DOJ-OGR-00019656.jpg

557 KB
View Original

Extraction Summary

3
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Legal brief / court filing (appeal reply brief)
File Size: 557 KB
Summary

This page from a legal brief (Case 20-3061) dated October 8, 2020, argues that the appellate court has jurisdiction to review Judge Preska's decision because Judge Nathan's order is unreviewable post-judgment. The text counters the Government's arguments regarding the unsealing of confidential criminal discovery materials and references a previous motion to consolidate cases. Significant portions of the text are redacted.

People (3)

Name Role Context
Ms. Maxwell Defendant/Appellant
Subject of the legal argument regarding unsealing of documents and motion to consolidate.
Judge Preska Judge
Her decision is being reviewed by the Court.
Judge Nathan Judge
Author of an order that the defense claims is effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.

Organizations (2)

Name Type Context
The Government
Opposing party in the appeal; argued that Maxwell failed to explain the relevance of how discovery materials were obt...
This Court
The court hearing the current appeal (likely 2nd Circuit based on case number format).

Timeline (1 events)

Prior to 2020-10-08
Motion to Consolidate
Court

Relationships (2)

Ms. Maxwell Adversarial/Legal The Government
Government arguing against Maxwell's appeals regarding unsealing documents.
Judge Preska Judicial Colleagues Judge Nathan
Both judges have issued orders relevant to the same legal proceedings involving Maxwell.

Key Quotes (3)

"Judge Nathan’s order is effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment."
Source
DOJ-OGR-00019656.jpg
Quote #1
"Ms. Maxwell 'fails to explain how the way the Government obtained the confidential criminal discovery materials at issue has any bearing on or in any way affects First Amendment principles governing unsealing decisions in a civil case.'"
Source
DOJ-OGR-00019656.jpg
Quote #2
"The government professed not to understand the relationship between the two cases."
Source
DOJ-OGR-00019656.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