DOJ-OGR-00019426.jpg
591 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
1
Organizations
0
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
1
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
591 KB
Summary
This document is a legal filing, likely part of an appeal brief, dated September 24, 2020. The filing argues that the appellate court should overturn Judge Nathan's decision and modify a criminal protective order. The purpose of the modification is to allow Ms. Maxwell to share sealed information with Judge Preska regarding how the government obtained her deposition transcripts, which Judge Preska is considering unsealing.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Judge Nathan | Judge |
Mentioned as the judge whose order is being appealed for refusing to modify a protective order.
|
| Ms. Maxwell | Litigant |
The individual seeking to modify a protective order to share information with Judge Preska.
|
| Judge Preska | Judge |
The judge with whom Ms. Maxwell wishes to share information under seal. Mentioned as having an order for unsealing a ...
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Court | government agency |
Referred to as 'this Court', the body hearing the appeal and being asked to permit modification of a criminal order.
|
Timeline (3 events)
An appeal of Judge Nathan's order which refused to modify a protective order.
A request for a writ of mandamus to compel the modification of a protective order.
A potential unsealing of a deposition transcript by order of Judge Preska.
Relationships (2)
Ms. Maxwell is appealing an order made by Judge Nathan in a legal case.
Ms. Maxwell is seeking permission to share information with Judge Preska related to a legal matter, specifically a deposition transcript that Judge Preska may unseal.
Key Quotes (1)
"Whether Judge Nathan erred in refusing to modify the protective order for the limited purpose of allowing Ms. Maxwell to share with Judge Preska, under seal, [REDACTED]"Source
— The author of the document
(Stated under the 'Issue Presented' section, defining the core legal question of the appeal.)
DOJ-OGR-00019426.jpg
Quote #1
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,303 characters)
Case 20-3061, Document 60, 09/24/2020, 2938278, Page27 of 58
appealing Judge Nathan’s order. A writ of mandamus is appropriate because only
this Court can guarantee that all the judges below are on the same page.
this Court can guarantee that all the judges below are on the same page.
Issue Presented
Whether Judge Nathan erred in refusing to modify the protective order for
the limited purpose of allowing Ms. Maxwell to share with Judge Preska, under
seal, [REDACTED]
the limited purpose of allowing Ms. Maxwell to share with Judge Preska, under
seal, [REDACTED]
Summary of the Argument
This Court has jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine. Judge
Nathan’s order (1) completely resolved whether the criminal protective order
should be modified, (2) that question is an important issue completely separate
from the merits of the action, and (3) it is effectively unreviewable on appeal from a
final judgment. Alternatively, mandamus review is appropriate to resolve the
conflicting decisions below.
Nathan’s order (1) completely resolved whether the criminal protective order
should be modified, (2) that question is an important issue completely separate
from the merits of the action, and (3) it is effectively unreviewable on appeal from a
final judgment. Alternatively, mandamus review is appropriate to resolve the
conflicting decisions below.
On the merits, this Court should permit modification of the criminal order so
Ms. Maxwell can share with Judge Preska, under seal, just how the government
came to possess her deposition transcripts, [REDACTED]
[REDACTED]. At this point, Judge Preska is the only relevant
participant who doesn’t know this information. If Judge Preska’s order unsealing
the deposition transcript goes into effect without Judge Preska being offered an
Ms. Maxwell can share with Judge Preska, under seal, just how the government
came to possess her deposition transcripts, [REDACTED]
[REDACTED]. At this point, Judge Preska is the only relevant
participant who doesn’t know this information. If Judge Preska’s order unsealing
the deposition transcript goes into effect without Judge Preska being offered an
22
DOJ-OGR-00019426
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document