DOJ-OGR-00021541.jpg
635 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
6
Organizations
0
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
1
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
635 KB
Summary
This legal document, filed on February 25, 2022, details a court's order regarding an inquiry into the truthfulness of answers provided by Juror 50. The court sets a deadline of March 1, 2022, for the parties to submit proposed questions for a hearing. The court denies the Defendant's broad subpoena requests for Juror 50's communications, social media history, and other records, labeling them a "vexatious, intrusive, unjustified, and a fishing expedition."
Organizations (6)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Court | Government Agency |
The judicial body that issued the order, set the scope of an inquiry, and denied the Defendant's subpoena requests.
|
| Government | Government Agency |
The opposing party to the Defendant, whose objections are mentioned in the document.
|
| Company |
One of the social media platforms from which the Defendant sought communications and other data related to Juror 50.
|
|
| Company |
One of the social media platforms from which the Defendant sought communications and other data related to Juror 50.
|
|
| Company |
One of the social media platforms from which the Defendant sought communications and other data related to Juror 50.
|
|
| Company |
One of the social media platforms from which the Defendant sought communications and other data related to Juror 50.
|
Timeline (3 events)
2022-03-01
Deadline for parties to submit proposed questions for the inquiry into Juror 50.
The parties
The Court
Relationships (2)
The Defendant sought extensive discovery from Juror 50, including emails, social media activity, and payment records, to investigate the truthfulness of the juror's answers during the trial.
The document mentions the Defendant provided a rebuttal to the Government's objections concerning the subpoena requests, indicating they are opposing parties in a legal proceeding.
Key Quotes (1)
"The Court denies these requests as vexatious, intrusive, unjustified, and a fishing expedition."Source
— The Court
(The Court's reasoning for denying the Defendant's broad subpoena requests for information about Juror 50.)
DOJ-OGR-00021541.jpg
Quote #1
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,137 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 78, 06/29/2023, 3536039, Page111 of 217
SA-365
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 620 Filed 02/25/22 Page 17 of 21
SA-365
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 620 Filed 02/25/22 Page 17 of 21
public hearing with input from counsel. The parties may submit questions consistent with this
ruling, including what the Court holds in this Opinion are the limitations imposed by Rule 606
and the appropriate scope of the hearing. Once again, the scope of the inquiry is whether Juror
50’s answers were false; if so, what is the explanation for the answers; and how Juror 50 would
have responded to follow-up questions if accurate answers had been provided.
ruling, including what the Court holds in this Opinion are the limitations imposed by Rule 606
and the appropriate scope of the hearing. Once again, the scope of the inquiry is whether Juror
50’s answers were false; if so, what is the explanation for the answers; and how Juror 50 would
have responded to follow-up questions if accurate answers had been provided.
Per this Court’s prior order, the parties must submit the proposed questions under
temporary seal to ensure the integrity of the inquiry. See Dkt. No. 596 at 4. Proposed questions
must be submitted via email on or before March 1, 2022. The proposed questions will be
unsealed following the hearing.
temporary seal to ensure the integrity of the inquiry. See Dkt. No. 596 at 4. Proposed questions
must be submitted via email on or before March 1, 2022. The proposed questions will be
unsealed following the hearing.
B. The Defendant’s subpoena requests are denied
The Defendant seeks two sets of subpoenas to conduct discovery in advance of the
hearing. Maxwell Br. at 48–49. First, from Juror 50, the Defendant seeks any emails or other
communications between Juror 50 and any alleged victim or witness; any other juror; any other
person or media organization about Juror 50’s jury service; and, finally, any record of payments
for any interview or information that Juror 50 gave about his jury service. Second, from
Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram, and other social media platforms, the Defendant seeks
all communications to and from Juror 50 regarding his jury service; all posts, comments, or
photographs by Juror 50 regarding his jury service; and all documents reflecting when Juror 50
opened or closed his accounts. In her initial brief, the Defendant simply lists these requests
without justification. In her reply, she provides only a short rebuttal to the Government’s
objections and does not explain why each request is relevant or proper.
hearing. Maxwell Br. at 48–49. First, from Juror 50, the Defendant seeks any emails or other
communications between Juror 50 and any alleged victim or witness; any other juror; any other
person or media organization about Juror 50’s jury service; and, finally, any record of payments
for any interview or information that Juror 50 gave about his jury service. Second, from
Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram, and other social media platforms, the Defendant seeks
all communications to and from Juror 50 regarding his jury service; all posts, comments, or
photographs by Juror 50 regarding his jury service; and all documents reflecting when Juror 50
opened or closed his accounts. In her initial brief, the Defendant simply lists these requests
without justification. In her reply, she provides only a short rebuttal to the Government’s
objections and does not explain why each request is relevant or proper.
The Court denies these requests as vexatious, intrusive, unjustified, and a fishing
expedition. Given the focused inquiry the Court is ordering, the evidentiary hearing’s scope
expedition. Given the focused inquiry the Court is ordering, the evidentiary hearing’s scope
17
DOJ-OGR-00021541
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document