DOJ-OGR-00019293.jpg
476 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
1
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court filing / legal brief (appellate)
File Size:
476 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a legal filing dated September 10, 2020, discussing the unsealing of deposition materials in the Ghislaine Maxwell case. It details procedural history where Maxwell requested a stay on unsealing due to 'critical new information' she could not disclose because of a criminal protective order overseen by Judge Nathan. Judge Preska declined the stay but remained open to reevaluation if Judge Nathan modified the protective order.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Judge Preska | Judge (Civil/Unsealing) |
Ordered deposition material unsealed; declined Ms. Maxwell's request to stay the process.
|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant/Petitioner |
Asked Judge Preska to stay the unsealing process citing 'critical new information' but was limited by a criminal prot...
|
| Judge Nathan | Judge (Criminal) |
Presiding over the criminal case; controls the criminal protective order that restricted what Maxwell could share wit...
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Department of Justice (DOJ) |
Source of the document (indicated by Bates stamp DOJ-OGR).
|
Timeline (2 events)
Pre-September 2020
Relationships (2)
Ms. Maxwell asked Judge Preska to briefly stay the unsealing process.
Preska would reevaluate if Nathan modified the criminal protective order.
Key Quotes (4)
"Ms. Maxwell asked Judge Preska to briefly stay the unsealing process."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019293.jpg
Quote #1
"But because of the criminal protective order, all Ms. Maxwell could reveal to Judge Preska was that she was aware of critical new information."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019293.jpg
Quote #2
"She couldn’t tell Judge Preska what that information was."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019293.jpg
Quote #3
"Judge Preska declined to stay the unsealing process but said he would reevaluate if Judge Nathan modified the criminal protective order..."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019293.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (946 characters)
Case 20-3061, Document 17, 09/10/2020, 2928288, Page7 of 15
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK], after the parties had briefed the motion to unseal the deposition material and after Judge Preska ordered the deposition material unsealed, Ms. Maxwell asked Judge Preska to briefly stay the unsealing process. EXHIBIT D, p 1. But because of the criminal protective order, all Ms. Maxwell could reveal to Judge Preska was that she was aware of critical new information. EX. D, p 1. She couldn’t tell Judge Preska what that information was. Ex. D, pp 1–2.
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK], after the parties had briefed the motion to unseal the deposition material and after Judge Preska ordered the deposition material unsealed, Ms. Maxwell asked Judge Preska to briefly stay the unsealing process. EXHIBIT D, p 1. But because of the criminal protective order, all Ms. Maxwell could reveal to Judge Preska was that she was aware of critical new information. EX. D, p 1. She couldn’t tell Judge Preska what that information was. Ex. D, pp 1–2.
Judge Preska declined to stay the unsealing process but said he would reevaluate if Judge Nathan modified the criminal protective order and allowed Ms. Maxwell to share with Judge Preska, under seal, all she learned as described above. EXHIBIT E, pp 1–2.
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
6
DOJ-OGR-00019293
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document