DOJ-OGR-00019429.jpg
600 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
1
Organizations
1
Locations
3
Events
4
Relationships
1
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
600 KB
Summary
This legal document describes the predicament of Ms. Maxwell, who is involved in both a civil and a criminal case presided over by two different judges, Judge Preska and Judge Nathan. A protective order in the criminal case, issued by Judge Nathan, prevents her from sharing relevant information with Judge Preska in the civil case. Her requests to both judges to resolve this issue have been denied, placing her in what the document calls a 'Catch-22 situation'.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Maxwell | Litigant |
Subject of the document, involved in multiple legal cases (Giuffre v. Maxwell, United States v. Maxwell) and is descr...
|
| Judge Preska | Judge |
Presiding over the unsealing of materials in a civil case. Denied Ms. Maxwell's request for a stay.
|
| Judge Nathan | Article III judge |
Issued a protective order in a criminal case involving Ms. Maxwell and denied her request to share information with J...
|
| Giuffre | Litigant |
Party in the 'Giuffre v. Maxwell' case.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States | government agency |
Party in the 'United States v. Maxwell' case.
|
Timeline (3 events)
Unsealing of materials subject to a civil protective order in a case involving Ms. Maxwell.
United States v. Maxwell
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in the context of the 'Giuffre v. Maxwell' panel.
|
Relationships (4)
Judge Preska is presiding over a case involving Ms. Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell made a legal request to Judge Preska, which was denied.
Judge Nathan is presiding over a criminal case involving Ms. Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell made a legal request to Judge Nathan, which was denied.
They are described as 'co-equal Article III judge[s]' presiding over related cases involving the same individual, Ms. Maxwell.
They are opposing parties in the 'Giuffre v. Maxwell' lawsuit.
Key Quotes (1)
"there was no factual basis to grant a stay"Source
— Judge Preska
(Stated as the reason for denying Ms. Maxwell's request to stay the unseal proceedings.)
DOJ-OGR-00019429.jpg
Quote #1
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,290 characters)
Case 20-3061, Document 60, 09/24/2020, 2938278, Page30 of 58
She is trying to ensure that each of the judicial officers in the active cases has the
information from the related cases relevant to his or her decisions. Despite her
efforts, she has been stymied by seal orders [REDACTED]
and by the protective order in the criminal case.
Ms. Maxwell is in a Catch-22 situation. Judge Preska is presiding over the
unsealing of materials subject to the civil protective order. She does not [REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED] Judge Nathan’s protective order,
which prohibits her from sharing that information with Judge Preska. Ms. Maxwell
asked Judge Preska to stay the unseal proceedings so that Ms. Maxwell could
secure permission to share criminal-protective-order confidential information, but
Judge Preska said there was no factual basis to grant a stay. Ms. Maxwell asked
Judge Nathan for permission to share information under seal with Judge Preska, a
co-equal Article III judge, but Judge Nathan denied the request.
Meanwhile, in this Court, the Giuffre v. Maxwell panel lacks the same
information Judge Preska did not have when she issued the unseal order that is the
subject of the appeal, and the United States v. Maxwell panel lacks the context of the
information from the related cases relevant to his or her decisions. Despite her
efforts, she has been stymied by seal orders [REDACTED]
and by the protective order in the criminal case.
Ms. Maxwell is in a Catch-22 situation. Judge Preska is presiding over the
unsealing of materials subject to the civil protective order. She does not [REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED] Judge Nathan’s protective order,
which prohibits her from sharing that information with Judge Preska. Ms. Maxwell
asked Judge Preska to stay the unseal proceedings so that Ms. Maxwell could
secure permission to share criminal-protective-order confidential information, but
Judge Preska said there was no factual basis to grant a stay. Ms. Maxwell asked
Judge Nathan for permission to share information under seal with Judge Preska, a
co-equal Article III judge, but Judge Nathan denied the request.
Meanwhile, in this Court, the Giuffre v. Maxwell panel lacks the same
information Judge Preska did not have when she issued the unseal order that is the
subject of the appeal, and the United States v. Maxwell panel lacks the context of the
25
DOJ-OGR-00019429
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document