DOJ-OGR-00019420.jpg
659 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
1
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
659 KB
Summary
This page from a legal document argues that an appeal by Ms. Maxwell should be heard before her criminal trial concludes, otherwise it will become moot. The argument centers on her need to share information with Judge Preska for an ongoing unsealing process, a situation the author distinguishes from legal precedents like Caparros and Pappas.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Maxwell | Appellant |
The subject of the legal argument, who seeks to provide documents under seal to judicial officers and share informati...
|
| Judge Preska | Judge |
The decisionmaker in an unsealing process, with whom Ms. Maxwell seeks to share information.
|
| Caparros |
Referenced as a legal case precedent that is being distinguished from Ms. Maxwell's current case.
|
|
| Pappas | Defendant |
Referenced as a legal case precedent involving a defendant prohibited from disclosing classified information.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| the government | government agency |
Mentioned as a party in the Pappas case from which the defendant obtained classified information.
|
| Court | judicial body |
Mentioned in the context of the Pappas case, where it dismissed part of an appeal but accepted jurisdiction over anot...
|
Timeline (3 events)
An appeal by Ms. Maxwell which is argued will become moot if review awaits a final judgment in the criminal case.
An unsealing process overseen by Judge Preska, for which Ms. Maxwell seeks permission to share information.
A criminal trial involving Ms. Maxwell.
Relationships (1)
Ms. Maxwell seeks to provide information to Judge Preska to aid in the judge's decisionmaking during an unsealing process.
Key Quotes (1)
"re-seal"Source
— Unknown
(Used to describe the impossibility of reversing the unsealing of a document if Judge Preska acts prematurely without all the facts.)
DOJ-OGR-00019420.jpg
Quote #1
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,535 characters)
Case 20-3061, Document 60, 09/24/2020, 2938278, Page21 of 58
terminate. Nor is there any allegation of grave harm to appellant if the
order is not immediately reviewed.
order is not immediately reviewed.
Id. at 26 (internal citations omitted).
This case is not like Caparros. For one thing, Ms. Maxwell does not seek to
make anything public. To the contrary, she seeks to provide documents to judicial
officers—under seal—to ensure that all the Article III decisionmakers are on the
same page regarding the relevant facts and that Judge Preska does not continue to
remain in the dark. For another thing, this appeal will become moot if review awaits
a final judgment in the criminal case, even if the protective order continues to have
prohibitive effect following the criminal trial. That’s because what Ms. Maxwell
seeks is permission to share information with Judge Preska now, information that
should be part of Judge Preska’s decisionmaking in the unsealing process and any
decision whether to stay that process. And unless Ms. Maxwell can share the
information now, the request will become moot because there is no way to “re-
seal” a document Judge Preska prematurely unseals without the benefit of knowing
all the facts.
make anything public. To the contrary, she seeks to provide documents to judicial
officers—under seal—to ensure that all the Article III decisionmakers are on the
same page regarding the relevant facts and that Judge Preska does not continue to
remain in the dark. For another thing, this appeal will become moot if review awaits
a final judgment in the criminal case, even if the protective order continues to have
prohibitive effect following the criminal trial. That’s because what Ms. Maxwell
seeks is permission to share information with Judge Preska now, information that
should be part of Judge Preska’s decisionmaking in the unsealing process and any
decision whether to stay that process. And unless Ms. Maxwell can share the
information now, the request will become moot because there is no way to “re-
seal” a document Judge Preska prematurely unseals without the benefit of knowing
all the facts.
Pappas also doesn’t help the government. In Pappas, this Court dismissed in
part an appeal challenging a protective order prohibiting the defendant from
disclosing classified information he obtained from the government as part of
discovery. 94 F.3d at 797. At the same time, the Court accepted jurisdiction over the
part an appeal challenging a protective order prohibiting the defendant from
disclosing classified information he obtained from the government as part of
discovery. 94 F.3d at 797. At the same time, the Court accepted jurisdiction over the
16
DOJ-OGR-00019420
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document