DOJ-OGR-00001749.jpg
703 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court filing / judicial order
File Size:
703 KB
Summary
This document is page 3 of a court order filed on September 2, 2020, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The Court denies the Defendant's request to modify a protective order to disclose documents to judicial officers in other civil cases, citing a lack of good cause and noting that the relevant facts are already public. The text reveals that the Government previously issued grand jury subpoenas to an entity referred to as 'Recipient' regarding an investigation into Jeffrey Epstein and his co-conspirators.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Defendant | Defendant |
Referring to the defendant in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (Ghislaine Maxwell, though not explicitly named on this page), w...
|
| Jeffrey Epstein | Subject of Investigation |
Mentioned as the subject of a Government grand jury investigation along with possible co-conspirators.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Government |
The prosecution/DOJ, which opened the grand jury investigation and filed a docketed letter.
|
|
| Recipient |
An unnamed entity that received grand jury subpoenas and claimed inability to turn over materials without modificatio...
|
|
| The Court |
The judicial body issuing this order and denying the defendant's request.
|
Timeline (2 events)
2020-09-02
Relationships (2)
Text mentions investigation into 'Jeffrey Epstein and his possible co-conspirators' in the context of the Defendant's case.
Government issued grand jury subpoenas to the Recipient.
Key Quotes (3)
"The Defendant’s request is DENIED on this basis."Source
DOJ-OGR-00001749.jpg
Quote #1
"Grand jury subpoenas were issued to an entity (“Recipient”) after the Government opened a grand jury investigation into Jeffrey Epstein and his possible co-conspirators"Source
DOJ-OGR-00001749.jpg
Quote #2
"the Defendant proffers no more than vague, speculative, and conclusory assertions as to why that is the case."Source
DOJ-OGR-00001749.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,077 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 51 Filed 09/02/20 Page 3 of 5
case in other civil proceedings. She bases her request on the premise that disclosure of the
Documents to the relevant judicial officers is allegedly necessary to ensure the fair adjudication
of issues being litigated in those civil matters. But after fourteen single-spaced pages of heated
rhetoric, the Defendant proffers no more than vague, speculative, and conclusory assertions as to
why that is the case. She provides no coherent explanation of what argument she intends to
make before those courts that requires the presentation of the materials received in discovery in
this criminal matter under the existing terms of the protective order in this case. And she
furnishes no substantive explanation regarding the relevance of the Documents to decisions to be
made in those matters, let alone any explanation of why modifying the protective order in order
to allow such disclosure is necessary to ensure the fair adjudication of those matters. In sum, the
arguments the Defendant presents to the Court plainly fail to establish good cause. The
Defendant’s request is DENIED on this basis.
Documents to the relevant judicial officers is allegedly necessary to ensure the fair adjudication
of issues being litigated in those civil matters. But after fourteen single-spaced pages of heated
rhetoric, the Defendant proffers no more than vague, speculative, and conclusory assertions as to
why that is the case. She provides no coherent explanation of what argument she intends to
make before those courts that requires the presentation of the materials received in discovery in
this criminal matter under the existing terms of the protective order in this case. And she
furnishes no substantive explanation regarding the relevance of the Documents to decisions to be
made in those matters, let alone any explanation of why modifying the protective order in order
to allow such disclosure is necessary to ensure the fair adjudication of those matters. In sum, the
arguments the Defendant presents to the Court plainly fail to establish good cause. The
Defendant’s request is DENIED on this basis.
Indeed, good cause for the requested modification of the protective order is further
lacking because, as far as this Court can discern, the facts she is interested in conveying to the
judicial decisionmakers in the Civil Cases are already publicly available, including in the
Government’s docketed letter on this issue. See Dkt. No. 46. In the opening paragraph of her
reply letter dated August 24, 2020, the Defendant states that she is essentially seeking to disclose
under seal to certain judicial officers the following factual information:
lacking because, as far as this Court can discern, the facts she is interested in conveying to the
judicial decisionmakers in the Civil Cases are already publicly available, including in the
Government’s docketed letter on this issue. See Dkt. No. 46. In the opening paragraph of her
reply letter dated August 24, 2020, the Defendant states that she is essentially seeking to disclose
under seal to certain judicial officers the following factual information:
1. Grand jury subpoenas were issued to an entity (“Recipient”) after the Government
opened a grand jury investigation into Jeffrey Epstein and his possible co-
conspirators;
opened a grand jury investigation into Jeffrey Epstein and his possible co-
conspirators;
2. The Recipient concluded that it could not turn over materials responsive to the grand
jury subpoena absent a modification of the civil protective orders in the civil cases;
jury subpoena absent a modification of the civil protective orders in the civil cases;
3
DOJ-OGR-00001749
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document