DOJ-OGR-00001704.jpg
624 KB
Extraction Summary
1
People
3
Organizations
2
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
0
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
624 KB
Summary
This legal document is a court order issued by United States District Judge Alison J. Nathan on July 30, 2020. The order resolves a dispute in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN by adopting the Government's proposed protective order and rejecting the Defense's request for further restrictions on discovery materials as unwarranted and unprecedented.
People (1)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| ALISON J. NATHAN | United States District Judge |
Signed the court order.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| the Court | government agency |
The judicial body that issued the order, adopting the Government's proposed 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 adopts the Government's proposed protective order and resolves Dkt. No. 29.
New York, New York
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
The location where the document was dated.
|
|
|
The jurisdiction of the U.S. Attorney's Office mentioned in the document.
|
Relationships (1)
the Government
→
adversarial (legal)
→
the Defense
The document describes a legal dispute between the Government and the Defense over a proposed protective order for discovery materials in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, with the Court ruling in favor of the Government.
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,710 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 37 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
DOJ-OGR-00001704
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document