DOJ-OGR-00019382.jpg
693 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal brief / court filing (appellate)
File Size:
693 KB
Summary
This page from a legal filing (Case 20-3061) argues that an order denying Ghislaine Maxwell's motion to amend a Protective Order is not subject to interlocutory appeal. The text cites various legal precedents (Nelson, Midland Asphalt, Punn) to support the argument that her rights to a fair trial can be vindicated after a final judgment or during the criminal trial itself. It addresses Maxwell's concern that unsealing documents in civil cases might prejudice her criminal trial, asserting she can raise those issues in the criminal case if they arise.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant/Appellant |
Subject of the legal arguments; seeking to amend a Protective Order regarding discovery materials.
|
| Nelson | Case Law Reference |
Referenced in United States v. Nelson regarding impartial juries.
|
| MacDonald | Case Law Reference |
Referenced in United States v. MacDonald regarding trial rights.
|
| Punn | Case Law Reference |
Referenced in United States v. Punn regarding appealability.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit |
Cited as 2d Cir. in case law.
|
|
| Supreme Court of the United States |
Cited as U.S. in case law.
|
|
| Department of Justice (DOJ) |
Indicated by Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00019382.
|
Timeline (2 events)
2020-09-16
Filing of Document 38 in Case 20-3061.
Court of Appeals
Unknown
Relationships (1)
Discussion of Government opposing motions and criminal trial proceedings.
Key Quotes (3)
"Simply put, the Order denying Maxwell’s motion to amend the Protective Order is not reviewable on interlocutory appeal."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019382.jpg
Quote #1
"Maxwell complains that if she cannot use criminal discovery materials in civil litigation then there is a risk that certain filings in the civil cases may be unsealed that otherwise would have remained sealed."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019382.jpg
Quote #2
"Maxwell apparently believes such a result would risk prejudicing her trial rights in the criminal case."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019382.jpg
Quote #3
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document