DOJ-OGR-00019500.jpg

768 KB

Extraction Summary

4
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Legal correspondence / court filing (letter motion)
File Size: 768 KB
Summary

This is page 3 of a legal filing (Document 28) dated July 27, 2020, addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The text argues for a specific provision in a protective order regarding victim/witness identities. Maxwell's defense contends that they should be permitted to reference alleged victims who have already voluntarily disclosed their identities in public records or media, arguing that the government's proposed restrictions are overly broad and hinder the defense's ability to investigate and advocate.

People (4)

Name Role Context
Alison J. Nathan Judge
Addressee of the letter/filing.
Ghislaine Maxwell Defendant
Subject of the criminal case and the proposed protective order.
Jeffrey Epstein Deceased / Co-conspirator
Referenced regarding previous criminal prosecution and litigation.
Defense Counsel Attorneys
Lawyers representing Maxwell, arguing for specific terms in the protective order.

Organizations (3)

Name Type Context
The Government
Prosecution/DOJ opposing the defense's proposed language.
S.D.N.Y.
Southern District of New York (Court jurisdiction).
DOJ
Department of Justice (implied by footer DOJ-OGR).

Timeline (2 events)

2019-07-25
Protective order approved in United States v. Epstein
S.D.N.Y.
Jeffrey Epstein Government
2020-07-27
Filing of Document 28 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN
Court (S.D.N.Y.)

Locations (1)

Location Context
Jurisdiction cited for the United States v. Epstein case.

Relationships (2)

Ghislaine Maxwell Co-defendants/Associates Jeffrey Epstein
Document references litigation relating to 'Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell' and compares their legal proceedings.
Alison J. Nathan Judge/Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell
Judge Nathan is presiding over Maxwell's case (1:20-cr-00330-AJN).

Key Quotes (3)

"Ms. Maxwell’s proposed protective order... does not prohibit defense counsel from publicly referencing individuals 'who have spoken on the public record to the media or in public fora...'"
Source
DOJ-OGR-00019500.jpg
Quote #1
"The government’s proposed restriction is therefore 'broader than necessary' to protect the privacy interests of these individuals who have already chosen to self-identify"
Source
DOJ-OGR-00019500.jpg
Quote #2
"this language... is nearly identical in all material respects to the language in the protective order approved in the government’s criminal prosecution of Mr. Epstein"
Source
DOJ-OGR-00019500.jpg
Quote #3

Full Extracted Text

Complete text extracted from the document (2,237 characters)

Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 28 Filed 07/27/20 Page 3 of 4
The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
July 27, 2020
Page 3
Maxwell with respect to using the criminal discovery material solely for the purpose of this criminal case.
2. Victim/Witness Identities
Ms. Maxwell’s proposed protective order prohibits Ms. Maxwell, defense counsel, and others on the defense team from disclosing or disseminating the identity of any alleged victim or potential witness referenced in the discovery materials, but does not prohibit defense counsel from publicly referencing individuals “who have spoken on the public record to the media or in public fora, or in litigation—criminal or otherwise—relating to Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell.” Id. ¶ 6. This language, which is nearly identical in all material respects to the language in the protective order approved in the government’s criminal prosecution of Mr. Epstein, see United States v. Epstein, 19-CR-00490-RMB (S.D.N.Y. July 25, 2019), ensures appropriate privacy protections for alleged victims and should be approved here.
In contrast to the more permissive language it agreed to with respect to Mr. Epstein, the government has taken the position that Ms. Maxwell’s defense counsel should only be allowed to disclose the identity of alleged victims or potential witnesses who have spoken by name on the public record “in this case.” The government’s proposal, however, advances no compelling privacy protections, and instead prevents the defense from making reference to individuals who have already voluntarily publicly disclosed their identities by, among other things, pursuing civil suits in their own name against Ms. Maxwell and/or Mr. Epstein; speaking by name in the public record in Mr. Epstein’s criminal proceedings; participating in on-the-record media interviews; or posting comments under their own names on social media. The government’s proposed restriction is therefore “broader than necessary” to protect the privacy interests of these individuals who have already chosen to self-identify, and will hinder the defense’s ability to conduct further factual investigation, prepare witnesses for trial, and advocate on Ms. Maxwell’s behalf.
* * *
App.041
DOJ-OGR-00019500

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document