DOJ-OGR-00005561.jpg
700 KB
Extraction Summary
12
People
3
Organizations
5
Locations
4
Events
4
Relationships
7
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
700 KB
Summary
This legal document, filed on October 29, 2021, argues that the defense in a federal criminal case is improperly relying on civil case law regarding pseudonyms for plaintiffs. It asserts that the current case involves crime victims, who are entitled to statutory protections under the Crime Victims' Rights Act, unlike civil plaintiffs who are generally required to identify themselves. The document criticizes the defense for ignoring relevant precedent from high-profile sex abuse trials and for citing irrelevant civil cases.
People (12)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Paris | Defendant |
Party in the case United States v. Paris
|
| Kelly | Defendant |
Party in the case United States v. Kelly
|
| Raniere | Defendant |
Party in the case United States v. Raniere
|
| Doe | Plaintiff |
Party in the case Doe v. Cook Cty., Illinois
|
| Sealed Plaintiff | Plaintiff |
Party in the case Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant
|
| Sealed Defendant | Defendant |
Party in the case Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant
|
| Bonanno |
Party in the case In re Bonanno
|
|
| defendant | Defendant |
General reference to the defendant in the current case
|
| plaintiffs | Plaintiffs |
General reference to civil plaintiffs
|
| minor victims | Victims |
Victims in the current case, distinguished from civil plaintiffs
|
| crime victims | Victims |
General reference to individuals entitled to statutory protection under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act
|
| witness | Witness |
General reference to individuals whose interests are balanced against defendant interests
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States | Government agency |
Party in several legal cases (United States v. Paris, United States v. Kelly, United States v. Raniere)
|
| Government | Government agency |
Refers to the United States government, making a motion and asking victims to testify
|
| Cook Cty., Illinois | Government agency (county) |
Defendant in the case Doe v. Cook Cty., Illinois
|
Timeline (4 events)
High profile sex abuse trials in the Eastern District
Eastern District of New York
Government's motion, which the defense is largely ignoring precedent for
Government
defense
Defendant points the Court to civil law regarding plaintiffs proceeding by pseudonyms
Crime victims asked to testify by the Government
Locations (5)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location of high profile sex abuse trials and cases (United States v. Kelly, United States v. Raniere)
|
|
|
Location of the United States v. Paris case
|
|
|
Location of the Doe v. Cook Cty., Illinois case
|
|
|
Part of 'Cook Cty., Illinois'
|
|
|
Jurisdiction for Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant and In re Bonanno
|
Relationships (4)
The defendant points the Court to the law
They have been asked to testify by the Government
attorney
→
Professional/Legal
→
client
a case about disclosure of the existence of an attorney-client relationship
Key Quotes (7)
"The defense largely ignores the overwhelming precedent for the Government’s motion, including the recent high profile sex abuse trials in the Eastern District"Source
DOJ-OGR-00005561.jpg
Quote #1
"This is not a civil case filed by the minor victims, and a civil plaintiff is not similarly situated to a crime victim in a federal criminal case."Source
DOJ-OGR-00005561.jpg
Quote #2
"Civil plaintiffs are generally forced to identify themselves by Rule 10(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure."Source
DOJ-OGR-00005561.jpg
Quote #3
"By contrast, crime victims are entitled to the statutory protection of the Crime Victims’ Rights Act."Source
DOJ-OGR-00005561.jpg
Quote #4
"There is no reason to look to civil law when a body of criminal cases provides direct guidance on this question."Source
DOJ-OGR-00005561.jpg
Quote #5
"The defense brief takes pains to distinguish cases the Government cited in its discussion of how courts approach balancing witness and defendant interests in this area, and fails to address nearly all of the cases applying that analysis in the specific context of sex abuse cases like this one."Source
DOJ-OGR-00005561.jpg
Quote #6
"In discussing the Government’s burden to justify privacy safeguards, the defense cites to In re Bonanno, 344 F.2d 830, 833 (2d Cir. 1965), a case about disclosure of the existence of an attorney-client relationship."Source
DOJ-OGR-00005561.jpg
Quote #7
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,058 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 383 Filed 10/29/21 Page 7 of 40
(E.D.N.Y. Apr. 26, 2011), Dkt. No. 231; United States v. Paris, No. 06 Cr. 64 (CFD), 2007 WL
1484974, at *2 (D. Conn. May 18, 2007).
1484974, at *2 (D. Conn. May 18, 2007).
The defense largely ignores the overwhelming precedent for the Government’s motion,
including the recent high profile sex abuse trials in the Eastern District, see United States v. Kelly,
No. 19 Cr. 286 (AMD) (E.D.N.Y.); United States v. Raniere, No. 18 Cr. 204 (NGG) (E.D.N.Y.
May 6, 2019).¹ Instead, the defendant points the Court to the law in civil cases governing motions
by plaintiffs seeking to proceed by pseudonyms. (See Def. Opp. at 16 (citing, e.g., Doe v. Cook
Cty., Illinois, No. 20 Civ. 5832, 2021 WL 2258313, at *3 (N.D. Ill. June 3, 2021))). This is not a
civil case filed by the minor victims, and a civil plaintiff is not similarly situated to a crime victim
in a federal criminal case. Civil plaintiffs are generally forced to identify themselves by Rule
10(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant, 537 F.3d
185, 188 (2d Cir. 2008). By contrast, crime victims are entitled to the statutory protection of the
Crime Victims’ Rights Act. See 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(8). They have been asked to testify by the
Government, and they do not decide whether this case proceeds. There is no reason to look to
civil law when a body of criminal cases provides direct guidance on this question.²
including the recent high profile sex abuse trials in the Eastern District, see United States v. Kelly,
No. 19 Cr. 286 (AMD) (E.D.N.Y.); United States v. Raniere, No. 18 Cr. 204 (NGG) (E.D.N.Y.
May 6, 2019).¹ Instead, the defendant points the Court to the law in civil cases governing motions
by plaintiffs seeking to proceed by pseudonyms. (See Def. Opp. at 16 (citing, e.g., Doe v. Cook
Cty., Illinois, No. 20 Civ. 5832, 2021 WL 2258313, at *3 (N.D. Ill. June 3, 2021))). This is not a
civil case filed by the minor victims, and a civil plaintiff is not similarly situated to a crime victim
in a federal criminal case. Civil plaintiffs are generally forced to identify themselves by Rule
10(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant, 537 F.3d
185, 188 (2d Cir. 2008). By contrast, crime victims are entitled to the statutory protection of the
Crime Victims’ Rights Act. See 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(8). They have been asked to testify by the
Government, and they do not decide whether this case proceeds. There is no reason to look to
civil law when a body of criminal cases provides direct guidance on this question.²
¹ The defense brief takes pains to distinguish cases the Government cited in its discussion of how
courts approach balancing witness and defendant interests in this area, and fails to address nearly
all of the cases applying that analysis in the specific context of sex abuse cases like this one.
(Compare Def. Opp. at 16-17 & n.19, with Gov’t Mot. at 5-7)
² In discussing the Government’s burden to justify privacy safeguards, the defense cites to In re
Bonanno, 344 F.2d 830, 833 (2d Cir. 1965), a case about disclosure of the existence of an attorney-
client relationship. (Def. Opp. at 15).
courts approach balancing witness and defendant interests in this area, and fails to address nearly
all of the cases applying that analysis in the specific context of sex abuse cases like this one.
(Compare Def. Opp. at 16-17 & n.19, with Gov’t Mot. at 5-7)
² In discussing the Government’s burden to justify privacy safeguards, the defense cites to In re
Bonanno, 344 F.2d 830, 833 (2d Cir. 1965), a case about disclosure of the existence of an attorney-
client relationship. (Def. Opp. at 15).
6
DOJ-OGR-00005561
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document