You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
DOJ-OGR-00019548.jpg
637 KB
Extraction Summary
1
People
5
Organizations
2
Locations
1
Events
3
Relationships
0
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
637 KB
Summary
This is a court order issued by United States District Judge Alison J. Nathan on July 30, 2020. The order grants the Government's proposed protective order concerning discovery materials, finding the Defense's arguments against the restrictions to be unwarranted and unprecedented. The ruling resolves docket item number 29 in the case.
People (1)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| ALISON J. NATHAN | United States District Judge |
Signed the order as the presiding judge.
|
Organizations (5)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Government | Government Agency |
A party in the legal case whose proposed protective order was adopted by the court.
|
| Defense | Legal Team |
A party in the legal case whose arguments against restrictions on discovery materials were deemed unwarranted.
|
| Court | Judicial Body |
The entity making the ruling on the protective order.
|
| Department of Justice | Government Agency |
Mentioned as having policies that the Government is expected to follow.
|
| U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York | Government Agency |
Mentioned as having policies that the Government is expected to follow.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2020-07-30
The Court adopted the Government's proposed protective order and resolved Dkt. No. 29.
New York, New York
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
The location where the document was dated and issued.
|
|
|
The jurisdiction of the U.S. Attorney's Office mentioned in the document.
|
Relationships (3)
The document describes a legal dispute between the Government and the Defense over a proposed protective order for discovery materials, with the Court ultimately siding with the Government.
The Court, presided over by Judge Alison J. Nathan, ruled in favor of the Government by adopting its proposed protective order.
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,718 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 29 Filed 07/30/20 Page 3 of 3
stake. And as the Government’s letter notes, see Dkt. No. 33 at 4, to the extent that the Defense
needs an exception to the protective order for a specific investigative purpose, they can make
applications to the Court on a case-by-case basis.
needs an exception to the protective order for a specific investigative purpose, they can make
applications to the Court on a case-by-case basis.
Second, restrictions on the ability of potential witnesses and their counsel to use
discovery materials for purposes other than preparing for trial in this case are unwarranted. The
request appears unprecedented despite the fact that there have been many high-profile criminal
matters that had related civil litigation. The Government labors under many restrictions
including Rule 6(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Privacy Act of 1974, and
other policies of the Department of Justice and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern
District of New York, all of which the Court expects the Government to scrupulously follow.
Furthermore, the Government indicates that it will likely only provide potential witnesses with
materials that those witnesses already have in their possession. See Dkt. No. 33 at 6. And of
course, those witnesses who do testify at trial would be subject to examination on the record as to
what materials were provided or shown to them by the Government. Nothing in the Defense’s
papers explains how its unprecedented proposed restriction is somehow necessary to ensure a
fair trial.
discovery materials for purposes other than preparing for trial in this case are unwarranted. The
request appears unprecedented despite the fact that there have been many high-profile criminal
matters that had related civil litigation. The Government labors under many restrictions
including Rule 6(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Privacy Act of 1974, and
other policies of the Department of Justice and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern
District of New York, all of which the Court expects the Government to scrupulously follow.
Furthermore, the Government indicates that it will likely only provide potential witnesses with
materials that those witnesses already have in their possession. See Dkt. No. 33 at 6. And of
course, those witnesses who do testify at trial would be subject to examination on the record as to
what materials were provided or shown to them by the Government. Nothing in the Defense’s
papers explains how its unprecedented proposed restriction is somehow necessary to ensure a
fair trial.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court adopts the Government’s proposed protective order,
which will be entered on the docket.
which will be entered on the docket.
This resolves Dkt. No. 29.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 30, 2020
New York, New York
New York, New York
ALISON J. NATHAN
United States District Judge
United States District Judge
3
App.089
DOJ-OGR-00019548
DOJ-OGR-00019548
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document