DOJ-OGR-00019626.jpg
705 KB
Extraction Summary
1
People
8
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal brief / court filing (appellate brief)
File Size:
705 KB
Summary
This document is page 13 of a legal brief filed on October 2, 2020, in case 20-3061 (Maxwell appeal). The text argues that Maxwell's appeal regarding pretrial discovery materials does not meet the strict requirements of the collateral order doctrine established by the Supreme Court. The Government distinguishes Maxwell's situation from cases she cited (Pichler v. UNITE, Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity Servs.), noting those involved intervenors in civil cases rather than parties in criminal cases.
People (1)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Maxwell | Defendant/Appellant |
Subject of the legal brief; she is conceding points regarding her appeal of a pretrial order.
|
Organizations (8)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Supreme Court |
Cited as establishing precedents for collateral order doctrine.
|
|
| UNITE |
Party in cited case Pichler v. UNITE.
|
|
| Minpeco S.A. |
Plaintiff in cited case Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity Servs., Inc.
|
|
| Conticommodity Servs., Inc. |
Defendant in cited case Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity Servs., Inc.
|
|
| Commodity Futures Trading Commission |
Cited as 'CFTC'; acted as third party intervenor in the Minpeco case.
|
|
| Department of Justice |
Inferred from footer 'DOJ-OGR'.
|
|
| 2d Cir. |
Second Circuit Court of Appeals, cited in case law.
|
|
| 3d Cir. |
Third Circuit Court of Appeals, cited in case law.
|
Relationships (1)
Text refers to 'Government's Motion to Dismiss' against Maxwell's arguments.
Key Quotes (3)
"The rights implicated by the Order—namely, the use of pretrial discovery materials—do not justify expanding the limited collateral order exception, which is 'interpreted . . . with the utmost strictness.'"Source
DOJ-OGR-00019626.jpg
Quote #1
"Maxwell relies principally on three cases in seeking to overcome decades of Supreme Court precedent narrowly construing the exception to the requirement that appeals in criminal cases be from the final judgment of conviction."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019626.jpg
Quote #2
"[t]he entire controversy between the CFTC and the defendants in this case was disposed of by the district court’s denial of the government’s motion to modify the"Source
DOJ-OGR-00019626.jpg
Quote #3
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document