DOJ-OGR-00019665.jpg
661 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing / appellate brief
File Size:
661 KB
Summary
This document is page 19 of a legal filing (Case 20-3061) dated October 8, 2020, likely an appellate brief filed by Ms. Maxwell's defense. It argues that Judge Preska (civil case) is evaluating unsealing documents without knowing critical facts obscured by a criminal protective order overseen by Judge Nathan. The defense contends that unless the order is modified to allow sharing information under seal, Maxwell's right to a fair trial by an impartial jury will be prejudiced by the release of deposition materials.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Judge Preska | Judge (Civil Case) |
Tasked with evaluating unsealing of civil case filings; described as being 'ignorant of the fact' due to redactions/p...
|
| Judge Nathan | Judge (Criminal Case) |
Issued orders regarding the criminal protective order; received arguments from the government regarding grand jury se...
|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant/Appellee (Ghislaine Maxwell) |
Seeking permission to share information under seal; arguing that release of deposition material will prejudice her ri...
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The government |
Opposing modification of protective order; concerned with grand jury secrecy.
|
|
| Second Circuit Court of Appeals |
Implied by citation '2d Cir. 2019' (Brown v. Maxwell).
|
|
| DOJ-OGR |
Department of Justice Office of Government Information Services (indicated by Bates stamp).
|
Timeline (2 events)
Relationships (2)
Document discusses the interaction between Preska's civil case tasks and Nathan's criminal protective orders.
Discusses government's arguments regarding protective orders vs Maxwell's requests.
Key Quotes (4)
"Judge Preska is performing this task ignorant of the fact that [REDACTED]"Source
DOJ-OGR-00019665.jpg
Quote #1
"Unless the criminal protective order is modified, Judge Preska will remain in the dark, and she will never be given the opportunity to consider the circumstances in their totality."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019665.jpg
Quote #2
"Ms. Maxwell has never sought to make public material the criminal protective order shields from disclosure."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019665.jpg
Quote #3
"release of the deposition material by Judge Preska [REDACTED] will unfairly prejudice her right to a fair trial by an impartial jury."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019665.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,523 characters)
Case 20-3061, Document 94, 10/08/2020, 2948481, Page19 of 23
the criminal protective order, that [REDACTED] should not be used except in
the criminal case and therefore should not be released publicly.⁸
the criminal case and therefore should not be released publicly.⁸
This Court tasked Judge Preska with evaluating whether and to what extent
the civil case filings should be unsealed considering the totality of the
circumstances. Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 47 & n.13 (2d Cir. 2019). Judge
Preska is performing this task ignorant of the fact that [REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED] Unless the criminal
protective order is modified, Judge Preska will remain in the dark, and she will
never be given the opportunity to consider the circumstances in their totality.
the civil case filings should be unsealed considering the totality of the
circumstances. Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 47 & n.13 (2d Cir. 2019). Judge
Preska is performing this task ignorant of the fact that [REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED] Unless the criminal
protective order is modified, Judge Preska will remain in the dark, and she will
never be given the opportunity to consider the circumstances in their totality.
The government appears to have abandoned the argument it made to Judge
Nathan that modifying the protective order threatens the secrecy of the ongoing
grand jury investigation. Op.Br. 31–32. And for good reason. Ms. Maxwell has
never sought to make public material the criminal protective order shields from
disclosure. All she seeks is permission to share, under seal, information [REDACTED]
Nathan that modifying the protective order threatens the secrecy of the ongoing
grand jury investigation. Op.Br. 31–32. And for good reason. Ms. Maxwell has
never sought to make public material the criminal protective order shields from
disclosure. All she seeks is permission to share, under seal, information [REDACTED]
________________
⁸ The government’s view that [REDACTED] should not be released,
and Judge Nathan’s order to that effect, also lend support to Ms. Maxwell’s
contention that the release of the deposition material by Judge Preska [REDACTED]
[REDACTED] will unfairly prejudice her right to a fair
trial by an impartial jury. See U.S. CONST. amends. V, VI; Nixon v. Warner
Commc’ns, 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978).
⁸ The government’s view that [REDACTED] should not be released,
and Judge Nathan’s order to that effect, also lend support to Ms. Maxwell’s
contention that the release of the deposition material by Judge Preska [REDACTED]
[REDACTED] will unfairly prejudice her right to a fair
trial by an impartial jury. See U.S. CONST. amends. V, VI; Nixon v. Warner
Commc’ns, 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978).
16
DOJ-OGR-00019665
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document