DOJ-OGR-00019362.jpg
658 KB
Extraction Summary
7
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
1
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
658 KB
Summary
This legal document argues that an appeal by Maxwell should be dismissed because the order in question is not subject to interlocutory appeal in a criminal case. It further argues that Maxwell's motion to consolidate her criminal case appeal with a separate civil case appeal (Giuffre v. Maxwell) should be denied because the two cases are factually and legally distinct, and the Government has no involvement or interest in the civil matter.
People (7)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Judge Nathan | Judge |
Mentioned in reference to an Order that is the subject of an appeal by Maxwell.
|
| Maxwell | Party in a legal case |
The subject of the document, whose appeal and motion to consolidate are being argued against.
|
| Giuffre | Party in a legal case |
A party in the civil case "Giuffre v. Maxwell".
|
| Judge Preska | Judge |
Mentioned for an order unsealing civil litigation materials in the "Giuffre v. Maxwell" case.
|
| Lugosch | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned in the case citation "Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga".
|
| Caparros |
Mentioned in a case citation "See Caparros, 800 F.2d at 24".
|
|
| Pappas |
Mentioned in a case citation "Pappas, 94 F.3d at 798".
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Pyramid Co. of Onondaga | company |
Mentioned in the case citation "Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga".
|
| The Government | government agency |
Stated as not being a party to the civil suit involving Maxwell and having no legal interest in it.
|
Timeline (3 events)
Maxwell's appeal of Judge Nathan's Order in a criminal case.
Judge Preska's order unsealing civil litigation materials in the Giuffre v. Maxwell case.
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in the case citation "Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga".
|
Relationships (2)
They are opposing parties in the "Giuffre v. Maxwell civil case".
The document discusses Maxwell's criminal case, where the Government is the prosecuting party. It also clarifies the Government is not a party to her civil suit.
Key Quotes (1)
"orders denying access are final as to the intervenors."Source
— Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga
(Quoted as a legal principle from a previous case to argue against the appealability of Judge Nathan's order.)
DOJ-OGR-00019362.jpg
Quote #1
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,562 characters)
Case 20-3061, Document 37, 09/16/2020, 2932231, Page20 of 24
was founded on the principle that when intervenors seek access to sealed records,
“orders denying access are final as to the intervenors.” Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of
Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 117 (2d Cir. 2006) (emphasis added). By contrast,
rulings governing the parties’ use of discovery materials — such as Judge Nathan’s
Order here — are not appealable in the context of a criminal prosecution until after
judgment is entered. See Caparros, 800 F.2d at 24; Pappas, 94 F.3d at 798.
“orders denying access are final as to the intervenors.” Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of
Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 117 (2d Cir. 2006) (emphasis added). By contrast,
rulings governing the parties’ use of discovery materials — such as Judge Nathan’s
Order here — are not appealable in the context of a criminal prosecution until after
judgment is entered. See Caparros, 800 F.2d at 24; Pappas, 94 F.3d at 798.
24. Judge Nathan’s Order does not fall into one of the narrow
categories of decisions in a criminal case reviewable on interlocutory appeal.
Accordingly, Maxwell’s appeal should be dismissed.
categories of decisions in a criminal case reviewable on interlocutory appeal.
Accordingly, Maxwell’s appeal should be dismissed.
II. THE MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE SHOULD BE DENIED
25. Even if Maxwell’s appeal is not dismissed — which it should
be — her motion to consolidate the appeal in this criminal case with the appeal in
the Giuffre v. Maxwell civil case should be denied.
be — her motion to consolidate the appeal in this criminal case with the appeal in
the Giuffre v. Maxwell civil case should be denied.
26. Despite Maxwell’s efforts to characterize this criminal case as
somehow intertwined with the Giuffre civil case, the issues on appeal are factually
and legally distinct. The civil appeal concerns Judge Preska’s order unsealing civil
litigation materials. The Government is not a party to the civil suit, the
Government has never intervened or appeared in the civil suit, the Government has
had no role in the litigation that resulted in Judge Preska’s order, and the
Government has no legal interest in the relief Maxwell seeks in the civil case. For
somehow intertwined with the Giuffre civil case, the issues on appeal are factually
and legally distinct. The civil appeal concerns Judge Preska’s order unsealing civil
litigation materials. The Government is not a party to the civil suit, the
Government has never intervened or appeared in the civil suit, the Government has
had no role in the litigation that resulted in Judge Preska’s order, and the
Government has no legal interest in the relief Maxwell seeks in the civil case. For
19
DOJ-OGR-00019362
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document