DOJ-OGR-00019633.jpg

661 KB
View Original

Extraction Summary

5
People
5
Organizations
2
Locations
0
Events
1
Relationships
5
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Legal brief / court filing (appellate)
File Size: 661 KB
Summary

This page is from a legal brief (Case 20-3061, Document 82) filed on October 2, 2020. The text argues against Ghislaine Maxwell's attempt to use a writ of mandamus to modify a Protective Order, citing that such writs are 'extraordinary remedies' reserved for exceptional circumstances like judicial abuse of power. It references legal precedents (Cheney, Glotzer) to support the argument that pretrial discovery orders are generally not reviewable on direct appeal.

People (5)

Name Role Context
Ghislaine Maxwell Defendant/Appellant
Subject of the legal argument; seeking a writ of mandamus to modify a Protective Order.
Cheney Legal precedent subject
Cited in case law (Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court).
Glotzer Legal precedent subject
Cited in case law (In re S.E.C. ex rel. Glotzer).
Pappas Legal precedent subject
Cited in case law.
Caparros Legal precedent subject
Cited in case law.

Organizations (5)

Name Type Context
U.S. District Court
The lower court whose orders Maxwell is contesting.
Supreme Court
Cited for legal standards regarding mandamus.
Second Circuit Court of Appeals
Implied by '2d Cir.' citations; the court receiving this brief.
Department of Justice (DOJ)
Indicated by Bates stamp prefix DOJ-OGR.
S.E.C.
Cited in case law.

Locations (2)

Location Context
Mentioned in case citation.
Implied by 'City of N.Y.' case citation.

Relationships (1)

Ghislaine Maxwell Legal/Adversarial U.S. District Court
Maxwell is attempting to appeal or modify the District Court's Protective Order via writ of mandamus.

Key Quotes (5)

"Maxwell suggests that this Court should exercise mandamus jurisdiction and issue the extraordinary relief of a writ of mandamus directing the District Court to modify the Protective Order"
Source
DOJ-OGR-00019633.jpg
Quote #1
"The Supreme Court has described this as 'a drastic and extraordinary remedy reserved for really extraordinary causes.'"
Source
DOJ-OGR-00019633.jpg
Quote #2
"issue[s] a writ of mandamus only in exceptional circumstances amounting to a judicial usurpation of power or a clear abuse of discretion."
Source
DOJ-OGR-00019633.jpg
Quote #3
"Pretrial discovery orders . . . generally are not reviewable on direct appeal"
Source
DOJ-OGR-00019633.jpg
Quote #4
"Orders regulating discovery in a criminal case, even if couched using 'words of restraint,' are not injunctions and are therefore not appealable under § 1292(a)(1)."
Source
DOJ-OGR-00019633.jpg
Quote #5

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document