DOJ-OGR-00019657.jpg
609 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
1
Organizations
0
Locations
4
Events
1
Relationships
0
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
609 KB
Summary
This legal document from October 8, 2020, discusses legal arguments concerning Ms. Maxwell's deposition testimony from a civil case, which forms the basis for criminal charges against her. It references the case 'Giuffre v. Maxwell', detailing how Giuffre's attorneys used a civil protective order to counter Maxwell's arguments about privacy and self-incrimination, leading her to testify rather than invoke her Fifth Amendment rights. The document also cites Judge Preska and the case 'Brown v. Maxwell' regarding the court's role in balancing access to legal materials.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Maxwell | Party in legal case |
Mentioned throughout as a party in civil cases ('Brown v. Maxwell', 'Giuffre v. Maxwell'), whose deposition testimony...
|
| Judge Preska | Judge |
Mentioned as the judge who released summary judgment material in the case 'Brown v. Maxwell'.
|
| Ms. Giuffre | Party in legal case |
Mentioned as the opposing party in the civil case 'Giuffre v. Maxwell'.
|
| Ms. Giuffre’s attorneys | Attorneys |
Mentioned for repeatedly using a civil protective order to counter Ms. Maxwell's arguments.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Court | government agency |
Referred to as 'this Court', the judicial body that released summary judgment material and must evaluate legal argume...
|
Timeline (4 events)
Civil case cited as 'Brown v. Maxwell', where the Court released summary judgment material.
Brown
Ms. Maxwell
Civil case cited as 'Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 20-2413'.
Ms. Maxwell testified at two depositions instead of invoking her Fifth Amendment right.
A concern is mentioned that Ms. Giuffre would use documents from the civil action to support a criminal investigation against Ms. Maxwell.
Relationships (1)
They are opposing parties in the civil case 'Giuffre v. Maxwell'.
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,346 characters)
Case 20-3061, Document 94, 10/08/2020, 2948481, Page11 of 23
[REDACTED] And Ms. Maxwell’s
deposition testimony in the civil case provides the substantive basis for two of the
six charges she faces. App. 27–29.
deposition testimony in the civil case provides the substantive basis for two of the
six charges she faces. App. 27–29.
As explained in Ms. Maxwell’s opening brief, Doc. 60, her motion to
consolidate, Doc. 17, and the reply in support, Doc. 54, [REDACTED]
consolidate, Doc. 17, and the reply in support, Doc. 54, [REDACTED]
For example, in balancing the qualified First Amendment presumption of access (a
presumption that is significantly less as applied to the deposition material than the
summary judgment material this Court released in Brown v. Maxwell), Judge Preska
and this Court must evaluate countervailing considerations including, most
prominently, Ms. Maxwell’s reliance on the civil protective order. Giuffre v.
Maxwell, No. 20-2413, Doc. 40, pp 21–28. [REDACTED]
presumption that is significantly less as applied to the deposition material than the
summary judgment material this Court released in Brown v. Maxwell), Judge Preska
and this Court must evaluate countervailing considerations including, most
prominently, Ms. Maxwell’s reliance on the civil protective order. Giuffre v.
Maxwell, No. 20-2413, Doc. 40, pp 21–28. [REDACTED]
[REDACTED] Ms. Giuffre’s attorneys repeatedly used the existence of the
civil protective order to deflect Ms. Maxwell’s arguments about her right to
privacy, her right against self-incrimination, and her concern that Ms. Giuffre
would use documents in the civil action to support a criminal investigation. Giuffre
v. Maxwell, No. 20-2413, Doc. 111, p 20. Ms. Maxwell then did not invoke her Fifth
Amendment right to remain silent and instead testified at two depositions. Id. [REDACTED]
civil protective order to deflect Ms. Maxwell’s arguments about her right to
privacy, her right against self-incrimination, and her concern that Ms. Giuffre
would use documents in the civil action to support a criminal investigation. Giuffre
v. Maxwell, No. 20-2413, Doc. 111, p 20. Ms. Maxwell then did not invoke her Fifth
Amendment right to remain silent and instead testified at two depositions. Id. [REDACTED]
[REDACTED] Ms. Giuffre’s attorneys
8
DOJ-OGR-00019657
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document