DOJ-OGR-00019632.jpg
642 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
642 KB
Summary
This legal document, part of a court filing, presents the Government's argument against an appeal by Maxwell. The Government contends that Maxwell has failed to show sufficient harm from Judge Nathan's Order to warrant an appeal and that pursuing the appeal is an inefficient use of resources while a criminal case is pending in the District Court.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Maxwell | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned as the individual arguing for the reversal of a court order to prevent documents from being unsealed.
|
| Judge Nathan | Judge |
Mentioned as the issuer of an Order that Maxwell is appealing.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Government | Government agency |
Mentioned as the opposing party to Maxwell, having obtained confidential criminal discovery materials.
|
| District Court | Judicial body |
The court where a pending criminal case is being litigated.
|
| Courts of Appeals | Judicial body |
Mentioned in a statute (28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1)) regarding their jurisdiction over interlocutory orders.
|
Timeline (2 events)
An appeal by Maxwell regarding an Order to prevent documents in a civil case from being unsealed.
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in the context of the jurisdiction of its district courts as cited in 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
|
Relationships (2)
The document describes them as opposing parties in an appeal and a pending criminal case.
Judge Nathan issued an Order that Maxwell is appealing.
Key Quotes (2)
"review cannot be granted under section 1292(a)(1)"Source
— Caparros, 800 F.2d at 26 (case law)
(Cited to support the argument that without a showing of serious harm, Maxwell's appeal cannot be granted.)
DOJ-OGR-00019632.jpg
Quote #1
"[i]nterlocutory orders of the district courts of the United States . . . or of the judges thereof, granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions, or refusing to dis-"Source
— 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1)
(Quoted in a footnote to define the jurisdiction of the Courts of Appeals.)
DOJ-OGR-00019632.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,632 characters)
Case 20-3061, Document 82, 10/02/2020, 2944267, Page25 of 37
19
Maxwell nevertheless argues that reversal of the Order is necessary to prevent documents in a civil case from being unsealed. As further described below, Maxwell fails to explain how the way the Government obtained the confidential criminal discovery materials at issue has any bearing on or in any way affects First Amendment principles governing unsealing decisions in a civil case. Second, and as further described below, Maxwell is already able to share the essential facts she wishes to convey under Judge Nathan’s Order. As such, she has not shown how the Order damages her in any way. See Caparros, 800 F.2d at 26 (without a showing of serious harm, “review cannot be granted under section 1292(a)(1)”).⁶
(Br. 14). That remains to be seen. In the meantime, the litigation of this appeal undoubtedly consumes the resources of the parties, who must now litigate an issue twice in the middle of a pending criminal case—once before the District Court and a second time before this Court. It would be a much more efficient use of resources for the parties to focus on completing the criminal discovery process, preparing pretrial motions, and trial, after which any appeal consolidating all claimed errors could be taken.
⁶ As noted in the Government’s Motion to Dismiss, 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) provides that Courts of Appeals shall have jurisdiction over “[i]nterlocutory orders of the district courts of the United States . . . or of the judges thereof, granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions, or refusing to dis-
DOJ-OGR-00019632
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document