DOJ-OGR-00019412.jpg
516 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
1
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
3
Relationships
0
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
516 KB
Summary
This legal document, dated September 24, 2020, describes a procedural issue in a case involving Ms. Maxwell. A criminal protective order issued by Judge Nathan prevented Ms. Maxwell from sharing critical information with Judge Preska regarding an unsealing process. Following Judge Preska's suggestion, Ms. Maxwell filed a motion with Judge Nathan to modify the order, seeking permission to share what she had learned under seal.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Judge Nathan | Judge |
Issued a criminal protective order that prevented Ms. Maxwell from sharing information. Ms. Maxwell later filed a mot...
|
| Ms. Maxwell | Party in a legal case |
The subject of the document, who was aware of critical new information but was prevented from sharing it by a protect...
|
| Judge Preska | Judge |
The judge to whom Ms. Maxwell wished to reveal information. She declined to stay an unsealing process but suggested M...
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Court | Government agency |
Referenced as "this Court", with which Ms. Maxwell sought permission to share information.
|
Timeline (2 events)
Judge Preska declined to stay the unsealing process but stated she would reevaluate if Judge Nathan modified the criminal protective order.
Court
At Judge Preska's suggestion, Ms. Maxwell filed a motion with Judge Nathan seeking modification of the criminal protective order to allow her to share information under seal.
Court
Relationships (3)
Judge Nathan issued a criminal protective order in a case involving Ms. Maxwell, and Ms. Maxwell filed a motion with Judge Nathan to have it modified.
Ms. Maxwell sought to reveal information to Judge Preska, who was presiding over a related matter (the unsealing process). Judge Preska suggested a course of legal action for Ms. Maxwell to take.
Judge Preska's decision to reevaluate the unsealing process was contingent on a potential modification of an order by Judge Nathan, indicating they are judges involved in interconnected legal proceedings.
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,035 characters)
Case 20-3061, Document 60, 09/24/2020, 2938278, Page13 of 58
unsealing process. Doc. 17, p 6. But because of the criminal protective order issued by Judge Nathan, all Ms. Maxwell could reveal to Judge Preska was that she was aware of critical new information. Doc. 17, p 6. She couldn’t tell Judge Preska what that information was. Doc. 17, p 6.
Judge Preska declined to stay the unsealing process but said she would reevaluate if Judge Nathan modified the criminal protective order and allowed Ms. Maxwell to share with Judge Preska, under seal, all she had learned as described above. Doc. 17, p 6.
The order declining to modify the criminal protective order.
At Judge Preska’s suggestion, Ms. Maxwell filed a motion with Judge Nathan seeking modification of the criminal protective order. App. 124–31. All the motion asked was for permission to share with Judge Preska and with this Court, under seal, what Ms. Maxwell had learned [REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
8
DOJ-OGR-00019412
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document