DOJ-OGR-00019604.jpg
649 KB
Extraction Summary
6
People
4
Organizations
2
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
649 KB
Summary
This legal document, part of case 20-3061, argues for the issuance of a writ of mandamus. It outlines the three legal conditions required for such a writ, citing precedents like 'In re Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany, N.Y.'. The document asserts that all three conditions are met, specifically claiming that Judge Nathan abused her discretion regarding a protective order and that the petitioner, Ms. Maxwell, has no other legal recourse, referencing her request to Judge Preska.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Bond |
Mentioned as a party in the legal case citation 'Bond v. Utreras'.
|
|
| Utreras |
Mentioned as a party in the legal case citation 'Bond v. Utreras'.
|
|
| Pappas |
Mentioned in the legal case citation 'see Pappas, 94 F.3d at 798'.
|
|
| Judge Nathan | Judge |
Mentioned as having abused her discretion in declining to modify a protective order.
|
| Ms. Maxwell |
Mentioned as having no other adequate means to attain relief and having requested Judge Preska to reevaluate an unsea...
|
|
| Judge Preska | Judge |
Mentioned as the recipient of a request from Ms. Maxwell to reevaluate an unsealing order.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| 7th Cir. | government agency |
Referenced in a legal citation: (7th Cir. 2009).
|
| 2d Cir. | government agency |
Referenced in two legal citations: (2d Cir. 2010) and (2d Cir. 2014).
|
| Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany, N.Y. | religious organization |
Mentioned in the legal case citation 'In re Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany, N.Y.'.
|
| DOJ | government agency |
Appears in the footer identifier 'DOJ-OGR-00019604'.
|
Timeline (2 events)
Judge Nathan declined to modify a protective order, which is described as a clear abuse of her discretion.
Ms. Maxwell requested Judge Preska to reevaluate her unsealing order.
Relationships (2)
The document describes a legal conflict where Ms. Maxwell's side is accusing Judge Nathan of abusing her discretion in a ruling related to a protective order.
Ms. Maxwell made a request to Judge Preska to reevaluate an unsealing order.
Key Quotes (3)
"[i]n rare instances . . . might raise issues available for review via a petition for writ of mandamus"Source
— Pappas, 94 F.3d at 798
(A quote from a legal case recognizing that protective orders in criminal cases can sometimes be reviewed via a writ of mandamus.)
DOJ-OGR-00019604.jpg
Quote #1
"confine[s] the court against which mandamus is sought to a lawful exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction."Source
— In re City of N.Y., 607 F.3d 923, 932
(A quote describing the function of a writ of mandamus issued under the All Writs Act.)
DOJ-OGR-00019604.jpg
Quote #2
"exceptional circumstances amount[] to a . . . clear abuse of discretion."Source
— In re City of N.Y., 607 F.3d 923, 932
(A quote stating the condition under which a writ of mandamus is properly issued.)
DOJ-OGR-00019604.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,508 characters)
Case 20-3061, Document 69, 09/28/2020, 2940206, Page13 of 15
protective order), superseded by rule on other grounds as recognized in Bond v. Utreras,
585 F.3d 1061, 1068 n.4 (7th Cir. 2009); see Pappas, 94 F.3d at 798 (recognizing that
protective orders in criminal cases “[i]n rare instances . . . might raise issues
available for review via a petition for writ of mandamus”).
585 F.3d 1061, 1068 n.4 (7th Cir. 2009); see Pappas, 94 F.3d at 798 (recognizing that
protective orders in criminal cases “[i]n rare instances . . . might raise issues
available for review via a petition for writ of mandamus”).
A writ of mandamus issued under the All Writs Act “confine[s] the court
against which mandamus is sought to a lawful exercise of its prescribed
jurisdiction.” In re City of N.Y., 607 F.3d 923, 932 (2d Cir. 2010) (internal
quotations omitted). A writ is properly issued when “exceptional circumstances
amount[] to a . . . clear abuse of discretion.” Id. (internal quotations omitted).
against which mandamus is sought to a lawful exercise of its prescribed
jurisdiction.” In re City of N.Y., 607 F.3d 923, 932 (2d Cir. 2010) (internal
quotations omitted). A writ is properly issued when “exceptional circumstances
amount[] to a . . . clear abuse of discretion.” Id. (internal quotations omitted).
Three conditions must exist for this Court to issue a writ of mandamus:
(1) the petitioner must demonstrate the right to issuance of the writ is clear and
indisputable; (2) she must have no other adequate means to attain the relief
desired; and (3) the issuing court must be satisfied the writ is appropriate. In re
Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany, N.Y., 745 F.3d 30, 35 (2d Cir. 2014). All three
conditions exist here.
(1) the petitioner must demonstrate the right to issuance of the writ is clear and
indisputable; (2) she must have no other adequate means to attain the relief
desired; and (3) the issuing court must be satisfied the writ is appropriate. In re
Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany, N.Y., 745 F.3d 30, 35 (2d Cir. 2014). All three
conditions exist here.
First, as explained in her opening brief, Judge Nathan clearly abused her
discretion in declining to modify the protective order. Doc. 60, pp 23–33.
discretion in declining to modify the protective order. Doc. 60, pp 23–33.
Second, Ms. Maxwell has no other adequate means to attain the relief
necessary because her request for Judge Preska to reevaluate her unsealing order
necessary because her request for Judge Preska to reevaluate her unsealing order
12
DOJ-OGR-00019604
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document