DOJ-OGR-00019437.jpg
395 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
395 KB
Summary
This document is the conclusion of a legal filing dated September 24, 2020, in Case 20-3061. The author argues that the Court should overturn a district court's decision, which would allow Ms. Maxwell to share information from her criminal case (under Judge Nathan) with Judge Preska in her civil case. The filing contends that the government's argument to prevent this sharing lacks a principled justification.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Martindell |
Mentioned in a case citation: 'Martindell, 594 F.2d at 296.'
|
|
| Judge Nathan | Judge |
Presiding judge in the criminal case whose order is being discussed.
|
| Ms. Maxwell | Party to a lawsuit |
The individual on whose behalf the motion is being made, involved in both a criminal and a civil case.
|
| Judge Preska | Judge |
Presiding judge in the civil case with whom Ms. Maxwell wishes to share information.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Court | government agency |
Referred to multiple times as the body being asked to reverse a lower court's order.
|
| district court | government agency |
The lower court whose order denying Ms. Maxwell's motion is being appealed.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2020-09-24
Filing of a legal document arguing for the reversal of a district court's order that denied Ms. Maxwell's motion to modify a protective order.
Relationships (2)
Judge Nathan presides over the criminal case involving Ms. Maxwell.
Judge Preska presides over the civil case involving Ms. Maxwell.
Key Quotes (2)
"Judge Preska should remain in the dark."Source
— Author of the document (characterizing the government's argument)
(Used to summarize and criticize the government's position against modifying the protective order.)
DOJ-OGR-00019437.jpg
Quote #1
"This Court should reverse the district court’s order denying Ms. Maxwell’s motion to modify the protective order."Source
— Author of the document
(The central request and conclusion of the legal argument presented in the document.)
DOJ-OGR-00019437.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (750 characters)
Case 20-3061, Document 60, 09/24/2020, 2938278, Page38 of 58
Martindell, 594 F.2d at 296. But unless Judge Nathan’s order is reversed in the criminal case, Ms. Maxwell cannot share this information with Judge Preska in the civil case.⁸
Conclusion
In the end, the government’s argument amounts to little more than this: Judge Preska should remain in the dark. But there’s no principled justification for that position, and this Court should reject it.
This Court should reverse the district court’s order denying Ms. Maxwell’s motion to modify the protective order.
September 24, 2020.
⁸ Nor, unless the cases are consolidated, will the panel of this Court considering the civil appeal know [REDACTED TEXT]
[REDACTED TEXT]
[REDACTED TEXT]
33
DOJ-OGR-00019437
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document