DOJ-OGR-00019349.jpg
662 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
1
Organizations
0
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
662 KB
Summary
This legal document from September 16, 2020, outlines recent court proceedings involving a litigant named Maxwell and Judge Nathan. On September 2, 2020, Judge Nathan denied Maxwell's motion, criticizing it as vague and lacking a "coherent explanation" for why criminal discovery materials were needed for her civil cases. Despite the denial, Maxwell was permitted to share some information under seal, and she subsequently filed a notice of appeal on September 4, 2020.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Judge Nathan | Judge |
Presided over a criminal case and issued an Order denying Maxwell's motion.
|
| Maxwell | Litigant |
Filed a reply, a motion that was denied, and a notice of appeal in connection with her criminal and civil cases.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Government | government agency |
Mentioned for its letter in opposition to Maxwell's motion.
|
Relationships (1)
Judge Nathan issued a ruling on a motion filed by Maxwell.
Key Quotes (5)
"fourteen-single spaced pages of heated rhetoric"Source
— Judge Nathan
(A description of Maxwell's motion in the Order denying it.)
DOJ-OGR-00019349.jpg
Quote #1
"no more than vague, speculative, and conclusory assertions"Source
— Judge Nathan
(Describing Maxwell's reasoning for why criminal discovery materials were necessary for her civil cases.)
DOJ-OGR-00019349.jpg
Quote #2
"coherent explanation"Source
— Judge Nathan
(Stating what was absent from Maxwell's argument regarding the relevance of criminal discovery materials.)
DOJ-OGR-00019349.jpg
Quote #3
"plainly"Source
— Judge Nathan
(Used to emphasize that Maxwell had failed to establish good cause to modify the Protective Order.)
DOJ-OGR-00019349.jpg
Quote #4
"remain[ed] in the dark as to why this information will be relevant"Source
— Judge Nathan
(Expressing continued uncertainty about the relevance of the information to the civil cases, even while permitting Maxwell to share it under seal.)
DOJ-OGR-00019349.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,578 characters)
Case 20-3061, Document 37, 09/16/2020, 2932231, Page7 of 24
use in prosecuting its criminal case, she would have a full opportunity to do so in
her pretrial motions in the criminal case before Judge Nathan.
her pretrial motions in the criminal case before Judge Nathan.
7. On August 24, 2020, Maxwell filed a reply in further support of
her motion. (Dist. Ct. Docket Entry 54).
her motion. (Dist. Ct. Docket Entry 54).
8. On September 2, 2020, Judge Nathan issued the Order denying
Maxwell’s motion. (Ex. F). In that Order, Judge Nathan noted that despite
“fourteen-single spaced pages of heated rhetoric,” Maxwell had offered “no more
than vague, speculative, and conclusory assertions” regarding why the criminal
discovery materials were necessary to fair adjudication of her civil cases. (Id. at
3). Judge Nathan concluded that absent any “coherent explanation” of how the
criminal discovery materials related to any argument Maxwell intended to make in
civil litigation, Maxwell had “plainly” failed to establish good cause to modify the
Protective Order. (Id.). Further, Judge Nathan noted that the basic facts Maxwell
sought to introduce in civil litigation were already made public through the
Government’s letter in opposition to her motion. (Id. at 3-4). Accordingly, even
though Judge Nathan “remain[ed] in the dark as to why this information will be
relevant” to the courts adjudicating the civil cases, Judge Nathan expressly
permitted Maxwell to inform the tribunals overseeing her civil cases, under seal, of
the basic series of events set forth in paragraph 5, supra. (Id. at 4).
Maxwell’s motion. (Ex. F). In that Order, Judge Nathan noted that despite
“fourteen-single spaced pages of heated rhetoric,” Maxwell had offered “no more
than vague, speculative, and conclusory assertions” regarding why the criminal
discovery materials were necessary to fair adjudication of her civil cases. (Id. at
3). Judge Nathan concluded that absent any “coherent explanation” of how the
criminal discovery materials related to any argument Maxwell intended to make in
civil litigation, Maxwell had “plainly” failed to establish good cause to modify the
Protective Order. (Id.). Further, Judge Nathan noted that the basic facts Maxwell
sought to introduce in civil litigation were already made public through the
Government’s letter in opposition to her motion. (Id. at 3-4). Accordingly, even
though Judge Nathan “remain[ed] in the dark as to why this information will be
relevant” to the courts adjudicating the civil cases, Judge Nathan expressly
permitted Maxwell to inform the tribunals overseeing her civil cases, under seal, of
the basic series of events set forth in paragraph 5, supra. (Id. at 4).
9. On September 4, 2020, Maxwell filed a notice of appeal from
6
DOJ-OGR-00019349
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document