DOJ-OGR-00001750.jpg

646 KB

Extraction Summary

1
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
4
Events
3
Relationships
3
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Court filing / legal order
File Size: 646 KB
Summary

This page from a court document outlines the procedural history regarding the modification of civil protective orders to comply with criminal grand jury subpoenas. It details the Court's decision to permit the defendant to provide specific information under seal to other relevant courts (Court-1 and Court-2) to determine if materials should be unsealed.

People (1)

Name Role Context
Defendant

Organizations (3)

Name Type Context
Government
Court-1
Court-2

Timeline (4 events)

Government sought modification of protective orders (February 2019)
Court-1 permitted modification (April 2019)
Court-2 denied modification
Rule 16 discovery

Relationships (3)

from
to

Key Quotes (3)

"In February 2019, the Government, ex parte and under seal, sought modification of those civil protective orders so as to permit compliance with the criminal grand jury subpoenas"
Source
DOJ-OGR-00001750.jpg
Quote #1
"the Court hereby permits the defendant to provide to the relevant courts under seal the above information"
Source
DOJ-OGR-00001750.jpg
Quote #2
"there is no impediment to counsel making sealed applications to Court-1 and Court-2, respectively, to unseal the relevant materials"
Source
DOJ-OGR-00001750.jpg
Quote #3

Full Extracted Text

Complete text extracted from the document (1,891 characters)

Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 51 Filed 09/02/20 Page 4 of 5
3. In February 2019, the Government, ex parte and under seal, sought modification of
those civil protective orders so as to permit compliance with the criminal grand jury
subpoenas;
4. In April 2019, one court (“Court-1”) permitted the modification and, subsequently,
another court (“Court-2”) did not;
5. That as a result of the modification of the civil protective order by Court-1, the
Recipient turned over to the Government certain materials that had been covered by
the protective order; and
6. That the Defendant learned of this information (sealed by other courts) as a result of
Rule 16 discovery in this criminal matter.
With the exception of identifying the relevant judicial decision makers and specific civil
matters, all of the information listed above is available in the public record, including in the letter
filed on the public docket by the Government on this issue. See Dkt. No. 46. Although this
Court remains in the dark as to why this information will be relevant to those courts, so that
those courts can make their own determination, to the extent it would otherwise be prohibited by
the protective order in this matter, the Court hereby permits the defendant to provide to the
relevant courts under seal the above information, including the information identifying the
relevant judicial decision makers and civil matters.
In addition, the Government has indicated that “there is no impediment to counsel
making sealed applications to Court-1 and Court-2, respectively, to unseal the relevant
materials.” Dkt. No. 46 at 3 n.5. In her reply, the Defendant asserts that she is amenable to such
a solution if the Court agrees with the Government that doing so would not contravene the
protective order in this case. To the extent it would otherwise be prohibited by the protective
4
DOJ-OGR-00001750

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document