Honorable Alison J. Nathan
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
AUDREY STRAUSS
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
MAURENE COMEY
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Alison Moe
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Lara Pomerantz
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
organization
United States Attorney's Office
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-08-13 | Legal filing | Filing of Document 41 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2020-08-13 | N/A | Filing of Document 41 | Court Docket | View |
DOJ-OGR-00019338.jpg
This legal document, dated August 21, 2020, is a submission from the Acting United States Attorney and Assistant United States Attorneys to Honorable Alison J. Nathan. It argues against the defendant's application to use criminal discovery materials in civil cases, asserting that the application lacks legal justification, attempts to circumvent a protective order, and is irrelevant to the civil litigation. The document suggests the defendant's intent is to falsely accuse the Government and another party.
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (Response regarding Protective Order)
Argument against modifying protective order to allow defendant to use criminal discovery in civil cases.
Response to Defense Letter regarding use of discovery mat...
Argument against defendant's request to use criminal discovery materials in civil cases.
Response to Defense Letter/Application
Government opposition to defendant's request to use criminal discovery materials in civil cases.
Modification of Protective Order / Use of Discovery in Ci...
Arguments against allowing the defendant to use criminal discovery materials in civil litigation due to ongoing investigations and privacy concerns.
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (implied via header)
Proposal regarding the timeline for updating the Court on sealing positions.
Legal argument regarding sealing of grand jury records
Argument justifying the sealing of records related to grand jury proceedings and ex parte applications, citing First Amendment jurisprudence and grand jury secrecy rules.
Opposition to modifying Protective Order
Argument against allowing defendant to use criminal discovery materials in civil cases due to ongoing grand jury investigations and privacy concerns.
Opposition to Defense Letter regarding discovery materials
Government argues against defendant's request to use criminal discovery in civil cases.
Opposition to defendant's application regarding discovery...
The document argues against the defendant's application to use criminal discovery materials in civil cases, stating it lacks legal theory, is an end-run around a protective order, and is irrelevant to the civil cases, potentially intended to falsely accuse the Recipient and the Government.
Opposition to defendant's application regarding discovery...
The document argues against the defendant's application to use criminal discovery materials in civil cases, stating it lacks legal theory, is an end-run around a protective order, and is irrelevant to the civil cases, potentially intended to falsely accuse the Recipient and the Government.
Proposal for a date to update the Court on sealing position
The Government submitted a letter to Judge Nathan proposing that the Court set a date approximately 180 days in the future for the Government to update its position on sealing in the case.
Justification for sealing grand jury records and First Am...
This document is page 2 of a legal filing arguing for the continued sealing of grand jury materials. It cites historical precedent and various court cases to counter the First Amendment's presumptive right of public access to judicial documents, asserting that sealing is necessary and justified.
Discovery materials / Request regarding 18 U.S.C. § 3161
Page 2 of a letter discussing the timely production of discovery materials and confirming defense counsel consents to the request.
Request for exclusion of time and protective order discus...
Requesting exclusion of time for defendant transport and to discuss protective orders regarding discovery and victim privacy.
United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
A letter from Ghislaine Maxwell's counsel arguing against the MDC's disruptive flashlight security checks, refuting claims made by the government and the MDC about Ms. Maxwell's conditions and statements.
United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
A letter from Ghislaine Maxwell's counsel arguing against the MDC's disruptive flashlight security checks, refuting claims made by the government and the MDC about Ms. Maxwell's conditions and statements.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity