The document outlines the rules for how the Defense Counsel must handle discovery materials provided by the Government, and how they must seek authorization from the Government or the Court for certain actions.
The document outlines a formal, adversarial process for Defense Counsel to dispute the Government's classification of documents and materials.
The Government sought to confer with the defense counsel before filing a letter but received no response, indicating a professional interaction within the context of litigation.
The document stipulates that the Defense Counsel is prohibited from certain actions unless authorized in writing by the Government or by Order of the Court.
The document stipulates that the Defense Counsel is prohibited from certain actions unless authorized in writing by the Government or by Order of the Court.
The document stipulates that the defense must seek authorization from the Government to file confidential information publicly.
Paragraph 9 outlines the process for Defense Counsel to challenge Government designations.
Agreed to meet and confer regarding evidence presentation; mandated regarding discovery handling.
Protocol outlines process for Defense to challenge Government's confidentiality designations.
Conferred regarding extension; disagreed on conditions.
Document discusses the obligations of the Government to provide information to the defense in a criminal trial.
Drafting of discovery protocols between prosecution (Government) and defense.
Procedures for Defense Counsel to challenge Government designations.
Procedures outlined for Defense Counsel to notify Government of disagreement regarding document designation.
Paragraph 10 outlines the process for Defense Counsel to notify the Government of disagreement regarding document designation.
DOJ-OGR-00019508.jpg
This document is page 7 (labeled page 6 internally) of a court filing from July 2, 2020, in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It outlines the protocols for handling 'Confidential Information' during discovery, specifically defining what constitutes confidential material and establishing protections for the personal identification of victims and witnesses. It also sets the procedure for Defense Counsel to challenge confidential designations.
DOJ-OGR-00009846.jpg
This legal document argues against the defendant's position that Juror 50's motion to intervene should be sealed. The author asserts that the motion is a judicial document that should be publicly docketed, citing the case Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga and refuting the defendant's claims that it is merely a discovery request or that public filing would interfere with testimony. A footnote defends the Government's prior action of publicly filing a letter about Juror 50's public statements, stating it was appropriate and that an attempt was made to confer with defense counsel beforehand.
DOJ-OGR-00001679.jpg
This document is page 9 of a court filing (Document 33-1) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on July 28, 2020. It outlines the protocols for handling 'Highly Confidential Information,' specifically defining it as materials containing sexualized images of individuals. It establishes that such information is to be used solely for the criminal defense and not for any civil proceedings.
DOJ-OGR-00001828.jpg
This document is a letter from the U.S. Department of Justice to Judge Alison J. Nathan requesting a deadline extension for electronic discovery in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The government cites delays with an outside vendor processing data from electronic devices seized from Jeffrey Epstein's residences in New York and the U.S. Virgin Islands in 2019. The letter details the volume of discovery produced so far (350,000+ pages) and outlines the timeline of data seizure, privilege review by Epstein's estate, and subsequent warrant acquisition.
DOJ-OGR-00001698.jpg
Page 9 of a court order (Protective Order) from case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The document defines 'Highly Confidential Information' as materials containing sexualized images of individuals and outlines the strict limitations on its use, specifically prohibiting use in civil proceedings. It also establishes the protocol for the Defense Counsel to challenge the Government's classification of such materials.
DOJ-OGR-00001699.jpg
This document is page 10 of a court order filed on July 30, 2020, in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. It details strict regulations for the handling of confidential discovery materials by the Defendant and their legal team, prohibiting dissemination, copying, and public filing unless authorized in writing by the Government or by a specific Order of the Court. The order also specifies that information identifying victims or witnesses is an exception and should not be disclosed.
DOJ-OGR-00001653.jpg
This document is page 7 of a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated July 27, 2020. It outlines protocols for handling 'Confidential Information' during the discovery process, specifically defining what constitutes confidential material and how personal identification of victims and witnesses must be protected. It also notes that victims or witnesses who have publicly identified themselves are not subject to these specific confidentiality restrictions.
DOJ-OGR-00019532.jpg
This document is page 11 of a court order (likely a Protective Order) from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330). It outlines the strict protocols for the Defense Counsel regarding the handling, return, or destruction of 'Discovery' and 'Confidential Information' provided by the Government. It stipulates that materials must be destroyed or returned within 30 days of the finalization of the case (including appeals) and mandates that both parties meet to discuss evidence presentation before trials.
DOJ-OGR-00019538.jpg
This document is page 5 of a court order filed on July 30, 2020, for case 1:20-gp-00330-AJN. The order prohibits the defense team (including the Defendant, Counsel, Staff, Experts, and Witnesses) from publicly disclosing or filing the identities of victims or witnesses referenced in the Discovery process. An exception is made for individuals who have already spoken on the public record, or if the disclosure is authorized in writing by the Government or by an order from the Court, in which case the filing must be made under seal.
DOJ-OGR-00001695.jpg
This is page 6 of a court filing (Document 36) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on July 30, 2020. The document outlines protocols for handling 'Confidential Information' during discovery, specifically regarding the protection of PII for victims and witnesses, while noting that victims who have publicly identified themselves on the record are exempt from this confidentiality. It also establishes the procedure for Defense Counsel to challenge confidentiality designations made by the Government.
DOJ-OGR-00001657.jpg
This document is a page from a court order (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on July 27, 2020, detailing the strict protocols for handling confidential discovery materials. It specifies that the Defendant and their legal team are restricted in how they can review, possess, copy, and file this information, requiring authorization from the Government or the Court for public disclosure. The order also mandates that all discovery materials be returned or destroyed at the end of the case.
DOJ-OGR-00019511.jpg
This page is from a legal document filed on July 27, 2020, outlining the rules for handling "Highly Confidential Information" in a criminal case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). It specifies that such information may include sexualized images and details the legal process for Defense Counsel to challenge this designation with the Government and the Court. The document also strictly limits the use of this information to the defense of the criminal action and prohibits its further dissemination.
DOJ-OGR-00003137.jpg
This document is page 203 of a legal filing (Document 204) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on April 16, 2021. It contains legal arguments citing various precedents (Bortnovsky, Mandell, Levy, etc.) to support the Government's position that providing voluminous discovery negates the need for a 'bill of particulars,' arguing that the defense is not entitled to a preview of the Government's legal theories, only what is strictly necessary for defense preparation.
DOJ-OGR-00019539.jpg
This page documents a protective order regarding discovery procedures in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). It defines 'Confidential Information' as materials containing personal details of victims and witnesses, while explicitly excluding those who have publicly identified themselves on the record. It also establishes a mechanism for Defense Counsel to challenge the Government's confidentiality designations.
Entities connected to both Defense counsel and GOVERNMENT
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein relationship