Court-2
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
organization
The government
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Court order | Court-1 and Court-2 ordered that filings regarding the Subpoenas remain under seal. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Court ruling | Court-2 denied the Government's application. | N/A | View |
| 2019-02-01 | N/A | Government applied ex parte and under seal to modify protective orders to permit compliance with ... | Courts | View |
| 2019-01-01 | N/A | Court-1 permitted modification of protective order; Court-2 did not. | Unknown Civil Courts | View |
| 2019-01-01 | Court ruling | Another court, Court-2, did not permit the modification of the civil protective order. | Court-2 | View |
| 2019-01-01 | Court ruling | Subsequent to Court-1's ruling, another court, Court-2, did not permit the modification. | Court-2 | View |
| 2019-01-01 | Court ruling | Court-2 did not permit the modification of the civil protective order. | N/A | View |
EFTA00028055.pdf
Memorandum Opinion and Order by Judge Alison J. Nathan in US v. Maxwell denying the defendant's request to broadly modify a protective order to use criminal discovery documents in civil cases. The Court found Maxwell failed to show good cause or relevance for the modification. However, the Court permitted Maxwell to share specific factual information regarding grand jury subpoenas and prior rulings by other courts ('Court-1' and 'Court-2') with relevant judicial officers under seal, as these facts were largely public record.
EFTA00026705.pdf
Judge Alison J. Nathan denied Ghislaine Maxwell's motion to modify a protective order that would have allowed her to use criminal discovery materials in separate civil cases. The Judge ruled that Maxwell failed to show good cause or relevance for the disclosure. However, the Court permitted Maxwell to disclose specific facts to the relevant civil courts regarding the history of grand jury subpoenas issued to an unnamed 'Recipient' and previous rulings by other courts ('Court-1' and 'Court-2') regarding those materials.
DOJ-OGR-00001750.jpg
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.
DOJ-OGR-00001734.jpg
This document is page 3 of a government filing in United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), dated August 21, 2020. The government argues against modifying a protective order, asserting that the defendant should not be allowed to use discovery materials from this criminal case in her parallel civil cases. The filing highlights that the grand jury investigation into Epstein's co-conspirators is active and ongoing, and that disseminating these materials could compromise witness privacy and the investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00019619.jpg
This legal document, dated October 2, 2020, outlines the procedural history of a case between the Government and a defendant named Maxwell. It details the Government's arguments against Maxwell's motion to modify a Protective Order, citing her failure to justify using criminal discovery materials in civil litigation. The document also describes conflicting rulings from two courts, "Court-1" and "Court-2," regarding the Government's applications related to sealed grand jury subpoenas.
DOJ-OGR-00019577.jpg
This is page 4 of a legal filing dated August 24, 2020, addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). Maxwell's defense argues for the ability to provide sealed materials to 'two arbiters' (likely judges in other civil cases) without violating a Protective Order, countering the government's claim that this would harm an ongoing criminal investigation. The document also contains a footnote objecting to the government providing ex parte information about an ongoing grand jury investigation to the judge.
DOJ-OGR-00019561.jpg
This legal document, filed on August 2, 2020, details a procedural history where the U.S. Government, in February 2019, successfully modified a civil protective order in one court (Court-1) to obtain materials for a criminal grand jury investigation. The defendant in the criminal case later learned of this through discovery. The current court is now permitting the defendant to provide information under seal to the relevant courts (Court-1 and Court-2) so they can make their own determinations about the matter.
DOJ-OGR-00019551.jpg
This document is Page 3 of a letter from the Government to Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated August 21, 2020, arguing against modifying a protective order. The Government asserts that the defendant (implied Ghislaine Maxwell) should not be allowed to use materials from criminal discovery in her civil cases, citing witness privacy and an active, ongoing grand jury investigation into co-conspirators of Jeffrey Epstein. The text emphasizes that defense counsel represents the defendant in both criminal and civil matters and warns against 'cherry-picking' confidential materials to defend against abuse accusations.
DOJ-OGR-00019550.jpg
This document is a page from a government filing addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan, arguing against a defense request to use criminal discovery materials in civil cases. The text details the background of grand jury subpoenas related to the Jeffrey Epstein investigation, the modification of protective orders to allow compliance, and asserts that using these materials for civil litigation violates the protective order in the current criminal case.
DOJ-OGR-00019443.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing from March 2, 2020, outlines a procedural history involving civil protective orders in a criminal case. In 2019, the Government successfully modified a protective order in one court (Court-1) to obtain materials from a 'Recipient' for a grand jury, while another court (Court-2) denied a similar request. The current court is now permitting the Defendant, who learned of this through discovery, to provide this sealed information to Court-1 and Court-2 so those courts can determine whether to unseal related materials.
DOJ-OGR-00019336.jpg
This document is page 3 of a letter from the Government to Judge Alison J. Nathan in the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell (referenced as 'the defendant'). The Government argues against modifying a protective order, stating that the defendant should not be allowed to use materials from criminal discovery in her various civil cases, as this would violate witness privacy and jeopardize an 'active' ongoing grand jury investigation into Epstein's co-conspirators. The text highlights that the same defense counsel represents the defendant in both civil and criminal matters, raising concerns about the inappropriate use of confidential discovery materials to defend against abuse accusations by civil plaintiffs.
DOJ-OGR-00019335.jpg
This document is page 2 of a legal filing by the Government to Judge Alison J. Nathan, dated August 21, 2020, in the criminal case against a defendant (implied Ghislaine Maxwell, Case 1:20-cr-00330). The Government opposes the defendant's request to use criminal discovery materials—specifically regarding grand jury subpoenas issued to an unnamed 'Recipient' during the Epstein investigation—in separate civil litigation. The Government argues this violates the protective order which restricts discovery material solely for the defense of the criminal action.
DOJ-OGR-00019331.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, outlines a procedural history concerning sealed information from civil matters. The Government successfully modified a protective order in one court (Court-1) but not another (Court-2) to obtain materials for a grand jury investigation, which were then turned over by a 'Recipient'. The current court is now permitting the Defendant, who learned of this through discovery, to provide the sealed information back to Court-1 and Court-2 for their own determination of relevance.
DOJ-OGR-00019261.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, details a procedural history where the Government obtained materials protected by civil orders after receiving permission from one court (Court-1) but not another (Court-2). The Defendant in a related criminal case learned of this through discovery. The current court is now permitting the Defendant to provide this information under seal to the relevant courts to resolve the conflict.
DOJ-OGR-00019660.jpg
This document is page 14 of a legal filing (Case 20-3061) dated October 8, 2020. It argues that the government fails to acknowledge that Ms. Maxwell is prohibited by a protective order (upheld by Judge Nathan) from disclosing specific details. These prohibited disclosures include the identity of a 'Recipient,' materials obtained by the government, details about the bulk of the case against her, and why 'Court-2' declined a government request; all specific details regarding these points are heavily redacted.
DOJ-OGR-00019659.jpg
This document is page 13 of a legal filing (Case 20-3061) dated October 8, 2020, concerning Ghislaine Maxwell. It argues that releasing deposition material prematurely would compromise her ability to make a 'Martindell argument' and discusses her intent to move Judge Preska to stay unsealing pending her criminal case. The text highlights a conflict where Maxwell claims she cannot fairly argue her case because Judge Preska and the appellate panel are unaware of redacted facts regarding government proceedings and subpoenas.
DOJ-OGR-00019640.jpg
This document is a page from a legal brief filed on October 2, 2020, arguing that Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal regarding a protective order is moot. The text details that Judge Nathan has already authorized Maxwell to inform Judge Preska (under seal) about specific facts learned during criminal discovery regarding government subpoenas, which Maxwell claims is necessary to argue for a stay on unsealing deposition materials. It also notes that Maxwell's criminal charges include allegations of perjury in civil cases.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity