demonstrated 'extraordinary circumstances' justifying the release of testimony to the grand jury despite previous protective orders.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Chief Judge McMahon | Judge |
Found that the Martindell standard applied and ruled that the Government demonstrated extraordinary circumstances to ...
|
| Judge Netburn | Judge |
Found that the Martindell standard applied and analyzed the Government's application under that framework.
|
| The Government | Prosecution |
Argued for the modification of protective orders to obtain evidence via subpoena.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Boies Schiller |
Received a subpoena from the Government in connection with its investigation.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (indicated by Bates stamp DOJ-OGR).
|
|
| S.D.N.Y. |
Southern District of New York (referenced in legal citations).
|
Timeline (3 events)
2021-04-16
Document filed in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell).
Court Record
Prior to 2021-04-16
Prior to 2021-04-16
Judges McMahon and Netburn ruled on the application of the Martindell standard.
Court
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Southern District of New York (Jurisdiction of cited cases)
|
Relationships (2)
The Government issued a subpoena to Boies Schiller in connection with its investigation.
Judge McMahon analyzed the Government's application and found they demonstrated extraordinary circumstances.
Key Quotes (4)
"The Government did not, in any way, attempt to circumvent Martindell."Source
DOJ-OGR-00003040.jpg
Quote #1
"testimony provided pursuant to a protective order can be divulged to a grand jury if the government establishes 'some extraordinary circumstance or compelling need.'"Source
DOJ-OGR-00003040.jpg
Quote #2
"Chief Judge McMahon found that the 'Government [ ] persuasively demonstrated extraordinary circumstances,' citing 'significant"Source
DOJ-OGR-00003040.jpg
Quote #3
"the public . . . has a right to every man's evidence"Source
DOJ-OGR-00003040.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,438 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 106 of 239
supervision of a judge, the longstanding principle that 'the public . . . has a right to every man's
evidence,' except for those persons protected by a constitutional, common-law, or statutory
privilege is particularly applicable to grand jury proceedings." (internal citations omitted)).
evidence,' except for those persons protected by a constitutional, common-law, or statutory
privilege is particularly applicable to grand jury proceedings." (internal citations omitted)).
b. Discussion
The Government did not, in any way, attempt to circumvent Martindell. To the contrary,
the Government presented Martindell squarely to the relevant courts, first arguing that its test was
not applicable, and then, in the alternative, that the requested relief should be granted even if the
courts applied the Martindell standard. It cannot possibly be the case that the Government was
attempting to "circumvent" a case that it cited 11 times in its argument to both relevant courts.
(See (Exs. 8 & 9). Instead, the Government issued a subpoena to Boies Schiller in connection with
its investigation and made an application to two judges to modify Rule 26(c) protective orders that
precluded full compliance with those subpoenas. While the Government argued that the court
need not employ the Martindell balancing test for several reasons, it also made arguments under
Martindell in the alternative. Ultimately, both Chief Judge McMahon and Judge Netburn found
that Martindell applied and analyzed the Government's application under that framework.
the Government presented Martindell squarely to the relevant courts, first arguing that its test was
not applicable, and then, in the alternative, that the requested relief should be granted even if the
courts applied the Martindell standard. It cannot possibly be the case that the Government was
attempting to "circumvent" a case that it cited 11 times in its argument to both relevant courts.
(See (Exs. 8 & 9). Instead, the Government issued a subpoena to Boies Schiller in connection with
its investigation and made an application to two judges to modify Rule 26(c) protective orders that
precluded full compliance with those subpoenas. While the Government argued that the court
need not employ the Martindell balancing test for several reasons, it also made arguments under
Martindell in the alternative. Ultimately, both Chief Judge McMahon and Judge Netburn found
that Martindell applied and analyzed the Government's application under that framework.
As Chief Judge McMahon found, even under the Martindell approach, testimony provided
pursuant to a protective order can be divulged to a grand jury if the government establishes "some
extraordinary circumstance or compelling need." Martindell, 594 F.2d at 296. After concluding
that reliance on the protective order was unreasonable,36 Chief Judge McMahon found that the
"Government [ ] persuasively demonstrated extraordinary circumstances," citing "significant
pursuant to a protective order can be divulged to a grand jury if the government establishes "some
extraordinary circumstance or compelling need." Martindell, 594 F.2d at 296. After concluding
that reliance on the protective order was unreasonable,36 Chief Judge McMahon found that the
"Government [ ] persuasively demonstrated extraordinary circumstances," citing "significant
36 See, e.g., Int'l Equity Invs., Inc. v. Opportunity Equity Partners Ltd., No. 05 Civ. 2745 (JGK)
(RLE), 2010 WL 779314, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2010) (finding that the parties' reliance on a
civil protective order "was not unreasonable given the nature of the litigation," but "not so
overwhelming as to warrant the indefinite application of Martindell's strong presumption against
modification because the order's broad scope and express language, and the minimal level of court
inquiry outweigh the Parties' reliance.").
(RLE), 2010 WL 779314, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2010) (finding that the parties' reliance on a
civil protective order "was not unreasonable given the nature of the litigation," but "not so
overwhelming as to warrant the indefinite application of Martindell's strong presumption against
modification because the order's broad scope and express language, and the minimal level of court
inquiry outweigh the Parties' reliance.").
79
DOJ-OGR-00003040
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document