DOJ-OGR-00003056.jpg
868 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
4
Organizations
0
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court filing / legal brief (government response)
File Size:
868 KB
Summary
This document is a legal filing (page 122 of 239) by the Government opposing Ghislaine Maxwell's motion to suppress evidence and dismiss Counts Five and Six. The Government argues that suppression is unwarranted because the contested materials, specifically Maxwell's 2016 deposition transcripts, were already unsealed in civil litigation by Judge Preska and affirmed by the Second Circuit, making them subject to 'inevitable discovery.' Footnote 42 discusses the defendant's failed attempt to modify a protective order to use criminal discovery materials in her civil case.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant |
Referred to as 'the defendant' and explicitly named in case citations; seeking suppression of evidence.
|
| Judge Preska | Judge |
Judge in the underlying civil litigation (15 Civ. 7433) who unsealed materials.
|
| Virginia Giuffre | Plaintiff (Civil Case) |
Named in case citation 'Giuffre v. Maxwell'.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Government |
Opposing the defendant's motion to suppress evidence.
|
|
| The Court |
Refers to the court handling the criminal case (SDNY) and Judge Preska's court.
|
|
| The Second Circuit |
Affirmed Judge Preska's ruling regarding public access to documents.
|
|
| DOJ-OGR |
Department of Justice - Office of Government Relations (indicated in footer stamp).
|
Timeline (3 events)
2020-10
Second Circuit affirmed Judge Preska's ruling regarding the unsealing of deposition materials.
Second Circuit Court of Appeals
2020-10-22
2021-02
Redacted version of defendant's July 2016 deposition was publicly filed.
Court Docket
Relationships (2)
Case citation: Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 20-2413
Judge Preska unsealed materials in Maxwell's civil litigation and rejected her arguments.
Key Quotes (4)
"The defendant asks the Court for a drastic remedy, namely suppression of all evidence the Government obtained pursuant to the subpoena, as well as the dismissal of Counts Five and Six."Source
DOJ-OGR-00003056.jpg
Quote #1
"Suppression of all materials the Government obtained pursuant to the subpoena is unwarranted here, particularly where certain of the materials have been subsequently unsealed by Judge Preska"Source
DOJ-OGR-00003056.jpg
Quote #2
"had the Government not obtained an order modifying the protective order, the Government inevitably would have discovered and obtained, at a minimum, the defendant’s April 2016 deposition transcript"Source
DOJ-OGR-00003056.jpg
Quote #3
"The defendant offered no coherent explanation of how the criminal discovery materials could have any conceivable impact on the issues pending in civil litigation."Source
DOJ-OGR-00003056.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,660 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 122 of 239
The defendant asks the Court for a drastic remedy, namely suppression of all evidence the
Government obtained pursuant to the subpoena, as well as the dismissal of Counts Five and Six.
In so doing, the defendant seeks a windfall to which she is not entitled based on unprecedented
claims that ignore the facts and the law. Suppression of all materials the Government obtained
pursuant to the subpoena is unwarranted here, particularly where certain of the materials have been
subsequently unsealed by Judge Preska in the underlying civil litigation, including Maxwell’s
April 2016 deposition transcript. (See 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP), Dkt. No. 1077). The Second Circuit
affirmed Judge Preska’s ruling in October 2020, finding that the Court “correctly held that the
deposition materials are judicial documents to which the presumption of public access attaches,
and did not abuse its discretion in rejecting Maxwell’s meritless arguments that her interests
superseded the presumption of access.” Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 20-2413 (2d Cir.), (Dkt. No. 140-
1 at 3).42 On October 22, 2020, the defendant’s April 2016 deposition was publicly filed. (See 15
Civ. 7433 (LAP), Dkt. No. 1137-13). In February 2021, a redacted version of the defendant’s July
2016 deposition was publicly filed. (See 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP), Dkt. No. 1212-1). In other words,
had the Government not obtained an order modifying the protective order, the Government
inevitably would have discovered and obtained, at a minimum, the defendant’s April 2016
deposition transcript and a portion of the July 2016 transcript that form the basis of the charges in
Counts Five and Six.
Government obtained pursuant to the subpoena, as well as the dismissal of Counts Five and Six.
In so doing, the defendant seeks a windfall to which she is not entitled based on unprecedented
claims that ignore the facts and the law. Suppression of all materials the Government obtained
pursuant to the subpoena is unwarranted here, particularly where certain of the materials have been
subsequently unsealed by Judge Preska in the underlying civil litigation, including Maxwell’s
April 2016 deposition transcript. (See 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP), Dkt. No. 1077). The Second Circuit
affirmed Judge Preska’s ruling in October 2020, finding that the Court “correctly held that the
deposition materials are judicial documents to which the presumption of public access attaches,
and did not abuse its discretion in rejecting Maxwell’s meritless arguments that her interests
superseded the presumption of access.” Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 20-2413 (2d Cir.), (Dkt. No. 140-
1 at 3).42 On October 22, 2020, the defendant’s April 2016 deposition was publicly filed. (See 15
Civ. 7433 (LAP), Dkt. No. 1137-13). In February 2021, a redacted version of the defendant’s July
2016 deposition was publicly filed. (See 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP), Dkt. No. 1212-1). In other words,
had the Government not obtained an order modifying the protective order, the Government
inevitably would have discovered and obtained, at a minimum, the defendant’s April 2016
deposition transcript and a portion of the July 2016 transcript that form the basis of the charges in
Counts Five and Six.
42 Relatedly, the defendant moved to modify the criminal protective order in order to use
confidential criminal discovery materials in filings she intended to submit in civil litigation. The
defendant raised this precise point—that if the Court ultimately decided that it was inappropriate
for the Government to proceed by subpoena, the Government would claim inevitable discovery.
(Dkt. No. 54 at 3). The defendant offered no coherent explanation of how the criminal discovery
materials could have any conceivable impact on the issues pending in civil litigation. She cited no
case law suggesting that, for example, the possibility of an inevitable discovery argument by the
Government should foreclose unsealing in a civil case. This Court rejected the defendant’s motion
to modify the criminal protective order. (Dkt. No. 51). The Second Circuit also dismissed the
defendant’s appeal for want of jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 71).
confidential criminal discovery materials in filings she intended to submit in civil litigation. The
defendant raised this precise point—that if the Court ultimately decided that it was inappropriate
for the Government to proceed by subpoena, the Government would claim inevitable discovery.
(Dkt. No. 54 at 3). The defendant offered no coherent explanation of how the criminal discovery
materials could have any conceivable impact on the issues pending in civil litigation. She cited no
case law suggesting that, for example, the possibility of an inevitable discovery argument by the
Government should foreclose unsealing in a civil case. This Court rejected the defendant’s motion
to modify the criminal protective order. (Dkt. No. 51). The Second Circuit also dismissed the
defendant’s appeal for want of jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 71).
95
DOJ-OGR-00003056
DOJ-OGR-00003056
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document