DOJ-OGR-00003052.jpg
750 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
5
Organizations
0
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing (government response/brief)
File Size:
750 KB
Summary
This document page is from a government filing in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), arguing that the prosecution did not improperly use civil discovery materials or mislead the court. The government distinguishes its actions from the 'Chemical Bank' precedent, noting that while AUSA-1 met with the law firm Boies Schiller in February 2016, no action was taken then, and the actual investigation began in November 2018 independent of improper influence.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Chief Judge McMahon | Judge |
Analyzed whether the situation constituted a 'Chemical Bank' situation regarding protective orders.
|
| AUSA-1 | Assistant United States Attorney |
Participated in a February 2016 meeting with Boies Schiller.
|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant |
Referred to as 'the defendant'; document discusses the 'Maxwell prosecution'.
|
Organizations (5)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| USAO-SDNY |
United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York; took no action after a Feb 2016 meeting.
|
|
| Boies Schiller |
Law firm; met with AUSA-1 in 2016; defense claims they were 'instrumental in fomenting the Maxwell prosecution'.
|
|
| Manhattan District Attorney’s Office |
Referenced in the citation of the 'Chemical Bank' case precedent.
|
|
| Chemical Bank |
Referenced as a legal precedent (Chemical Bank v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co.) regarding proper procedure for handling con...
|
|
| DOJ-OGR |
Department of Justice - Office of Government Information Services (indicated by Bates stamp).
|
Timeline (3 events)
2016-02
Meeting between AUSA-1 and Boies Schiller which resulted in no action by USAO-SDNY.
Unknown
Relationships (2)
Met in Feb 2016; Government contacted Boies Schiller shortly after opening investigation in late 2018.
Defendant claims Boies Schiller fomented her prosecution.
Key Quotes (4)
"USAO-SDNY took no action as a result of that meeting"Source
DOJ-OGR-00003052.jpg
Quote #1
"Boies Schiller was instrumental in fomenting the Maxwell prosecution"Source
DOJ-OGR-00003052.jpg
Quote #2
"this was not a “Chemical Bank situation”"Source
DOJ-OGR-00003052.jpg
Quote #3
"no documents governed by the protective order had yet been produced"Source
DOJ-OGR-00003052.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,191 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 118 of 239
was a protective order that would govern at least some of the materials, and that is why we
ultimately made the application to the Court.”)).
ultimately made the application to the Court.”)).
While the Government appreciates, with the benefit of hindsight, that an answer that had
also referenced the February 2016 meeting (and the fact that USAO-SDNY took no action as a
result of that meeting) would have provided additional context—and would have further reinforced
that this was not a “Chemical Bank situation”—as noted above, the Government’s response
accurately described its contacts with Boies Schiller as relevant to “your investigation” and the
issuance of the subpoena at hand. Indeed, there is no reason to believe that a description of the
February 2016 meeting would have been material to Chief Judge McMahon’s analysis of whether
she was facing a “Chemical Bank kind of situation.” (Def. Mot. 3, Ex. E at 2).
also referenced the February 2016 meeting (and the fact that USAO-SDNY took no action as a
result of that meeting) would have provided additional context—and would have further reinforced
that this was not a “Chemical Bank situation”—as noted above, the Government’s response
accurately described its contacts with Boies Schiller as relevant to “your investigation” and the
issuance of the subpoena at hand. Indeed, there is no reason to believe that a description of the
February 2016 meeting would have been material to Chief Judge McMahon’s analysis of whether
she was facing a “Chemical Bank kind of situation.” (Def. Mot. 3, Ex. E at 2).
In Chemical Bank, counsel for a civil party approached the Manhattan District Attorney’s
Office “suggesting that it had evidence of criminal violations relating to the case.” 154 F.R.D. at
93. In response, a grand jury subpoena was issued and “confidential documents were produced by
the defendant without complying with any of the specific procedures or exceptions provided in the
[confidentiality] orders.” Id. Here, by contrast, the Government accurately conveyed to Chief
Judge McMahon the opening of its investigation in late 2018, the reason it made contact with Boies
Schiller shortly thereafter and served a subpoena in February 2019, and that no documents
governed by the protective order had yet been produced. Aside from rank speculation loosely
premised on an anonymously sourced news report, the defendant offers nothing to support her
assertion that “Boies Schiller was instrumental in fomenting the Maxwell prosecution” (Def. Mot.
3 at 2) (emphasis in original), or that AUSA-1’s February 2016 meeting with Boies Schiller (as it
actually occurred) undercut the accuracy of the Government’s representations to Chief Judge
McMahon, or played any role in the Government opening its investigation in November 2018.
Office “suggesting that it had evidence of criminal violations relating to the case.” 154 F.R.D. at
93. In response, a grand jury subpoena was issued and “confidential documents were produced by
the defendant without complying with any of the specific procedures or exceptions provided in the
[confidentiality] orders.” Id. Here, by contrast, the Government accurately conveyed to Chief
Judge McMahon the opening of its investigation in late 2018, the reason it made contact with Boies
Schiller shortly thereafter and served a subpoena in February 2019, and that no documents
governed by the protective order had yet been produced. Aside from rank speculation loosely
premised on an anonymously sourced news report, the defendant offers nothing to support her
assertion that “Boies Schiller was instrumental in fomenting the Maxwell prosecution” (Def. Mot.
3 at 2) (emphasis in original), or that AUSA-1’s February 2016 meeting with Boies Schiller (as it
actually occurred) undercut the accuracy of the Government’s representations to Chief Judge
McMahon, or played any role in the Government opening its investigation in November 2018.
91
DOJ-OGR-00003052
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document