Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
efta-efta00084530DOJ Data Set 9Other

From: 'a"

Date
Unknown
Source
DOJ Data Set 9
Reference
EFTA 00084530
Pages
2
Persons
4
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

From: 'a" To: a' Cc: Min 1 11 Subject: RE: initial discovery production Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2020 21:02:36 +0000 Attachments: 2020-07-28„govemment_letter_re_protective_orderidocketed).pdf; 2020-07- 31,_GM,memorandum_&_order_granting_govemment_motion.pdf; 2020-07- 31„GM,signed_protective_order (docketed).pdf We wanted to briefly check with you on a few issues. First, I expect that we will very shortly—hopefully Monday, but I expect not later than early this week—be producing materials to you in response to your Touhy request. That has been pending final supervisory approval this week, but we are continuing to follow up with the person who needs to approve and we expect it will go out shortly. As I previously mentioned, we are constrained in our ability to produce any materials obtained in connection with the grand jury process, which are subject to stringent restrictions under Rule 6(e) — I expect that will be noted in the letter, but I mention it given the relatively limited

Tags

eftadataset-9vol00009
Ask AI about this document

Search 264K+ documents with AI-powered analysis

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
From: 'a" To: a' Cc: Min 1 11 Subject: RE: initial discovery production Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2020 21:02:36 +0000 Attachments: 2020-07-28„govemment_letter_re_protective_orderidocketed).pdf; 2020-07- 31,_GM,memorandum_&_order_granting_govemment_motion.pdf; 2020-07- 31„GM,signed_protective_order (docketed).pdf We wanted to briefly check with you on a few issues. First, I expect that we will very shortly—hopefully Monday, but I expect not later than early this week—be producing materials to you in response to your Touhy request. That has been pending final supervisory approval this week, but we are continuing to follow up with the person who needs to approve and we expect it will go out shortly. As I previously mentioned, we are constrained in our ability to produce any materials obtained in connection with the grand jury process, which are subject to stringent restrictions under Rule 6(e) — I expect that will be noted in the letter, but I mention it given the relatively limited volume of disclosable materials. Second, and as we've also previously talked about (though not for some time), now that there is a protective order entered in the Maxwell case, we expect to begin making discovery productions to the defense this coming week. As you may have seen this past week, defense counsel argued that they should be able to publicly identify victims in certain circumstances, which we vigorously opposed. Ultimately the judge ruled in our favor, and the protective order is exceptionally strong. For your reference, the Government's letter on this issue, the Court's decision, and the final protective order are all attached. As you would imagine, some of the discovery we will begin to produce will include information about your client, including information such as her name and date of birth, in connection with documents we have gathered. Consistent with the protective order, defense counsel may not disclose or distribute any discovery materials except under very strict conditions, and in any event the defendant and counsel "are strictly prohibited from publicly disclosing or disseminating the identity of any victims or witnesses referenced in the Discovery." To the extent they need to reference the identity of individuals as part of their investigation, e.g., in individual interviews, any potential defense witnesses and counsel are similarly prohibited from further disclosing or disseminating such identifying information. All of these appropriate restrictions notwithstanding, we nevertheless did want to let you know that we are beginning to make discovery productions, in an abundance of caution and in the interests of transparency. Finally, when we make the initial discovery production, with your permission we may advise defense counsel that each victim in the Indictment is represented by counsel, and identify the counsel for each person (i.e., we would identify you as counsel fo . The reason we would do that would be to preempt attempts at direct contact with represented witnesses by defense counsel or defense investigators. For your client in particular, we not Please let us know if you have a preference on this, and we're also happy to discuss it via phone. As always, please do not hesitate to be in touch on any of these issues, we'll keep you advised of any significant developments, and thanks. Assistant U.S. Attorney EFTA00084530 Southern District of New York EFTA00084531

Related Documents (6)

DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 37 Filed 07/30/20 177uja-1-44

Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 37 Filed 07/30/20 177uja-1-44 1M. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK United States of America, —v— Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC 0. DATE FILED:7/30/2020 20-CR-330 (MN) MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: Both parties have asked for the Court to enter a protective order. While they agree on most of the language, two areas of dispute have emerged. First, Ms. Maxwell seeks language allowing her to publicly reference alleged victims or witnesses who have spoken on the public record to the media or in public fora, or in litigation relating to Ms. Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein. Second, Ms. Maxwell seeks language restricting potential Government witnesses and their counsel from using discovery materials for any purpose other than preparing for the criminal trial in this action. The Government has proposed contrary language on both of these issues. For

3p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 37 Filed 07/30/20 177uja-1-44

Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 37 Filed 07/30/20 177uja-1-44 1M. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK United States of America, —v— Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC 0. DATE FILED:7/30/2020 20-CR-330 (MN) MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: Both parties have asked for the Court to enter a protective order. While they agree on most of the language, two areas of dispute have emerged. First, Ms. Maxwell seeks language allowing her to publicly reference alleged victims or witnesses who have spoken on the public record to the media or in public fora, or in litigation relating to Ms. Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein. Second, Ms. Maxwell seeks language restricting potential Government witnesses and their counsel from using discovery materials for any purpose other than preparing for the criminal trial in this action. The Government has proposed contrary language on both of these issues. For

3p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 33 Filed 07/28/20 Page 1 of 7

Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 33 Filed 07/28/20 Page 1 of 7 U.S. Department of Justice United Stales Attorney Southern District of New York The Silvio J. Mollo Building One saint Andrew's Plaza New York. New York 10007 July 28, 2020 VIA ECF The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) Dear Judge Nathan: The Government respectfully submits this letter with respect to the protective order to be entered in the above-captioned case, and to respond to the defendant's letter and submission of July 27, 2020 (the "Defendant Letter" or "Def. Ltr.") (Dkt. 29). The Government and defense counsel have conferred regarding a protective order several times via telephone and email between July 9, 2020, and today, including as recently as this morning. The Government and defense counsel have come to an agreement

19p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

From: 'a

From: 'a To: Ma Cc: Min alMIE > Subject: RE: initial discovery production Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2020 21:12:30 +0000 Attachments: 2020-07-31,_GM,_siped_protective_orderjdocketed).pdf; 2020-07- 28,_govemment_letter re_protective_order (docketed).pdf; 2020-07- 31,_GM,_memorandum_&_order_granting_govemment_motion.pdf We wanted to briefly check with you on a couple issues. First, as we've previously talked about (though not for some time), now that there is a protective order entered in the Maxwell case, we expect to begin making discovery productions to the defense this coming week. As you know, defense counsel argued that they should be able to publicly identify victims in certain circumstances, which we vigorously opposed, and ultimately the judge ruled in our favor. The protective order is exceptionally strong, and is attached along with the Government's letter on this issue and the Court's opinion. As you would expect, some of the discovery we will begin to produce will include

1p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 33 Filed 07/28/20 Page 1 of 7

Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 33 Filed 07/28/20 Page 1 of 7 U.S. Department of Justice United Stales Attorney Southern District of New York The Silvio J. Mollo Building One saint Andrew's Plaza New York. New York 10007 July 28, 2020 VIA ECF The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) Dear Judge Nathan: The Government respectfully submits this letter with respect to the protective order to be entered in the above-captioned case, and to respond to the defendant's letter and submission of July 27, 2020 (the "Defendant Letter" or "Def. Ltr.") (Dkt. 29). The Government and defense counsel have conferred regarding a protective order several times via telephone and email between July 9, 2020, and today, including as recently as this morning. The Government and defense counsel have come to an agreement

19p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 20-2413, Document 44, 08/20/2020, 2913556, Pagel of 78

Case 20-2413, Document 44, 08/20/2020, 2913556, Pagel of 78 20-2413 United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit —against— GHISLAINE MAXWELL, SHARON CHURCHER, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, PlaintiffiAppellee, Defendant-Appellant, Respondents, JULIE BROWN, MIAMI HERALD MEDIA COMPANY, ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ, MICHAEL CERNOVICH, DBA CERNOVICH MEDIA Intervenors. ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, 15-CV-7433 (LAP) APPENDIX Volume IV of VIII (Pages App.-0777 to App.-0852) Ty Gee Adam Mueller HADDON, MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C. Attorneys or e en ant-Appellant Ghislaine Maxwell EFTA00076383 Case 20-2413, Document 44, 08/20/2020, 2913556, Paget of 78 Docket Entries App.-0001 Order regarding Ms. Maxwell's Letter Motion to Reconsider July 23, 2020 Ruling, Dated July 29, 2020 (Dkt. 1079) App.-0777 Notice of Appeal, Dated July 29, 2020 (Dkt. 1081) App.-0781 Non-Redacted Declaration of Sigrid S. McCawley In Support of Plaintiff's

78p

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.