DOJ-OGR-00019384.jpg
680 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
8
Organizations
0
Locations
4
Events
1
Relationships
1
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
680 KB
Summary
This legal document, part of a court filing from September 16, 2020, argues that legal precedents cited by an individual named Maxwell are inapplicable to the current case. The author contends that the cited cases (Pichler v. UNITE, Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity Servs., Inc., and Brown v. Maxwell) are distinct because they all involve appeals by non-party intervenors seeking to modify protective orders, unlike the situation in the author's case. The document details these examples to demonstrate why appellate jurisdiction was appropriate in those specific instances but not in the present one.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Maxwell |
Mentioned as the party whose cited cases are being analyzed in 'Maxwell’s notice of appeal' and in the case 'Brown v....
|
|
| Pichler | Party in a lawsuit |
Party in the cited case 'Pichler v. UNITE'.
|
| Koller | Party in a lawsuit |
Party in the cited case 'Richardson-Merrell Inc. v. Koller'.
|
| Brown | Party in a lawsuit |
Party in the cited case 'Brown v. Maxwell'.
|
Organizations (8)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Mohawk | company |
Cited in a legal ruling 'Mohawk, 558 U.S. at 106'.
|
| Firestone | company |
Quoted in a legal ruling 'quoting Firestone, 449 at 374'.
|
| Richardson-Merrell Inc. | company |
Party in the cited case 'Richardson-Merrell Inc. v. Koller'.
|
| UNITE | organization |
Party in the cited case 'Pichler v. UNITE'.
|
| Minpeco S.A. | company |
Party in the cited case 'Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity Servs., Inc.'.
|
| Conticommodity Servs., Inc. | company |
Party in the cited case 'Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity Servs., Inc.'.
|
| Commodity Futures Trading Commission | government agency |
Mentioned as the 'CFTC', acting as a third party intervenor in the 'Minpeco S.A.' case.
|
| the press | industry/group |
Mentioned as third party intervenors in the 'Brown v. Maxwell' case.
|
Timeline (4 events)
1985
Citation to the case Richardson-Merrell Inc. v. Koller, 472 U.S. 424, 436 (1985).
U.S. Supreme Court
1987
In Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity Servs., Inc., the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), as a third-party intervenor, appealed an order denying a motion to modify a protective order.
2d Cir.
Key Quotes (1)
"[t]he entire controversy between the CFTC and the defendants in this case was disposed of by the district court’s denial of the government’s motion to modify the protective order"Source
— 2d Cir. Court in Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity Servs., Inc.
(Quoted as the reason why the appeal by the CFTC was permissible in the Minpeco S.A. case.)
DOJ-OGR-00019384.jpg
Quote #1
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,630 characters)
Case 20-3061, Document 38, 09/16/2020, 2932233, Page18 of 23
the appellate courts do not repeatedly intervene to second-guess prejudgment
rulings.” Mohawk, 558 U.S. at 106 (alterations in original) (internal quotation
mark omitted) (quoting Firestone, 449 at 374; Richardson-Merrell Inc. v. Koller,
472 U.S. 424, 436 (1985)).
23. The cases cited in Maxwell’s notice of appeal do not alter this
analysis. All three are inapposite because they involved appeals by intervenors —
not parties — seeking to modify protective orders in civil cases. See Pichler v.
UNITE, 585 F.3d 741, 745-746 (3d Cir. 2009) (third party intervenor foundation
appealing order denying motion to modify protective order in civil litigation to
allow third party access to discovery materials); Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity
Servs., Inc., 832 F.2d 739, 741 (2d Cir. 1987) (Commodity Futures Trading
Commission (“CFTC”) acting as third party intervenor appealing order denying
motion to modify protective order in civil litigation to allow CFTC to obtain
discovery exchanged by parties to civil case permissible because “[t]he entire
controversy between the CFTC and the defendants in this case was disposed of by
the district court’s denial of the government’s motion to modify the protective
order”); Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 46 (2d Cir. 2019) (third party intervenors,
including members of the press, appealing order denying motion to modify
protective order in civil litigation to allow third parties access to sealed filings,
after parties to the litigation settled). Thus, appellate jurisdiction in those cases
rulings.” Mohawk, 558 U.S. at 106 (alterations in original) (internal quotation
mark omitted) (quoting Firestone, 449 at 374; Richardson-Merrell Inc. v. Koller,
472 U.S. 424, 436 (1985)).
23. The cases cited in Maxwell’s notice of appeal do not alter this
analysis. All three are inapposite because they involved appeals by intervenors —
not parties — seeking to modify protective orders in civil cases. See Pichler v.
UNITE, 585 F.3d 741, 745-746 (3d Cir. 2009) (third party intervenor foundation
appealing order denying motion to modify protective order in civil litigation to
allow third party access to discovery materials); Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity
Servs., Inc., 832 F.2d 739, 741 (2d Cir. 1987) (Commodity Futures Trading
Commission (“CFTC”) acting as third party intervenor appealing order denying
motion to modify protective order in civil litigation to allow CFTC to obtain
discovery exchanged by parties to civil case permissible because “[t]he entire
controversy between the CFTC and the defendants in this case was disposed of by
the district court’s denial of the government’s motion to modify the protective
order”); Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 46 (2d Cir. 2019) (third party intervenors,
including members of the press, appealing order denying motion to modify
protective order in civil litigation to allow third parties access to sealed filings,
after parties to the litigation settled). Thus, appellate jurisdiction in those cases
18
DOJ-OGR-00019384
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document