DOJ-OGR-00001457.jpg
597 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
4
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
597 KB
Summary
This legal document is a court opinion denying a renewed motion for temporary release by an individual named Maxwell. The Court bases its decision on the 'law of the case' doctrine, stating that Maxwell has not provided any compelling new reasons, such as new evidence or a change in law, to warrant a reversal of its prior decision. The document dismisses Maxwell's arguments regarding a recent letter briefing and a prior order by Judge Nathan, concluding that there was no error in the original determination that Maxwell is a flight risk.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Maxwell | Litigant |
Mentioned as the subject of a renewed motion for temporary release, which the court is denying.
|
| Plugh | Party in a cited case |
Mentioned in the legal citation 'United States v. Plugh, 648 F.3d 118, 123 (2d Cir. 2011)'.
|
| Tenzer | Party in a cited case |
Mentioned in the legal citation 'United States v. Tenzer, 213 F.3d 34, 39 (2d Cir. 2000)'.
|
| Judge Nathan | Judge |
Mentioned in reference to a recent written order and a finding that Maxwell poses a flight risk.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| this Court | government agency |
The court authoring the document, which is adhering to its prior decision.
|
| District Court | government agency |
Mentioned as the court where additional letter briefing was submitted.
|
| MDC | government agency |
An entity whose 'nighttime security checks' were the subject of a letter briefing.
|
| 2d Cir. | government agency |
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, cited in legal cases 'United States v. Plugh' and 'United ...
|
Timeline (2 events)
Judge Nathan issued a written order finding Maxwell poses a flight risk and that temporary release is not warranted.
District Court
Relationships (1)
Judge Nathan made a prior ruling in Maxwell's case, finding her to be a flight risk and denying temporary release.
Key Quotes (2)
"As a general matter, this Court will adhere to its own decision at an earlier stage of the litigation."Source
— United States v. Plugh, 648 F.3d 118, 123 (2d Cir. 2011)
(Cited by the Court to support its decision to not reverse its prior ruling.)
DOJ-OGR-00001457.jpg
Quote #1
"We have stated that we will not depart from this sound policy absent cogent or compelling reasons."Source
— United States v. Tenzer, 213 F.3d 34, 39 (2d Cir. 2000)
(Quoted to reinforce the high bar for departing from a prior decision.)
DOJ-OGR-00001457.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,394 characters)
Case 21-770, Document 73, 05/27/2021, 3109708, Page17 of 24
of confinement do not warrant temporary release. Nothing in Maxwell’s renewed motion alters that conclusion.
32. “As a general matter, this Court will adhere to its own decision at an earlier stage of the litigation.” United States v. Plugh, 648 F.3d 118, 123 (2d Cir. 2011). The “law of the case doctrine is subject to limited exceptions made for compelling reasons,” such as where there is “an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Id. at 123–24; see also United States v. Tenzer, 213 F.3d 34, 39 (2d Cir. 2000) (“We have stated that we will not depart from this sound policy absent cogent or compelling reasons.”). Maxwell has offered no persuasive reason, let alone a “compelling” reason, Plugh, 648 F.3d at 123, for this Court to reverse its prior decision.
33. The only new events that Maxwell cites as justification for her request that this Court reverse itself is additional letter briefing before the District Court regarding MDC’s nighttime security checks. Nothing about that briefing or Judge Nathan’s most recent written order suggests that Judge Nathan clearly erred when finding Maxwell poses a flight risk or abused her discretion when determining that temporary release is not warranted.
17
DOJ-OGR-00001457
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document