DOJ-OGR-00019284.jpg
623 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
4
Events
2
Relationships
0
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
623 KB
Summary
This legal document, part of an appeal (Case 20-3061), explains the procedural constraints on Ms. Maxwell due to conflicting court orders. A criminal protective order from Judge Nathan prevents her from sharing critical information with Judge Preska in a related civil case. Consequently, Ms. Maxwell must file a redacted version of her Motion to Consolidate publicly, while the full, unredacted version can only be filed under seal in the criminal appeal.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Judge Nathan | Judge |
Issued a criminal protective order that prevents Ms. Maxwell from disclosing certain information.
|
| Judge Preska | Judge |
Presiding over a civil case where an order was issued to unseal deposition material. Ms. Maxwell wishes to share info...
|
| Ms. Maxwell | Appellant/Defendant |
The subject of the legal proceedings, who is seeking to consolidate two appeals and is constrained by a protective or...
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Court | Government agency |
Referred to as 'this Court', the judicial body hearing the appeal.
|
| ECF | System |
Electronic Case Filing system on which Ms. Maxwell will publicly file a redacted motion.
|
| District Court | Government agency |
The court where the criminal case is being heard and where Exhibit B was filed under seal.
|
Timeline (4 events)
Judge Nathan refused to modify a criminal protective order.
Judge Preska issued an order unsealing certain deposition material in a civil case.
Ms. Maxwell plans to publicly file a redacted copy of the Motion to Consolidate on ECF.
Ms. Maxwell can file an unredacted copy of the Motion to Consolidate only under seal in the criminal appeal (Case No. 20-3061).
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned as the location where the criminal case is sealed and an exhibit was filed.
|
Relationships (2)
Judge Nathan issued a criminal protective order that directly restricts Ms. Maxwell's ability to disclose information.
Ms. Maxwell is involved in a civil case with Judge Preska and wishes to share information with her, but is prevented from doing so by Judge Nathan's order.
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,408 characters)
Case 20-3061, Document 16, 09/10/2020, 2928287, Page3 of 5
Judge Nathan refusing to modify a criminal protective order. The civil case addresses an order by Judge Preska unsealing certain deposition material.
Among other arguments for consolidation of the two appeals, Ms. Maxwell contends that she should be permitted to share with Judge Preska critical information Ms. Maxwell learned from Judge Nathan.
But the protective order issued by Judge Nathan prevents Ms. Maxwell from disclosing this information to Judge Preska or from telling this Court about the information in the civil appeal. By contrast, the protective order allows Ms. Maxwell to tell this Court about the information in the criminal appeal, though only under seal since it is confidential and sealed in the district court criminal case.
Ms. Maxwell’s Unredacted Motion to Consolidate explains this situation and describes the critical information. But to comply with criminal protective order, Ms. Maxwell can file an unredacted copy of the Motion to Consolidate only under seal with this Court, and then only in the criminal appeal, Case No. 20-3061.
Therefore, in compliance with the criminal protective order, Ms. Maxwell will publicly file on ECF a redacted copy of the Motion to Consolidate in both appeals along with all but one of the exhibits—Exhibit B, which was filed under seal in the district court.
2
DOJ-OGR-00019284
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document