DOJ-OGR-00019604.jpg
649 KB
Extraction Summary
6
People
4
Organizations
2
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
649 KB
Summary
This legal document, part of case 20-3061, argues for the issuance of a writ of mandamus. It outlines the three legal conditions required for such a writ, citing precedents like 'In re Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany, N.Y.'. The document asserts that all three conditions are met, specifically claiming that Judge Nathan abused her discretion regarding a protective order and that the petitioner, Ms. Maxwell, has no other legal recourse, referencing her request to Judge Preska.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Bond |
Mentioned as a party in the legal case citation 'Bond v. Utreras'.
|
|
| Utreras |
Mentioned as a party in the legal case citation 'Bond v. Utreras'.
|
|
| Pappas |
Mentioned in the legal case citation 'see Pappas, 94 F.3d at 798'.
|
|
| Judge Nathan | Judge |
Mentioned as having abused her discretion in declining to modify a protective order.
|
| Ms. Maxwell |
Mentioned as having no other adequate means to attain relief and having requested Judge Preska to reevaluate an unsea...
|
|
| Judge Preska | Judge |
Mentioned as the recipient of a request from Ms. Maxwell to reevaluate an unsealing order.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| 7th Cir. | government agency |
Referenced in a legal citation: (7th Cir. 2009).
|
| 2d Cir. | government agency |
Referenced in two legal citations: (2d Cir. 2010) and (2d Cir. 2014).
|
| Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany, N.Y. | religious organization |
Mentioned in the legal case citation 'In re Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany, N.Y.'.
|
| DOJ | government agency |
Appears in the footer identifier 'DOJ-OGR-00019604'.
|
Timeline (2 events)
Judge Nathan declined to modify a protective order, which is described as a clear abuse of her discretion.
Ms. Maxwell requested Judge Preska to reevaluate her unsealing order.
Relationships (2)
The document describes a legal conflict where Ms. Maxwell's side is accusing Judge Nathan of abusing her discretion in a ruling related to a protective order.
Ms. Maxwell made a request to Judge Preska to reevaluate an unsealing order.
Key Quotes (3)
"[i]n rare instances . . . might raise issues available for review via a petition for writ of mandamus"Source
— Pappas, 94 F.3d at 798
(A quote from a legal case recognizing that protective orders in criminal cases can sometimes be reviewed via a writ of mandamus.)
DOJ-OGR-00019604.jpg
Quote #1
"confine[s] the court against which mandamus is sought to a lawful exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction."Source
— In re City of N.Y., 607 F.3d 923, 932
(A quote describing the function of a writ of mandamus issued under the All Writs Act.)
DOJ-OGR-00019604.jpg
Quote #2
"exceptional circumstances amount[] to a . . . clear abuse of discretion."Source
— In re City of N.Y., 607 F.3d 923, 932
(A quote stating the condition under which a writ of mandamus is properly issued.)
DOJ-OGR-00019604.jpg
Quote #3
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document