DOJ-OGR-00002365.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 134 Filed 02/04/21 Page 18 of 23 had in the Chemical Bank case. In no uncertain terms, J explained why she had haled the prosecutor back into court: Ex. E, p 2. In Chemical Bank, a protective order precluded parties to a civil case from disclosing confidential documents to others. 154 F.R.D. at 92-93. Despite this prohibition, counsel for the defendant approached the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office and suggested that it had evidence of criminal violations relating to the case. Jd. at 93. A grand jury issued a subpoena, and the defendant produced to the government various confidential documents without complying with any of the specific procedures or exceptions provided in the protective order. /d. Once this collusion came to light, the district court reprimanded the defendant for its “disregard of the [protective] order[]” and admonished its behavior as “contrary to the traditions of the Bar which dictate that court orders be respected.” Jd. In addressing the government’s application here, NM specifically asked whether MM bad acted as the defendant did in Chemical Bank. The prosecutor omitted any mention of his office’s previous meetings with the firm, and falsely led the court to believe that MG had not encouraged its investigation. Reassured by the misrepresentations, BEE commented: DOJ-OGR-00002365