DOJ-OGR-00019650.jpg
637 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
4
Organizations
0
Locations
3
Events
3
Relationships
0
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
637 KB
Summary
This legal document is an introduction to a brief arguing against the government's position in an appeal. It clarifies that Ms. Maxwell's request is narrow: to share sealed information with Judge Preska and the appellate court about how prosecutors obtained her civil deposition material from the 'Giuffre v. Maxwell' case. The brief suggests this information is crucial for the court's decision on unsealing the material and could impact Ms. Maxwell's ability to litigate in her separate criminal case.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Maxwell | Litigant |
The subject of the legal brief, who is seeking permission to share information in a legal case.
|
| Judge Preska | Judicial Officer |
A judge whose order is being appealed and to whom Ms. Maxwell wishes to share information.
|
| Giuffre | Litigant |
A party in the civil case Giuffre v. Maxwell.
|
| Martindell | Litigant |
A party in the cited case Martindell v. International Telephone & Telegraph Corp.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| this Court | government agency |
Refers to the court deciding the appeal mentioned in the document.
|
| International Telephone & Telegraph Corp. | company |
A party in the cited case Martindell v. International Telephone & Telegraph Corp.
|
| Teligent, Inc. | company |
A party in the cited case In re Teligent, Inc.
|
| government | government agency |
The opposing party in Ms. Maxwell's criminal case, whose brief is being criticized.
|
Timeline (3 events)
Appeal of Judge Preska's order unsealing civil deposition material in the case Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 20-2413.
A criminal case against Ms. Maxwell where her ability to litigate is a concern.
Relationships (3)
The document describes Ms. Maxwell litigating against the government in a criminal case and challenging the government's brief in an appeal.
They are opposing parties in the civil case Giuffre v. Maxwell.
Ms. Maxwell is a litigant in a matter involving an order by Judge Preska, and she seeks to provide information to the judge.
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,430 characters)
Case 20-3061, Document 94, 10/08/2020, 2948481, Page4 of 23
Introduction
The government’s brief suffers from two fundamental flaws. It obscures the
relief Ms. Maxwell actually seeks, and it confuses the arguments she actually
makes.
relief Ms. Maxwell actually seeks, and it confuses the arguments she actually
makes.
As to the relief she seeks, Ms. Maxwell’s request is specific and narrow: She
seeks permission to share relevant information, under seal, with other Article III
judicial officers, specifically Judge Preska and the panel of this Court deciding the
appeal of Judge Preska’s order unsealing the civil deposition material, Giuffre v.
Maxwell, No. 20-2413. Only by obscuring what Ms. Maxwell actually seeks can the
government claim with a straight face that this appeal won’t be moot if this Court
declines to exercise jurisdiction now.
seeks permission to share relevant information, under seal, with other Article III
judicial officers, specifically Judge Preska and the panel of this Court deciding the
appeal of Judge Preska’s order unsealing the civil deposition material, Giuffre v.
Maxwell, No. 20-2413. Only by obscuring what Ms. Maxwell actually seeks can the
government claim with a straight face that this appeal won’t be moot if this Court
declines to exercise jurisdiction now.
As to the arguments she makes, there are several (fairly obvious) reasons
why Judge Preska and this Court should know just how prosecutors obtained the
deposition material and who turned it over to them. If Judge Preska knew this
information, she might very well decline to unseal Ms. Maxwell’s deposition
transcripts to protect Ms. Maxwell’s ability in the criminal case to litigate the
government’s violation of Martindell v. International Telephone & Telegraph Corp.,
594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979), cited with approval in In re Teligent, Inc., 640 F.3d 53, 58
(2d Cir. 2011). She might also reconsider whether Ms. Maxwell reasonably relied
why Judge Preska and this Court should know just how prosecutors obtained the
deposition material and who turned it over to them. If Judge Preska knew this
information, she might very well decline to unseal Ms. Maxwell’s deposition
transcripts to protect Ms. Maxwell’s ability in the criminal case to litigate the
government’s violation of Martindell v. International Telephone & Telegraph Corp.,
594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979), cited with approval in In re Teligent, Inc., 640 F.3d 53, 58
(2d Cir. 2011). She might also reconsider whether Ms. Maxwell reasonably relied
1
DOJ-OGR-00019650
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document