DOJ-OGR-00019603.jpg
678 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
3
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
678 KB
Summary
This legal document is a filing on behalf of Ms. Maxwell, arguing for the ability to share sealed information with Judge Preska to litigate the "Martindell issue," which she claims the government improperly handled. As an alternative, the filing requests that the appellate court exercise mandamus jurisdiction to compel the district court to modify a protective order, citing legal precedent to support both arguments.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Martindell |
Mentioned in relation to the "Martindell issue" which Ms. Maxwell wishes to litigate and which the government alleged...
|
|
| Ms. Maxwell | Litigant |
The subject of the legal filing, seeking an order to share information with Judge Preska and requesting the court exe...
|
| Judge Preska | Article III judge |
A judge who needs certain information to make a decision to unseal deposition material and rule on a motion to stay.
|
| Judge Nathan | Judge |
A judge whose order Ms. Maxwell is appealing.
|
| Wilk | Litigant in a cited case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'Wilk v. Am. Med. Ass’n'.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| government | government agency |
Accused of improperly circumventing Martindell and insisting information be kept from Judge Preska.
|
| Am. Med. Ass’n | professional association |
Mentioned in the case citation 'Wilk v. Am. Med. Ass’n, 635 F.2d 1295, 1298 (7th Cir. 1980)'.
|
Timeline (2 events)
Ms. Maxwell seeks an order to share information with Judge Preska for a decision on unsealing deposition material and ruling on a motion to stay.
An alternative argument is made for the Court to exercise mandamus jurisdiction to direct the district court to modify a protective order.
Relationships (3)
The document describes Ms. Maxwell's legal arguments against the government's position, stating the government improperly circumvented an issue and insists on keeping information secret.
Ms. Maxwell is seeking a court order to be allowed to share information with Judge Preska so the judge can make a ruling.
The document states that Ms. Maxwell is appealing an order from Judge Nathan.
Key Quotes (2)
"properly litigate"Source
— Ms. Maxwell's legal argument
(Used to describe what Ms. Maxwell will be unable to do regarding the Martindell issue unless an unsealing order is reversed.)
DOJ-OGR-00019603.jpg
Quote #1
"an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action."Source
— Will, 546 U.S. at 349
(A quote from a legal precedent used to support the argument that the issue at hand can be reviewed on an interlocutory basis.)
DOJ-OGR-00019603.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,554 characters)
Case 20-3061, Document 69, 09/28/2020, 2940206, Page12 of 15
is that, unless the unsealing order is reversed, she likely won’t be able to “properly litigate” the Martindell issue at all.
Nor is this appeal the proper forum for deciding whether the government improperly circumvented Martindell. All Ms. Maxwell seeks here is an order allowing her to share with Judge Preska information that is essential to her decision to unseal the deposition material and to rule on a motion to stay, information Judge Preska did not know at the time and information the government insists should be kept from her. And that issue—whether it is proper for one Article III judge, at the request of the government, to keep secret from a co-equal judge information relevant and material to the second judge’s role in deciding a matter before her—is properly reviewed on an interlocutory basis because it is “an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action.” Will, 546 U.S. at 349.
II. Alternatively, this Court can exercise mandamus jurisdiction.
Assuming Ms. Maxwell cannot appeal Judge Nathan’s order under the collateral order doctrine, this Court should exercise mandamus jurisdiction and issue a writ of mandamus directing the district court to modify the protective order as requested by Ms. Maxwell. E.g., Wilk v. Am. Med. Ass’n, 635 F.2d 1295, 1298 (7th Cir. 1980) (declining to decide whether the collateral order applied and instead issuing a writ of mandamus to vacate a district court decision declining to modify
11
DOJ-OGR-00019603
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document