DOJ-OGR-00004786.jpg
719 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
4
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court filing / legal opinion (case 1:20-cr-00330-pae)
File Size:
719 KB
Summary
This page from a 2021 court filing details a February 29, 2016, meeting between the Government (AUSA) and Virginia Giuffre's attorneys, where Maxwell was identified as Epstein's 'head recruiter.' It discusses a protective order issued shortly after that meeting which prevented the sharing of discovery documents with law enforcement without a court order. It also addresses a dispute regarding an alleged second meeting in the summer of 2016, which the Government denies occurred.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Giuffre | Victim/Plaintiff |
Represented by attorneys who met with the Government to provide information on criminal conduct.
|
| Epstein | Subject of investigation |
Primary focus of the February 2016 meeting.
|
| Maxwell | Defendant/Subject |
Identified in AUSA notes as Epstein's 'head recruiter' of underage girls; claiming a second meeting occurred.
|
| AUSA | Assistant United States Attorney |
Met with Giuffre's attorneys on Feb 29, 2016; took notes identifying Maxwell's role.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States Attorney's Office / The Government |
Prosecuting body; declined to pursue criminal investigation in 2016.
|
|
| BSF |
Law firm representing Giuffre (Boies Schiller Flexner); proposed language for protective order.
|
|
| New York Daily News |
Published an article in October 2020 regarding an alleged second meeting.
|
|
| The Court |
Judicial body reviewing the motion.
|
Timeline (2 events)
Key Quotes (4)
"Maxwell as Epstein’s 'head recruiter' of underage girls."Source
DOJ-OGR-00004786.jpg
Quote #1
"The United States Attorney’s Office did not pursue a criminal investigation at that time."Source
DOJ-OGR-00004786.jpg
Quote #2
"The Government has 'uncovered no evidence that such a meeting ever occurred.'"Source
DOJ-OGR-00004786.jpg
Quote #3
"Although BSF initially proposed language that would allow disclosure of documents to law enforcement without a court order, the final version of the protective order included no such exception."Source
DOJ-OGR-00004786.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,111 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 307 Filed 06/25/21 Page 2 of 21
meeting to provide the Government information on possible criminal conduct. The AUSA met with three attorneys who represented Giuffre on February 29, 2016. The AUSA’s notes from the meeting reflect that it focused primarily on Epstein. However, the notes also identify Maxwell as Epstein’s “head recruiter” of underage girls. The attorneys sent a few follow-up emails to the AUSA in the following weeks. The United States Attorney’s Office did not pursue a criminal investigation at that time.
Maxwell claims based on a New York Daily News article published in October 2020 that a second meeting took place between federal prosecutors and a principal of BSF in the summer of 2016. The Government has represented to the Court that the AUSA who participated in the February 29, 2016 meeting did not participate in a second meeting with BSF attorneys and that the Government has “uncovered no evidence that such a meeting ever occurred.” Dkt. No. 204, at 92. However, for purposes of deciding this motion, the Court assumes that it occurred.
About two weeks after the February 29, 2016 meeting, the judge presiding over the civil case entered a protective order that allowed the parties in that case to designate documents produced in discovery as confidential. See Dkt. No. 134-1. That order prohibited the parties from disclosing confidential documents to anyone other than people involved in the case. Although BSF initially proposed language that would allow disclosure of documents to law enforcement without a court order, the final version of the protective order included no such exception. The protective order did not require the parties to obtain the court’s approval to mark a document as confidential. It allowed the court to modify the order at any time for good cause after notice to the parties. It also allowed the parties to use any confidential information at trial, at which point that information would become public. It required the parties to return or destroy confidential records after the case ended.
2
DOJ-OGR-00004786
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document