DOJ-OGR-00001758.jpg
817 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
5
Organizations
2
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
817 KB
Summary
This legal document, dated August 17, 2020, is a filing addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan on behalf of Ms. Maxwell. It argues for the court's discretion in handling certain materials, citing legal precedent from the Second Circuit for staying civil proceedings during a related criminal case to protect Fifth Amendment rights. The filing also discusses the proper jurisdiction for interpreting a protective order from a separate civil case, suggesting the government has previously agreed that the civil court, not this criminal court, is the appropriate forum.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Alison J. Nathan | The Honorable |
The document is addressed to The Honorable Alison J. Nathan.
|
| Ms. Maxwell |
Mentioned as a party in the case who anticipates a need to disclose materials and is making a request to the court.
|
Organizations (5)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Second Circuit | court |
Cited as having authority that supports staying a civil case pending a related criminal case.
|
| SEC | government agency |
Plaintiff in the cited case SEC v. Blaszczak.
|
| Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. | company |
A party in a case quoted for legal precedent regarding staying civil proceedings.
|
| LY USA, Inc. | company |
A party in a case quoted for legal precedent regarding staying civil proceedings.
|
| United States District Court for the Southern District of New York | court |
The court where the 'Material' exists as part of the court files.
|
Timeline (2 events)
2012
The case of Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. LY USA, Inc., 676 F.3d 83, was decided, providing precedent for staying civil proceedings.
2d Cir.
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Abbreviation for the Southern District of New York, the court district for the cited case SEC v. Blaszczak.
|
|
|
The location of the United States District Court mentioned in the document.
|
Relationships (1)
The document is a legal filing from a party (or their counsel) identified as 'Ms. Maxwell' to 'The Honorable Alison J. Nathan', indicating a relationship of litigant to judge.
Key Quotes (3)
"[a] district court may stay civil proceedings when related criminal proceedings are imminent or pending, and it will sometimes be prudential to do so"Source
— Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. LY USA, Inc. court opinion
(Quoted in the document as legal precedent to support staying a civil case.)
DOJ-OGR-00001758.jpg
Quote #1
"conforming” their testimony in the criminal case to what was disclosed in the civil case."Source
— Unknown (document author)
(Describing a concern that a stay of civil proceedings helps to prevent, related to protecting Fifth Amendment rights.)
DOJ-OGR-00001758.jpg
Quote #2
"that neither it nor this Court is well-positioned to, or should, become the arbiter of what is appropriate or permissible in civil cases."Source
— the government
(An opinion previously posited by the government regarding the appropriate forum for considering issues related to a civil protective order.)
DOJ-OGR-00001758.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,169 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 52 Filed 09/02/20 Page 7 of 8
The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
August 17, 2020
Page 7
August 17, 2020
Page 7
Further, and as this Court knows, ample Second Circuit authority supports staying a civil case pending the resolution of a related criminal case. See SEC v. Blaszczak, No. 17-CV-3919 (AJN), 2018 WL 301091, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 3, 2018) (granting motion to stay civil case and holding that “[a] district court may stay civil proceedings when related criminal proceedings are imminent or pending, and it will sometimes be prudential to do so” (quoting Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. LY USA, Inc., 676 F.3d 83, 98 (2d Cir. 2012))). Among other things, the stay vindicates the Fifth Amendment and guards against witnesses learning information in the civil case and then “conforming” their testimony in the criminal case to what was disclosed in the civil case. This concern is all the more real when
Ms. Maxwell further anticipates the very immediate need to disclose the Materials to
Notably, the Material at issue is not accuser-related or sensitive in any regard. These ex parte pleadings, hearings, and rulings are already known to [REDACTED]. These materials, absent sealing, would enjoy a presumptive right of public access as judicial documents. Given that the Material has been disclosed in this case by the government under the terms of this Court’s Order, and without any application to the sealing courts, the government has conceded that this Court has the authority to authorize use of the Material under the terms of this Court’s Protective Order. And, the government has previously agreed that the appropriate forum to consider issues related to the civil Protective Order is in the civil litigation, positing the opinion “that neither it nor this Court is well-positioned to, or should, become the arbiter of what is appropriate or permissible in civil cases.” Doc. # 33 at 7. What Ms. Maxwell asks is that she be allowed to disclose, under seal, the Material so that
The Protective Order in this case
The Material, as part of the court files in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
The Material, as part of the court files in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
DOJ-OGR-00001758
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document