DOJ-OGR-00019361.jpg

679 KB
View Original

Extraction Summary

2
People
7
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Legal brief / court filing (appellate)
File Size: 679 KB
Summary

This document is page 19 of a legal brief filed on September 16, 2020, likely by the prosecution or a respondent opposing an appeal by Ghislaine Maxwell. The text argues that the cases Maxwell cited in her notice of appeal are irrelevant ('inapposite') because they deal with third-party intervenors (like the press or the CFTC) seeking to modify protective orders, whereas Maxwell is a direct party to the case. It specifically distinguishes the current situation from *Brown v. Maxwell* and other precedents regarding appellate jurisdiction over protective orders.

People (2)

Name Role Context
Ghislaine Maxwell Defendant/Appellant
Mentioned regarding her 'notice of appeal' and legal arguments related to protective orders.
Brown Plaintiff/Intervenor
Named party in cited case 'Brown v. Maxwell' (2019).

Organizations (7)

Name Type Context
Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)
Cited as a third-party intervenor in the 'Minpeco S.A.' case example.
UNITE
Party in cited case 'Pichler v. UNITE'.
Minpeco S.A.
Party in cited case.
Conticommodity Servs., Inc.
Party in cited case.
Department of Justice
Implied by Bates stamp 'DOJ-OGR'.
Second Circuit Court of Appeals
Referenced as '2d Cir.' in case citations.
Third Circuit Court of Appeals
Referenced as '3d Cir.' in case citations.

Timeline (1 events)

2020-09-16
Filing of Document 37 in Case 20-3061.
Court of Appeals (likely 2nd Circuit)

Relationships (1)

Ghislaine Maxwell Legal Adversaries Brown
Citation of 'Brown v. Maxwell'

Key Quotes (3)

"The cases cited in Maxwell’s notice of appeal do not alter this analysis."
Source
DOJ-OGR-00019361.jpg
Quote #1
"All three are inapposite because they involved appeals by intervenors — not parties — seeking to modify protective orders in civil cases."
Source
DOJ-OGR-00019361.jpg
Quote #2
"appellate courts do not repeatedly intervene to second-guess prejudgment rulings."
Source
DOJ-OGR-00019361.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