DOJ-OGR-00019625.jpg
684 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
4
Organizations
0
Locations
0
Events
0
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court filing / legal brief (appellate)
File Size:
684 KB
Summary
This document is page 18 of a legal brief filed on October 2, 2020, in Case 20-3061 (related to Ghislaine Maxwell). The text argues that protective orders regarding discovery documents in criminal cases are not subject to interlocutory appeal, citing Second Circuit precedents like U.S. v. Caparros and U.S. v. Pappas. The argument specifically asserts that Maxwell's jurisdictional arguments fail to meet the criteria for immediate appeal under the collateral order doctrine.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Maxwell | Defendant/Appellant |
Subject of the legal discussion regarding jurisdictional arguments and protective orders.
|
| Caparros | Legal Precedent |
Cited in United States v. Caparros regarding protective orders.
|
| Pappas | Legal Precedent |
Cited in United States v. Pappas regarding disclosure restrictions.
|
| Cohen | Legal Precedent |
Referenced regarding the 'collateral order' doctrine.
|
| Van Cauwenberghe | Legal Precedent |
Cited regarding immediately appealable collateral orders.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Department of Justice (DOJ) |
Source of the document (indicated by Bates stamp DOJ-OGR).
|
|
| Second Circuit Court of Appeals (2d Cir.) |
Jurisdiction whose precedents are being cited.
|
|
| H.L. Hayden Co. of N.Y. |
Party in cited case law.
|
|
| Siemens Medical Sys., Inc. |
Party in cited case law.
|
Key Quotes (3)
"Maxwell’s jurisdictional arguments run afoul of this Circuit’s precedent and offer no justification for including the Order in the “small class” of decisions that constitute immediately appealable collateral orders."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019625.jpg
Quote #1
"protective orders regulating the use of documents exchanged by the parties during a criminal case are not subject to interlocutory appeal."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019625.jpg
Quote #2
"Because “a litigant does not have an unrestrained right to disseminate information that has been obtained through pretrial discovery,” such protective orders do not amount to an impermissible prior restraint under the First Amendment."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019625.jpg
Quote #3
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document