DOJ-OGR-00019634.jpg
584 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
584 KB
Summary
This legal document, part of an appellate court filing, argues that the District Court did not abuse its discretion when it denied a motion by Maxwell to modify a protective order. The filing contends that the appellate court should not issue a writ of mandamus and should instead affirm the lower court's decision, as the case does not present the rare and exceptional circumstances required for such intervention.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Maxwell | Appellant/Movant |
Mentioned as the party whose motion to modify a protective order was denied by the District Court and who is now appe...
|
| Longueuil | Party in a cited case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Longueuil, 567 F. App’x 13, 16 (2d Cir. 2014)' as an example of a co...
|
| Caparros | Party in a cited case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'Caparros, 800 F.2d at 26' regarding the court's normal practice for mandamus petitions.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| District Court | Judicial body |
The court that denied Maxwell's motion to modify the protective order.
|
| This Court | Judicial body |
The appellate court being addressed in the document, which is being asked to review the District Court's decision.
|
| United States | Government agency |
A party in the cited case 'United States v. Longueuil'.
|
| City of N.Y. | Government agency |
A party in the cited case 'In re City of N.Y.'.
|
Timeline (2 events)
The District Court denied Maxwell's Motion to Modify the Protective Order.
District Court
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in the case citation 'In re City of N.Y.'.
|
Relationships (1)
The document describes the District Court denying a motion filed by Maxwell, establishing an adversarial legal relationship within the context of this litigation.
Key Quotes (2)
"look primarily for the presence of a novel and significant question of law . . . and . . . the presence of a legal issue whose resolution will aid in the administration of justice."Source
— In re City of N.Y., 607 F.3d at 939
(Cited as the standard for when a court should consider a writ of mandamus.)
DOJ-OGR-00019634.jpg
Quote #1
"normal practice . . . to decline to treat improvident appeals as mandamus petitions."Source
— Caparros, 800 F.2d at 26
(Cited to argue that the Court should follow its standard procedure and not grant a writ of mandamus in this case.)
DOJ-OGR-00019634.jpg
Quote #2
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document