DOJ-OGR-00019634.jpg
584 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
584 KB
Summary
This legal document, part of an appellate court filing, argues that the District Court did not abuse its discretion when it denied a motion by Maxwell to modify a protective order. The filing contends that the appellate court should not issue a writ of mandamus and should instead affirm the lower court's decision, as the case does not present the rare and exceptional circumstances required for such intervention.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Maxwell | Appellant/Movant |
Mentioned as the party whose motion to modify a protective order was denied by the District Court and who is now appe...
|
| Longueuil | Party in a cited case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Longueuil, 567 F. App’x 13, 16 (2d Cir. 2014)' as an example of a co...
|
| Caparros | Party in a cited case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'Caparros, 800 F.2d at 26' regarding the court's normal practice for mandamus petitions.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| District Court | Judicial body |
The court that denied Maxwell's motion to modify the protective order.
|
| This Court | Judicial body |
The appellate court being addressed in the document, which is being asked to review the District Court's decision.
|
| United States | Government agency |
A party in the cited case 'United States v. Longueuil'.
|
| City of N.Y. | Government agency |
A party in the cited case 'In re City of N.Y.'.
|
Timeline (2 events)
The District Court denied Maxwell's Motion to Modify the Protective Order.
District Court
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in the case citation 'In re City of N.Y.'.
|
Relationships (1)
The document describes the District Court denying a motion filed by Maxwell, establishing an adversarial legal relationship within the context of this litigation.
Key Quotes (2)
"look primarily for the presence of a novel and significant question of law . . . and . . . the presence of a legal issue whose resolution will aid in the administration of justice."Source
— In re City of N.Y., 607 F.3d at 939
(Cited as the standard for when a court should consider a writ of mandamus.)
DOJ-OGR-00019634.jpg
Quote #1
"normal practice . . . to decline to treat improvident appeals as mandamus petitions."Source
— Caparros, 800 F.2d at 26
(Cited to argue that the Court should follow its standard procedure and not grant a writ of mandamus in this case.)
DOJ-OGR-00019634.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,456 characters)
Case 20-3061, Document 82, 10/02/2020, 2944267, Page27 of 37
21
look primarily for the presence of a novel and significant question of law . . . and . . . the presence of a legal issue whose resolution will aid in the administration of justice.” In re City of N.Y., 607 F.3d at 939.
As described below, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in issuing the Order. This Court should not issue a writ of mandamus and should instead follow its “normal practice . . . to decline to treat improvident appeals as mandamus petitions.” Caparros, 800 F.2d at 26. This case does not raise the rare and exceptional circumstance in which the Court should depart from its practice.
POINT II
The District Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Denying Maxwell’s Motion to Modify the Protective Order
Even if this Court had jurisdiction to hear Maxwell’s appeal, the Order should be summarily affirmed because the District Court did not abuse its discretion. The Order—which was issued after receiving briefing from the parties—carefully evaluated Maxwell’s request and reached a conclusion indisputably within the bounds of permissible discretion.
A. Applicable Law
This Court reviews a district court’s decision denying modification of a protective order for abuse of discretion. See, e.g., United States v. Longueuil, 567 F. App’x 13, 16 (2d Cir. 2014) (finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion
DOJ-OGR-00019634
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document