DOJ-OGR-00019637.jpg

667 KB
View Original

Extraction Summary

2
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Legal brief / court filing (appellate)
File Size: 667 KB
Summary

This document is page 24 (PDF page 30) of a legal brief filed by the Government on October 2, 2020. It argues that Judge Nathan did not abuse her discretion in denying Maxwell's request to modify a Protective Order. The text asserts that Maxwell failed to explain why criminal discovery materials were necessary for pending civil litigation or relevant to First Amendment issues regarding public docketing.

People (2)

Name Role Context
Maxwell Defendant/Appellant
Attempting to modify a protective order to use criminal discovery materials in civil litigation.
Judge Nathan District Court Judge
Issued an Order denying Maxwell's motion; her discretion is being defended in this document.

Organizations (2)

Name Type Context
District Court
The lower court where the original order was issued.
Government
The prosecution/respondent arguing against Maxwell's appeal.

Timeline (2 events)

2020-10-02
Filing of Document 82 in Case 20-3061
Court of Appeals (implied by Case 20-3061)
Prior to 2020-10-02
Judge Nathan issued an Order denying Maxwell's motion to modify a Protective Order
District Court

Relationships (2)

Maxwell Litigant/Judge Judge Nathan
Judge Nathan issued an Order denying Maxwell's motion.
Maxwell Adversarial/Legal Government
Government is arguing against Maxwell's appeal regarding discovery materials.

Key Quotes (3)

"Maxwell offered no coherent explanation of how the criminal discovery materials could have any conceivable impact on the issues pending in civil litigation."
Source
DOJ-OGR-00019637.jpg
Quote #1
"Judge Nathan did not abuse her discretion when determining that Maxwell had offered no basis for determining that good cause justified a modification of the Protective Order."
Source
DOJ-OGR-00019637.jpg
Quote #2
"Maxwell still fails to explain why she needs to use materials relating to the Government’s applications seeking the modification of certain protective orders in other judicial proceedings."
Source
DOJ-OGR-00019637.jpg
Quote #3

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document