DOJ-OGR-00019421.jpg
621 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
4
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
621 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a legal filing in Case 20-3061, dated September 24, 2020. The author, likely representing Ms. Maxwell, argues that a protective order is appealable by citing precedent from cases like *Pappas* and *United States v. Salameh*. The filing refutes the government's argument by clarifying the focus of Ms. Maxwell's appeal.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Pappas |
Mentioned as a party in a cited legal case regarding a protective order.
|
|
| Salameh |
Mentioned as a party in the cited case 'United States v. Salameh'.
|
|
| Ms. Maxwell |
A party in the current legal proceedings, whose position and argument are being discussed.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| This Court | government agency |
Referenced as the judicial body hearing the current case and having made a previous ruling.
|
| Government | government agency |
A party in the litigation, whose arguments are being countered in the document.
|
| United States | government agency |
Mentioned as a party in the cited case 'United States v. Salameh'.
|
| 2d Cir. | government agency |
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, mentioned in a case citation.
|
Timeline (2 events)
1993
The legal case of United States v. Salameh, 992 F.2d 445, 446–47 (2d Cir. 1993) is cited as precedent.
2d Cir.
An appeal challenging a protective order's bar on disclosure of information.
Relationships (1)
The document describes them as opposing parties in a legal appeal, with the author countering the 'government's argument' on behalf of 'Ms. Maxwell's position'.
Key Quotes (3)
"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 discovery documents and should be appealable because of the breadth of its restraint."Source
— This Court
(A quote from a previous ruling being used as legal precedent to argue for the appealability of a protective order.)
DOJ-OGR-00019421.jpg
Quote #1
"it is not entirely clear that all of the issues Maxwell seeks to raise in this appeal have been finally resolved."Source
— government
(A quote from the government's argument, which the author claims misunderstands Ms. Maxwell's position.)
DOJ-OGR-00019421.jpg
Quote #2
"primarily focused on attacking the legitimacy of the"Source
— government
(A partial quote describing the government's characterization of Ms. Maxwell's argument.)
DOJ-OGR-00019421.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,435 characters)
Case 20-3061, Document 60, 09/24/2020, 2938278, Page22 of 58
portion of the appeal that challenged the protective order’s bar on disclosure of
information the defendant acquired from the government prior to 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
discovery documents and should be appealable because of the breadth of its
restraint.” Id. (citing United States v. Salameh, 992 F.2d 445, 446–47 (2d Cir.
1993)).
information the defendant acquired from the government prior to 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
discovery documents and should be appealable because of the breadth of its
restraint.” Id. (citing United States v. Salameh, 992 F.2d 445, 446–47 (2d Cir.
1993)).
Beyond standing for the proposition that interlocutory appeals are the
exception and not the rule (which Ms. Maxwell doesn’t dispute), Pappas has
nothing to add to the analysis here. Even strictly construing the three requirements
for collateral order jurisdiction, see Will, 546 U.S. at 349, the order here meets the
test.
exception and not the rule (which Ms. Maxwell doesn’t dispute), Pappas has
nothing to add to the analysis here. Even strictly construing the three requirements
for collateral order jurisdiction, see Will, 546 U.S. at 349, the order here meets the
test.
The balance of the government’s argument against jurisdiction
misunderstands Ms. Maxwell’s position. For example, according to the
government, “it is not entirely clear that all of the issues Maxwell seeks to raise in
this appeal have been finally resolved.” Doc. 37, p 17. Ms. Maxwell’s argument,
says the government, is “primarily focused on attacking the legitimacy of the
misunderstands Ms. Maxwell’s position. For example, according to the
government, “it is not entirely clear that all of the issues Maxwell seeks to raise in
this appeal have been finally resolved.” Doc. 37, p 17. Ms. Maxwell’s argument,
says the government, is “primarily focused on attacking the legitimacy of the
17
DOJ-OGR-00019421
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document