DOJ-OGR-00019663.jpg
760 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal brief / court filing (appeal)
File Size:
760 KB
Summary
This document is page 17 of a legal brief filed on October 8, 2020, in Case 20-3061 (likely the 2nd Circuit appeal). It argues that Ghislaine Maxwell should be allowed to challenge the government's investigative methods before Judge Nathan and that deposition materials should remain sealed to preserve this challenge. The text references a dispute over a protective order and cites Rule 6(e) regarding grand jury witnesses.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant/Appellant |
Subject of the legal arguments regarding protective orders and ability to challenge government conduct.
|
| Judge Preska | Judge |
Judge whom Maxwell seeks to persuade; her order is being reviewed.
|
| Judge Nathan | Judge |
Judge before whom Maxwell wishes to challenge the government's conduct.
|
| [REDACTED] | Unknown |
Person or entity mentioned in the first line as not being prohibited from informing Judge Preska.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States Government |
Prosecution/Appellee; opposing party in the legal argument.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (indicated by Bates stamp DOJ-OGR).
|
|
| United States Court of Appeals |
Implied by case number 20-3061 and references to 'this Court reviewing her order'.
|
Timeline (1 events)
Relationships (2)
Maxwell seeking opportunity to persuade Judge Preska.
Maxwell seeking to challenge government conduct before Judge Nathan.
Key Quotes (4)
"Rule 6(e) does not apply to grand jury witnesses."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019663.jpg
Quote #1
"All Ms. Maxwell seeks is the preservation of her ability to challenge the government’s conduct before Judge Nathan."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019663.jpg
Quote #2
"The government again implies that because Ms. Maxwell consented to the protective order she can’t now complain that it should be modified."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019663.jpg
Quote #3
"As the government does not dispute, that challenge will be compromised unless the deposition material remains sealed."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019663.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,819 characters)
Case 20-3061, Document 94, 10/08/2020, 2948481, Page17 of 23
nothing prohibited [REDACTED] from informing Judge Preska and Ms. Maxwell
about the subpoena; Rule 6(e) does not apply to grand jury witnesses. United States
v. Sells Eng’g, Inc., 463 U.S. 418, 425 (1983).
about the subpoena; Rule 6(e) does not apply to grand jury witnesses. United States
v. Sells Eng’g, Inc., 463 U.S. 418, 425 (1983).
Despite the government’s attempt (once again) to mischaracterize Ms.
Maxwell’s argument,⁶ this Court need not in this case wade into the propriety of
the government’s conduct. All Ms. Maxwell seeks is the preservation of her ability
to challenge the government’s conduct before Judge Nathan. This Court should
permit Ms. Maxwell a fair opportunity to persuade Judge Preska and the panel of
this Court reviewing her order that the status quo should be preserved.
Maxwell’s argument,⁶ this Court need not in this case wade into the propriety of
the government’s conduct. All Ms. Maxwell seeks is the preservation of her ability
to challenge the government’s conduct before Judge Nathan. This Court should
permit Ms. Maxwell a fair opportunity to persuade Judge Preska and the panel of
this Court reviewing her order that the status quo should be preserved.
The government again implies that because Ms. Maxwell consented to the
protective order she can’t now complain that it should be modified. Ans.Br. 23–
24.⁷ The government points out that, at the time of her consent, Ms. Maxwell knew
protective order she can’t now complain that it should be modified. Ans.Br. 23–
24.⁷ The government points out that, at the time of her consent, Ms. Maxwell knew
__________________
⁶ The government says that Ms. Maxwell’s brief “appears to be a thinly
veiled attempt to have this Court weigh in on the Government’s investigative
methods.” Ans.Br. 26. That is not so. All Ms. Maxwell seeks is the ability to fairly
challenge before Judge Nathan the government’s “investigative methods.” As the
government does not dispute, that challenge will be compromised unless the
deposition material remains sealed. But Judge Preska and the panel of this Court
reviewing Judge Preska don’t know that, and the government wants to keep it that
way.
⁶ The government says that Ms. Maxwell’s brief “appears to be a thinly
veiled attempt to have this Court weigh in on the Government’s investigative
methods.” Ans.Br. 26. That is not so. All Ms. Maxwell seeks is the ability to fairly
challenge before Judge Nathan the government’s “investigative methods.” As the
government does not dispute, that challenge will be compromised unless the
deposition material remains sealed. But Judge Preska and the panel of this Court
reviewing Judge Preska don’t know that, and the government wants to keep it that
way.
⁷ Moreover, the purpose of the criminal protective order’s prohibition on
using criminal discovery in a civil case is to prevent the introduction of new
information in a civil case to gain an advantage. Ms. Maxwell’s requested
—footnote cont’d on next page—
using criminal discovery in a civil case is to prevent the introduction of new
information in a civil case to gain an advantage. Ms. Maxwell’s requested
—footnote cont’d on next page—
14
DOJ-OGR-00019663
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document