DOJ-OGR-00019594.jpg

604 KB
View Original

Extraction Summary

4
People
7
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Legal filing / court brief (appeal)
File Size: 604 KB
Summary

This document is page 3 of a legal brief (Case 20-3061) filed on September 28, 2020, arguing that the appellate court has jurisdiction to review a district court's decision regarding a protective order in the Ghislaine Maxwell case. The text focuses on the 'collateral order doctrine' and cites legal precedents to support the claim that the unsealing order can be appealed immediately without waiting for the criminal trial to conclude. It mentions Ms. Maxwell's intention to stay the unsealing process.

People (4)

Name Role Context
Ghislaine Maxwell Defendant / Appellant
Mentioned as 'Ms. Maxwell'; document discusses her intended motion to stay the unsealing process.
Pichler Legal Citation Party
Plaintiff in cited case Pichler v. UNITE.
Cohen Legal Citation Party
Plaintiff in cited case Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.
Brown Legal Citation Party
Mentioned in 'see also Brown v.' at the bottom of the page.

Organizations (7)

Name Type Context
UNITE
Defendant in cited case Pichler v. UNITE.
Minpeco S.A.
Plaintiff in cited case Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity Servs., Inc.
Conticommodity Servs., Inc.
Defendant in cited case Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity Servs., Inc.
Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.
Defendant in cited case Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.
3d Cir.
Third Circuit Court (legal citation source).
2d Cir.
Second Circuit Court (legal citation source).
Department of Justice (DOJ)
Implied by Bates stamp prefix 'DOJ-OGR'.

Timeline (2 events)

2020-09-28
Filing of Document 69 in Case 20-3061
Court of Appeals (implied)
Unknown (Future)
Criminal Trial
District Court
Ms. Maxwell

Relationships (1)

Ghislaine Maxwell Legal Subject District Court
Document discusses Ms. Maxwell's motions and the district court's abuse of discretion.

Key Quotes (3)

"The validity of the order can be assessed now without waiting until the trial is complete, and nothing about this appeal delays the criminal case."
Source
DOJ-OGR-00019594.jpg
Quote #1
"This Court has jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine to review a district court decision declining to modify the protective order."
Source
DOJ-OGR-00019594.jpg
Quote #2
"Alternatively, for the reasons given below, this Court can exercise mandamus jurisdiction to correct the district court’s clear abuse of discretion."
Source
DOJ-OGR-00019594.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