DOJ-OGR-00019418.jpg
617 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
4
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
617 KB
Summary
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that an appeal concerning Judge Nathan's order should proceed. The author contends that the appeal is separate from an ongoing criminal case involving Ms. Maxwell, will not cause delays, and that waiting for the criminal trial to conclude would render the issue moot. The document references a stay on Judge Preska's order to unseal deposition material as a reason for the current proceedings.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Judge Nathan | Judge |
Mentioned in relation to an order that is being appealed.
|
| Judge Preska | Judge |
Mentioned for her order unsealing deposition material, which was stayed pending appeal.
|
| Giuffre | Party in a lawsuit |
Mentioned as a party in the case Giuffre v. Maxwell.
|
| Maxwell | Party in a lawsuit |
Mentioned as a party in the case Giuffre v. Maxwell and as Ms. Maxwell, whose request to share information is discussed.
|
| Flanagan | Party in a cited lawsuit |
Mentioned in a legal citation (See Flanagan, 465 U.S. at 268).
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| this Court | government agency |
The court hearing the current appeal, which stayed Judge Preska's order.
|
| 2d Cir. | government agency |
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, mentioned in a case citation.
|
Timeline (4 events)
Judge Preska's order to unseal deposition material.
An ongoing criminal case which the document argues will not be delayed by the current appeal.
Ms. Maxwell
Relationships (2)
They are opposing parties in the lawsuit 'Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 20-2413'.
Both are judges whose orders are discussed in the context of the same overarching legal matter involving Ms. Maxwell.
Key Quotes (3)
"independent of the issues to be tried"Source
— Unknown (cited from legal precedent)
(Describing the appeal of Judge Nathan's order in relation to the criminal case.)
DOJ-OGR-00019418.jpg
Quote #1
"validity can[] be adequately reviewed"Source
— Unknown (cited from legal precedent)
(Describing the appeal of Judge Nathan's order.)
DOJ-OGR-00019418.jpg
Quote #2
"societal interest in providing a speedy trial"Source
— Unknown (cited from legal precedent)
(Explaining why interlocutory appeals in criminal cases are generally disfavored.)
DOJ-OGR-00019418.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,415 characters)
Case 20-3061, Document 60, 09/24/2020, 2938278, Page19 of 58
she learned from Judge Nathan, Judge Preska’s order unsealing the deposition
material will go into effect without Judge Preska’s having the opportunity to
reconsider her decision in light of the new information. And once the deposition
material is unsealed, the cat is irretrievably out of the bag. That is precisely why
this Court stayed Judge Preska’s order pending appeal. Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 20-
2413 (2d Cir.), Doc. 30.
material will go into effect without Judge Preska’s having the opportunity to
reconsider her decision in light of the new information. And once the deposition
material is unsealed, the cat is irretrievably out of the bag. That is precisely why
this Court stayed Judge Preska’s order pending appeal. Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 20-
2413 (2d Cir.), Doc. 30.
Second, the appeal of Judge Nathan’s order is entirely “independent of the
issues to be tried” in the criminal case and its “validity can[] be adequately
reviewed” now. See Flanagan, 465 U.S. at 268. There is nothing about Ms.
Maxwell’s request to share information with Judge Preska that must wait until the
criminal trial is over. To the contrary, waiting until the criminal trial is over will
moot the issue.
issues to be tried” in the criminal case and its “validity can[] be adequately
reviewed” now. See Flanagan, 465 U.S. at 268. There is nothing about Ms.
Maxwell’s request to share information with Judge Preska that must wait until the
criminal trial is over. To the contrary, waiting until the criminal trial is over will
moot the issue.
Third, this appeal does not and will not delay the criminal case, which is
proceeding apace notwithstanding the proceedings before this Court. See id. at 264
(explaining that interlocutory appeals in criminal cases are generally disfavored
because of the “societal interest in providing a speedy trial”).⁴
proceeding apace notwithstanding the proceedings before this Court. See id. at 264
(explaining that interlocutory appeals in criminal cases are generally disfavored
because of the “societal interest in providing a speedy trial”).⁴
⁴ The fact that the criminal case is proceeding on course despite this appeal
confirms that this appeal involves an issue completely separate from the merits of
the criminal action.
confirms that this appeal involves an issue completely separate from the merits of
the criminal action.
14
DOJ-OGR-00019418
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document