DOJ-OGR-00019593.jpg
633 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
3
Events
3
Relationships
0
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
633 KB
Summary
This document is a legal filing, specifically an appeal, related to Case 20-3061. The appellant, Ms. Maxwell, challenges a district court order by Judge Nathan that denied her request to share information with another judge. The filing argues that the appellate court has jurisdiction to review this order under the collateral order doctrine, countering the government's contention that the order is unreviewable.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Maxwell | Appellant / Party in a legal case |
The person whose motion to modify a protective order was denied, and who is now appealing that decision.
|
| Judge Nathan | Judge |
The judge who issued the order being appealed, which denied Ms. Maxwell's request to share information.
|
| Judge Preska | Judge |
Another judge mentioned in the context of a future order unsealing deposition material.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| district court | government agency |
The court that issued the order being challenged in the appeal.
|
| The government | government agency |
A party in the legal case, contending that the Court lacks jurisdiction to review Judge Nathan's order.
|
| this Court | government agency |
Refers to the appellate court hearing the appeal of Judge Nathan's order.
|
Timeline (3 events)
2020-09-28
An appeal was filed challenging the district court's order denying Ms. Maxwell's motion.
appellate court
Ms. Maxwell filed a motion to modify a protective order to share information with another judge.
district court
The district court, via Judge Nathan, denied Ms. Maxwell's motion to modify the protective order.
district court
Relationships (3)
The document describes a legal dispute where Ms. Maxwell is appealing an order, and 'The government contends' an opposing view on jurisdiction.
Described as 'co-equal judge', indicating they are colleagues within the judiciary.
Judge Nathan ruled on Ms. Maxwell's motion, and Ms. Maxwell is appealing that ruling.
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,427 characters)
Case 20-3061, Document 69, 09/28/2020, 2940206, Page2 of 15
Background
This appeal challenges the district court’s order denying Ms. Maxwell’s motion to modify the protective order. Ms. Maxwell’s limited request sought permission from Judge Nathan to share certain information with another Article III judge.
The government contends this Court lacks jurisdiction to review Judge Nathan’s order. But if the government is right, then Judge Nathan’s order is unreviewable. The collateral order doctrine is not so rigid.
While an interlocutory appeal is the exception and not the rule, all the conditions required to satisfy the collateral order doctrine exist here. First, Judge Nathan’s order conclusively determined the disputed question (whether Ms. Maxwell could share relevant and material information with another Article III judge). Second, Judge Nathan’s order resolved an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action (whether it is proper for one Article III judge, at the request of the government, to keep secret from a co-equal judge information relevant and material to the second judge’s role in deciding a matter before her). And third, Judge Nathan’s order is effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment (by the time of a final judgment, Judge Preska’s order unsealing the deposition material will have gone into effect and Judge Preska will have ruled on
1
DOJ-OGR-00019593
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document