DOJ-OGR-00019654.jpg
767 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
767 KB
Summary
This legal document, part of an appeal, argues against the government's position that Ms. Maxwell must wait until after her criminal trial to challenge certain judicial decisions. The filing asserts that the current appeal is the correct and only time to review Judge Preska's unsealing order from a related civil case, as a panel in the criminal case would lack jurisdiction. It also refutes the government's claim that a post-judgment appeal would be an effective remedy for premature unsealing of materials.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant/Appellant |
Subject of criminal and civil cases, whose legal arguments are being presented.
|
| Judge Preska | Judge |
Judge who entered unsealing orders in a civil case involving Ms. Maxwell.
|
| Judge Nathan | Judge |
Judge presiding over the criminal case against Ms. Maxwell.
|
| Giuffre | Plaintiff |
Party in the civil case against Maxwell, cited as 'Giuffre v. Maxwell'.
|
| Caparros |
A party in the case 'United States v. Caparros', cited as a legal precedent.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The government | Government agency |
The opposing party in the legal arguments, likely representing the prosecution.
|
| 2d Cir. | Court |
Referenced in a case citation (United States v. Caparros, 800 F.2d 23 (2d Cir. 1986)), indicating the United States C...
|
| This Court | Court |
The court to which this document is being submitted, which is hearing an appeal.
|
Timeline (3 events)
Appeal of Judge Preska's unsealing order in the civil case Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 20-2413.
This Court
Criminal case against Ms. Maxwell, presided over by Judge Nathan.
A potential post-trial appeal where Ms. Maxwell could challenge the government's conduct.
Relationships (2)
The document details legal arguments between Ms. Maxwell's counsel and the government in a criminal case.
The document references the civil case 'Giuffre v. Maxwell'.
Key Quotes (2)
"[t]o the extent Maxwell still wishes to use materials she obtained through criminal discovery for other purposes after entry of final judgment in the criminal case, she can seek authorization from this Court to do so then."Source
— The government
(Quoted from the government's argument (Ans.Br. 17) in a footnote, which the author of this document is rejecting.)
DOJ-OGR-00019654.jpg
Quote #1
"[i]f Maxwell complains that her inability to use criminal discovery materials in civil matters may result in premature unsealing . . . , she can . . . raise [that] claim[] before this Court on appeal after entry of final judgment in her criminal case."Source
— The government
(Quoted from the government's argument (Ans.Br. 17) to illustrate a misunderstanding of the relief Ms. Maxwell seeks.)
DOJ-OGR-00019654.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,821 characters)
Case 20-3061, Document 94, 10/08/2020, 2948481, Page8 of 23
public.² Op.Br. 16. (distinguishing United States v. Caparros, 800 F.2d 23 (2d Cir. 1986)).
The government argues that Ms. Maxwell can wait until after the criminal trial to challenge whether, for example, Judge Preska’s unsealing decisions produce unfair pretrial publicity in the criminal case. But a panel of this Court considering an appeal in the criminal case presided over by Judge Nathan won’t have any jurisdiction to review orders entered by Judge Preska in the civil case. The time for reviewing Judge Preska’s unsealing order in the civil case is right now in the appeal of Judge Preska’s order, Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 20-2413.
The government also argues that, in a post-trial appeal, Ms. Maxwell can challenge the government’s conduct in obtaining Ms. Maxwell’s deposition transcripts and the use of those transcripts as a basis for two perjury counts.
² This Court should accordingly reject the government’s argument that “[t]o the extent Maxwell still wishes to use materials she obtained through criminal discovery for other purposes after entry of final judgment in the criminal case, she can seek authorization from this Court to do so then.” Ans.Br. 17.
Similarly, the government misunderstands the relief Ms. Maxwell seeks when it contends that “[i]f Maxwell complains that her inability to use criminal discovery materials in civil matters may result in premature unsealing . . . , she can . . . raise [that] claim[] before this Court on appeal after entry of final judgment in her criminal case.” Ans.Br. 17. A post-final-judgment appeal will do no good because there is no way to “re-seal” material already unsealed and no way to retroactively stay an unsealing process that is largely if not entirely complete.
5
DOJ-OGR-00019654
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document