DOJ-OGR-00019430.jpg
587 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing (appellate brief)
File Size:
587 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a legal brief filed on September 24, 2020, in Case 20-3061 (Giuffre v. Maxwell). It argues that Ghislaine Maxwell is being treated unfairly because she is barred from sharing information sealed under a criminal protective order with judicial officers in her civil unsealing proceedings (presided over by Judge Preska). The brief asserts that the district court erred and abused its discretion by declining to modify the protective order under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(d)(1).
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant/Appellant |
Seeking to introduce criminal protective order-sealed information; arguing unfairness in current proceedings.
|
| Loretta Preska | Judge |
Presiding over the unseal decisions in the Giuffre v. Maxwell case.
|
| Virginia Giuffre | Plaintiff (implied by case name) |
Named in the case title 'Giuffre v. Maxwell'.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Department of Justice |
Inferred from Bates stamp 'DOJ-OGR' (Office of Government Relations).
|
|
| United States Supreme Court |
Referenced in case citation 'Koon v. United States'.
|
|
| District Court |
Referenced as the court that allegedly erred in declining to modify the protective order.
|
Timeline (2 events)
2020-09-24
N/A
Giuffre v. Maxwell unseal proceedings
District Court
Relationships (2)
Case title 'Giuffre v. Maxwell'
Reference to 'Judge Preska’s unseal decisions' regarding Maxwell.
Key Quotes (4)
"This situation is fundamentally unfair to Ms. Maxwell."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019430.jpg
Quote #1
"There is no reason all judicial officers presiding over any case implicating Ms. Maxwell’s interests should not have access... to all relevant information"Source
DOJ-OGR-00019430.jpg
Quote #2
"A district court by definition abuses its discretion when it makes an error of law."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019430.jpg
Quote #3
"The district court erred in declining to modify the protective order."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019430.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,325 characters)
Case 20-3061, Document 60, 09/24/2020, 2938278, Page31 of 58
Giuffre v. Maxwell unseal proceedings, into which Ms. Maxwell seeks to introduce
criminal protective order-sealed information relevant to Judge Preska’s unseal
decisions.
criminal protective order-sealed information relevant to Judge Preska’s unseal
decisions.
This situation is fundamentally unfair to Ms. Maxwell. There is no reason all
judicial officers presiding over any case implicating Ms. Maxwell’s interests should
not have access, whether under seal, in camera, or otherwise, to all relevant
information, and there is no reason Ms. Maxwell should be barred from providing
such relevant information to them.
judicial officers presiding over any case implicating Ms. Maxwell’s interests should
not have access, whether under seal, in camera, or otherwise, to all relevant
information, and there is no reason Ms. Maxwell should be barred from providing
such relevant information to them.
A. Preservation and standard of review.
Ms. Maxwell preserved this issue for appeal. App. 124–31, 293–98.
This Court reviews for an abuse of discretion an order denying a motion to
modify a protective order. Martindell, 594 F.2d at 295. A district court by definition
abuses its discretion when it makes an error of law. Koon v. United States, 518 U.S.
81, 100 (1996).
Ms. Maxwell preserved this issue for appeal. App. 124–31, 293–98.
This Court reviews for an abuse of discretion an order denying a motion to
modify a protective order. Martindell, 594 F.2d at 295. A district court by definition
abuses its discretion when it makes an error of law. Koon v. United States, 518 U.S.
81, 100 (1996).
B. The district court erred in declining to modify the protective order.
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(d)(1) authorizes district courts to
enter or modify protective orders for good cause. Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(d)(1). In this
case, several reasons exist for the narrow modification of the criminal protective
order Ms. Maxwell proposes.
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(d)(1) authorizes district courts to
enter or modify protective orders for good cause. Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(d)(1). In this
case, several reasons exist for the narrow modification of the criminal protective
order Ms. Maxwell proposes.
26
DOJ-OGR-00019430
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document