DOJ-OGR-00019575.jpg
810 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal correspondence / court filing (page 2 of a letter)
File Size:
810 KB
Summary
Page 2 of a legal letter addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan dated August 24, 2020. The document argues against the government's characterization of Ms. Maxwell's defense strategy and disputes the government's claim that their issuance of subpoenas was 'standard practice,' citing case law (Martindell) to argue that the procedure used was improper. The document contains significant redactions.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Alison J. Nathan | Judge |
Addressee of the letter (The Honorable)
|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant |
Subject of the legal arguments; accused by government of cherry-picking materials
|
| Judge Koeltl | Judge |
Cited in legal precedent regarding government conduct
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Government |
Prosecution; accused of improper subpoena practices and ad hominem attacks
|
|
| Second Circuit |
Court of Appeals referenced for controlling case law
|
|
| DOJ-OGR |
Department of Justice Office of Government Relations (referenced in footer stamp)
|
Timeline (1 events)
2020-08-24
Submission of legal letter to Judge Nathan regarding discovery and subpoenas
S.D.N.Y.
Defense Counsel
Judge Nathan
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Southern District of New York (Court District)
|
Relationships (1)
Letter discusses government's accusations against Maxwell and legal disputes over subpoenas.
Key Quotes (4)
"The government’s ad hominem suggestion that Ms. Maxwell has 'cherry-pick[ed] materials' to seek an 'advantage in their efforts to defend against accusations of abuse'... reveals a fundamental (or feigned) lack of understanding"Source
DOJ-OGR-00019575.jpg
Quote #1
"Ms. Maxwell simply seeks to alert the judicial officers in the related Civil Litigation to facts about which her adversary is already aware."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019575.jpg
Quote #2
"Issuance of the Subpoenas Not 'Standard Practice'"Source
DOJ-OGR-00019575.jpg
Quote #3
"the Second Circuit has made clear that the Government may not use its ‘awesome’ investigative powers to seek modification of a protective order merely to compare the fruits of the plaintiff’s discovery in a civil action with the results of a prosecutorial investigation in a criminal action."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019575.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,259 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 340 Filed 09/08/20 Page 18 of 56
[Underlying Header Text: Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 34 Filed 08/24/20 Page 2 of 5]
[Underlying Header Text: Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 34 Filed 08/24/20 Page 2 of 5]
The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
August 24, 2020
Page 2
August 24, 2020
Page 2
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK] . The
government’s ad hominem suggestion that Ms. Maxwell has “cherry-pick[ed] materials” to seek
an “advantage in their efforts to defend against accusations of abuse” or “delay court-ordered
disclosure of previously sealed materials” reveals a fundamental (or feigned) lack of
understanding [REDACTED]. It also begs the question, to be fleshed out
at a later time, [REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK] . The
government’s ad hominem suggestion that Ms. Maxwell has “cherry-pick[ed] materials” to seek
an “advantage in their efforts to defend against accusations of abuse” or “delay court-ordered
disclosure of previously sealed materials” reveals a fundamental (or feigned) lack of
understanding [REDACTED]. It also begs the question, to be fleshed out
at a later time, [REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
Ms. Maxwell simply seeks to alert the judicial officers in the related Civil Litigation to facts
about which her adversary is already aware.
about which her adversary is already aware.
Issuance of the Subpoenas Not “Standard Practice”:
Second, the government tries to normalize, without citation to authority, its conduct as “standard
practice.” Resp. at 2. To the contrary, the controlling case in this Circuit, Martindell v. Int’l
Telephone & Telegraph Corp., 594 F.2d 291, 293 (2d Cir. 1979), mandates a wholly different
procedure: the use of a non-ex parte subpoena with an opportunity for the aggrieved party to
move to quash. Similar cases in this district demonstrate the “non-standard” nature of the
government’s conduct regarding these subpoenas. For example, Judge Koeltl observed when
considering whether to release a single deposition transcript to the government: “the Second
Circuit has made clear that the Government may not use its ‘awesome’ investigative powers to
seek modification of a protective order merely to compare the fruits of the plaintiff’s discovery in
a civil action with the results of a prosecutorial investigation in a criminal action.” Botha v. Don
King Prods., Inc., No. 97 CIV. 7587 (JGK), 1998 WL 88745, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 1998)
(citing Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity Servs., Inc., 832 F.2d 739, 743 (2d Cir. 1987) and
Martindell, 594 F.2d at 297).
[REDACTED BLOCK]
Second, the government tries to normalize, without citation to authority, its conduct as “standard
practice.” Resp. at 2. To the contrary, the controlling case in this Circuit, Martindell v. Int’l
Telephone & Telegraph Corp., 594 F.2d 291, 293 (2d Cir. 1979), mandates a wholly different
procedure: the use of a non-ex parte subpoena with an opportunity for the aggrieved party to
move to quash. Similar cases in this district demonstrate the “non-standard” nature of the
government’s conduct regarding these subpoenas. For example, Judge Koeltl observed when
considering whether to release a single deposition transcript to the government: “the Second
Circuit has made clear that the Government may not use its ‘awesome’ investigative powers to
seek modification of a protective order merely to compare the fruits of the plaintiff’s discovery in
a civil action with the results of a prosecutorial investigation in a criminal action.” Botha v. Don
King Prods., Inc., No. 97 CIV. 7587 (JGK), 1998 WL 88745, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 1998)
(citing Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity Servs., Inc., 832 F.2d 739, 743 (2d Cir. 1987) and
Martindell, 594 F.2d at 297).
[REDACTED BLOCK]
App.116
DOJ-OGR-00019575
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document