DOJ-OGR-00001764.jpg
800 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
6
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal correspondence / court filing (reply letter)
File Size:
800 KB
Summary
This is page 2 of a legal letter addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated August 24, 2020, filed in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues against the government's characterization of Maxwell's actions as 'cherry-picking' and challenges the government's issuance of subpoenas as not being 'standard practice,' citing Second Circuit case law (Martindell) regarding protective orders and civil discovery. Large portions of the document are redacted.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Alison J. Nathan | Judge |
Addressee of the letter (The Honorable).
|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant |
Subject of the legal defense; accused by the government of cherry-picking materials.
|
| Judge Koeltl | Judge |
Cited for a previous legal opinion regarding government investigative powers.
|
| Don King | Litigant (Cited Case) |
Mentioned in case citation Botha v. Don King Prods.
|
Organizations (6)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Government |
The opposing party in the criminal case; accused of improper subpoena practices.
|
|
| Second Circuit |
Court of Appeals whose rulings are cited as controlling authority.
|
|
| International Telephone & Telegraph Corp. |
Part of cited case Martindell v. Int’l Telephone & Telegraph Corp.
|
|
| Don King Prods., Inc. |
Part of cited case Botha v. Don King Prods., Inc.
|
|
| Minpeco S.A. |
Part of cited case Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity Servs., Inc.
|
|
| Department of Justice (DOJ) |
Implied by the Bates stamp 'DOJ-OGR-00001764'.
|
Timeline (2 events)
August 24, 2020
Submission of legal letter to Judge Nathan
Court (S.D.N.Y.)
Defense Counsel
Judge Nathan
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Southern District of New York, mentioned in case citations.
|
Relationships (1)
Legal arguments regarding defense motions and government accusations.
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-00001764.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-00001764.jpg
Quote #2
"Second, the government tries to normalize, without citation to authority, its conduct as “standard practice.”"Source
DOJ-OGR-00001764.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-00001764.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,103 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 54 Filed 09/08/20 Page 2 of 6
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]
[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]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
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]
[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]
DOJ-OGR-00001764
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document