DOJ-OGR-00019600.jpg
672 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
1
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
672 KB
Summary
This legal document, part of case 20-3061, argues that an appeal will become moot if Ms. Maxwell is not immediately allowed to share information with Judge Preska for an unsealing process. The filing distinguishes the current situation from the precedent set in the 'Pappas' case, arguing that the nature of the protective order in that case was different. The core issue is the timing of information sharing and its effect on the legal proceedings.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Maxwell | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned as seeking permission to share information with Judge Preska as part of an unsealing process.
|
| Judge Preska | Judge |
Mentioned as being involved in decision-making for an unsealing process, for which Ms. Maxwell wants to share informa...
|
| Pappas | Defendant in a cited case |
The subject of a legal precedent case (Pappas) concerning a protective order, which is being compared to the current ...
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Court | Judicial body |
Mentioned as the body that dismissed an appeal in the Pappas case and is hearing the current appeal.
|
| Government | Government agency |
Mentioned as the source of information obtained by the defendant in the Pappas case.
|
Timeline (3 events)
An appeal that the document argues will become moot if review awaits a final judgment in a related criminal case.
An unsealing process overseen by Judge Preska, for which Ms. Maxwell seeks to share information.
The Pappas case, cited as precedent, where the Court ruled on a protective order concerning information obtained from the government.
Relationships (1)
The document describes a legal interaction where Ms. Maxwell seeks permission to provide information to Judge Preska for a judicial decision-making process.
Key Quotes (1)
"to the extent that the order prohibits Pappas from disclosure of information he acquired from the Government prior to the litigation, the order is not a typical protective order regulating"Source
— this Court
(A quote from the Pappas case ruling, used to distinguish the results based on the breadth of the protective order's ban.)
DOJ-OGR-00019600.jpg
Quote #1
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,546 characters)
Case 20-3061, Document 69, 09/28/2020, 2940206, Page9 of 15
remain in the dark. For another thing, this appeal will become moot if review awaits a final judgment in the criminal case, even if the protective order continues to have prohibitive effect following the criminal trial. That’s because what Ms. Maxwell seeks is permission to share information with Judge Preska now, information that should be part of Judge Preska’s decisionmaking in the unsealing process and any decision whether to stay that process. And unless Ms. Maxwell can share the information now, the request will become moot because there is no way to “re-seal” a document Judge Preska prematurely unseals without the benefit of knowing all the facts.
Pappas also doesn’t help the government. In Pappas, this Court dismissed in part an appeal challenging a protective order prohibiting the defendant from disclosing classified information he obtained from the government as part of discovery. 94 F.3d at 797. At the same time, the Court accepted jurisdiction over the portion of the appeal that challenged the protective order’s bar on disclosure of information the defendant acquired from the government before the litigation. Id. at 798. This Court distinguished the differing results based on the breadth of the protective order’s ban. Id. As this Court said, “to the extent that the order prohibits Pappas from disclosure of information he acquired from the Government prior to the litigation, the order is not a typical protective order regulating
8
DOJ-OGR-00019600
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document