DOJ-OGR-00003031.jpg
734 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
4
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
734 KB
Summary
This legal document page, filed on April 16, 2021, details discussions from an April 9, 2019 hearing. Chief Judge McMahon questions the Government's request for materials from a civil libel case involving Maxwell, expressing concerns about potential criminal proceedings and the invocation of the Fifth Amendment. The judge also probes into prior contacts between the U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO-SDNY) and the law firm Boies Schiller related to the investigation.
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Government | government agency |
A party in the legal proceedings, seeking materials from a libel case and being questioned by Chief Judge McMahon.
|
| USAO-SDNY | government agency |
Mentioned in a quote by Chief Judge McMahon, who inquired about contacts between this office and Boies Schiller.
|
| Boies Schiller | company |
Mentioned in a quote by Chief Judge McMahon, who inquired about contacts between this law firm and the USAO-SDNY.
|
| Chemical Bank | company |
Referenced by Chief Judge McMahon in the context of a legal precedent or situation she wishes to avoid ("Chemical Ban...
|
Timeline (1 events)
2019-04-09
Chief Judge McMahon held a conference to inquire about the Government's request for materials and to ask about contacts between the USAO-SDNY and Boies Schiller regarding an investigation.
Chief Judge McMahon
Government
Relationships (2)
Chief Judge McMahon is presiding over a case involving the Government, questioning its representatives during a hearing about their legal strategy and requests for evidence.
The Government is seeking materials from a libel case involving Maxwell and has acknowledged the possibility of using them to commence criminal proceedings against her.
Key Quotes (3)
"in order to give whatever in discovery they gave, whether it was deposition testimony they gave or – then again, I can’t fathom why anybody who has any criminal exposure would not have taken the Fifth Amendment in response to questions in a civil deposition, but I don’t know."Source
— Chief Judge McMahon
(Noting that parties relied on a protective order and questioning why someone with criminal exposure would not invoke the Fifth Amendment.)
DOJ-OGR-00003031.jpg
Quote #1
"I do not know, but I think it is entirely possible that what we are seeking is page after page of people taking the Fifth. That is entirely possible. But to the extent that it is not or there are other materials -- and this may be bad for our argument, but in all transparency and candor, I think there may be other individuals who also relied on the protective order."Source
— Government
(Responding to the judge's inquiry about the materials being sought from the libel case.)
DOJ-OGR-00003031.jpg
Quote #2
"to make sure I’m not in a Chemical Bank kind of situation, so I would like to know about contacts between [the USAO-SDNY and Boies Schiller] prior to the issuance of the subpoena on the subject of your investigation."Source
— Chief Judge McMahon
(During the April 9, 2019 hearing, expressing a desire to understand the background communications before a subpoena was issued.)
DOJ-OGR-00003031.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,181 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 97 of 239
of the materials in light of the “extraordinary protections” of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedue 6(e). (Id. at 17-18).
Finally, Chief Judge McMahon also inquired whether the materials sought by the Government might be used to commence criminal proceedings against either of the parties to the libel case, i.e., including Maxwell. (Id. at 18). The Government acknowledged that possibility as a general matter. (Id.). Chief Judge McMahon noted that the parties to the protective order relied on that order “in order to give whatever in discovery they gave, whether it was deposition testimony they gave or – then again, I can’t fathom why anybody who has any criminal exposure would not have taken the Fifth Amendment in response to questions in a civil deposition, but I don’t know.” (Id. at 18-19). The Government stated, “I do not know, but I think it is entirely possible that what we are seeking is page after page of people taking the Fifth. That is entirely possible. But to the extent that it is not or there are other materials -- and this may be bad for our argument, but in all transparency and candor, I think there may be other individuals who also relied on the protective order.” (Id.). The Government further explained that it “want[ed] to have a formal application” for the relevant materials and took that approach to “avoid the types of problems” created by other less formal government requests in other cited cases. (Id. at 20).
b. April 9, 2019 Hearing
Chief Judge McMahon held another conference on April 9, 2019. She stated that she wanted “to make sure I’m not in a Chemical Bank kind of situation, so I would like to know about contacts between [the USAO-SDNY and Boies Schiller] prior to the issuance of the subpoena on the subject of your investigation.” (Def. Mot. 3, Ex. E at 2 (emphasis added)).34 In Chemical
34 Tellingly, Maxwell omits the italicized portion of this question from her motion, thereby stripping important context from the nature of Chief Judge McMahon’s question which, as asked, was focused on “your investigation.” (See Def. Mot. 3 at 7).
70
DOJ-OGR-00003031
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document