{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "24",
    "document_number": "285",
    "date": "05/20/21",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 285 Filed 05/20/21 Page 24 of 34\n\nJudge McMahon \"returned\" to that point when discussing whether Maxwell could have reasonably relied on the Protective Order:\n\n[T]he only thing on which Maxwell or anyone else might reasonably have relied is that Giuffre or her lawyers would not do what the defendant in Chemical Bank did—that is, forward discovery materials in their possession to prosecutors for the purpose of fomenting an investigation. But I am not faced with that situation. Nothing in this record suggests to me that Giuffre or Boies Schiller had anything to do with the Government's decision to convene a grand jury to look into the matters that were the subject of the Giuffre Action. On the contrary—the Government has advised the Court that it contacted Boies Schiller as part of its search for parties who might have been victims in its investigation; and that Boies Schiller told the Government that it could not consensually produce at least some documents in its files because of the existence of the Protective Order. There is no evidence of \"collusion,\" to invoke a term of the moment, and it is quite clear that Boies Schiller did not foment the Government's investigation. Moreover, the Assistant United States Attorney has represented to this Court that he has no idea what is in Boies Schiller's files, and that for all he knows every witness who was deposed stood on his/her Fifth Amendment rights and refused to answer questions.\n\nId. at 21.\n\nContrary to Judge McMahon's understanding, Boies Schiller contacted the government (not the other way around); there was ample evidence of \"collusion\"; it was \"quite clear that Boies Schiller did . . . foment the Government's investigation\"; and AUSA knew much more about what was in Boies Schiller's files than he let on.\n\nThe Chemical Bank situation Judge McMahon was worried about—when civil litigant attempts to foment a criminal investigation of her opponent—is exactly what occurred.\n\nJudge McMahon cannot be faulted for not knowing all the facts. AUSA, on the other hand, had a \"complete handle on the landscape,\" and he withheld the truth from Judge McMahon. Had AUSA not misled her, it is clear Judge McMahon would not have authorized the subpoena.21\n\n21 It's notable that even without the benefit of truth from AUSA, Judge McMahon wrongly concluded that Maxwell could not have reasonably relied on the Protective Order. In fact, the\n\n19\n\nDOJ-OGR-00004159",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 285 Filed 05/20/21 Page 24 of 34",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Judge McMahon \"returned\" to that point when discussing whether Maxwell could have reasonably relied on the Protective Order:",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "[T]he only thing on which Maxwell or anyone else might reasonably have relied is that Giuffre or her lawyers would not do what the defendant in Chemical Bank did—that is, forward discovery materials in their possession to prosecutors for the purpose of fomenting an investigation. But I am not faced with that situation. Nothing in this record suggests to me that Giuffre or Boies Schiller had anything to do with the Government's decision to convene a grand jury to look into the matters that were the subject of the Giuffre Action. On the contrary—the Government has advised the Court that it contacted Boies Schiller as part of its search for parties who might have been victims in its investigation; and that Boies Schiller told the Government that it could not consensually produce at least some documents in its files because of the existence of the Protective Order. There is no evidence of \"collusion,\" to invoke a term of the moment, and it is quite clear that Boies Schiller did not foment the Government's investigation. Moreover, the Assistant United States Attorney has represented to this Court that he has no idea what is in Boies Schiller's files, and that for all he knows every witness who was deposed stood on his/her Fifth Amendment rights and refused to answer questions.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Id. at 21.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Contrary to Judge McMahon's understanding, Boies Schiller contacted the government (not the other way around); there was ample evidence of \"collusion\"; it was \"quite clear that Boies Schiller did . . . foment the Government's investigation\"; and AUSA knew much more about what was in Boies Schiller's files than he let on.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Chemical Bank situation Judge McMahon was worried about—when civil litigant attempts to foment a criminal investigation of her opponent—is exactly what occurred.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Judge McMahon cannot be faulted for not knowing all the facts. AUSA, on the other hand, had a \"complete handle on the landscape,\" and he withheld the truth from Judge McMahon. Had AUSA not misled her, it is clear Judge McMahon would not have authorized the subpoena.21",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "21 It's notable that even without the benefit of truth from AUSA, Judge McMahon wrongly concluded that Maxwell could not have reasonably relied on the Protective Order. In fact, the",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "19",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00004159",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Judge McMahon",
      "Maxwell",
      "Giuffre",
      "AUSA"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Boies Schiller",
      "Chemical Bank",
      "Government",
      "Court"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "05/20/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "285",
      "DOJ-OGR-00004159"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a formal tone. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}