DOJ-OGR-00001769.jpg
547 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
7
Organizations
1
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
1
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
547 KB
Summary
This document is a Notice of Appeal filed on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell in the case of United States of America v. Ghislaine Maxwell. Dated September 3, 2020, it formally notifies the court of her intent to appeal the district court's September 2, 2020 decision, which denied her motion to modify a protective order. The appeal is directed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant |
The defendant in the case, filing this Notice of Appeal.
|
| AJN | Judge (initials) |
Appears in the case number (20-CR-330 (AJN)), likely the presiding judge.
|
| Pichler |
Named as a party in the case citation 'Pichler v. UNITE'.
|
|
| Cohen |
Named as a party in the case citation 'Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.'.
|
|
| Brown |
Named as a party in the case citation 'Brown v. Maxwell'.
|
Organizations (7)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK | government agency |
The court from which the appeal is being made.
|
| UNITED STATES OF AMERICA | government |
The Plaintiff in the case.
|
| United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit | government agency |
The court to which the appeal is being made.
|
| UNITE | organization |
Named as a party in the case citation 'Pichler v. UNITE'.
|
| Minpeco S.A. | company |
Named as a party in the case citation 'Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity Servs., Inc.'.
|
| Conticommodity Servs., Inc. | company |
Named as a party in the case citation 'Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity Servs., Inc.'.
|
| Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. | company |
Named as a party in the case citation 'Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.'.
|
Timeline (3 events)
2020-09-02
The district court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order denying Ghislaine Maxwell's motion to modify the protective order.
Southern District of New York
Ghislaine Maxwell
United States District Court Southern District of New York
2020-09-04
The Notice of Appeal was filed with the court and received by S.D.N.Y. - APPEALS.
Southern District of New York
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
The location of the United States District Court handling the case.
|
Relationships (2)
The document lists the United States of America as the Plaintiff and Ghislaine Maxwell as the Defendant in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN.
A previous case, 'Brown v. Maxwell', is cited, indicating a prior legal dispute.
Key Quotes (1)
"We have jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine to review the denial of the motion to modify the Protective Order and the denial of the motion to reconsider."Source
— Pichler v. UNITE, 585 F.3d 741, 746 n.6 (3d Cir. 2009)
(Quoted from a previous case to support the legal basis for the appeal.)
DOJ-OGR-00001769.jpg
Quote #1
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,363 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 55 Filed 09/04/20 Page 1 of 9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------X
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
Defendant.
-------------------------------------------------X
20-CR-330 (AJN)
RECEIVED
SEP 04 2020
S.D.N.Y. - APPEALS
SEP 04 2020
S.D.N.Y. - APPEALS
NOTICE OF APPEAL
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant in the above-captioned case, hereby appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from the district court’s September 2, 2020, Memorandum Opinion and Order denying her motion to modify the protective order. Pichler v. UNITE, 585 F.3d 741, 746 n.6 (3d Cir. 2009) (“We have jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine to review the denial of the motion to modify the Protective Order and the denial of the motion to reconsider.”); Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity Servs., Inc., 832 F.2d 739, 742 (2d Cir. 1987) (denial of motion to modify protective order is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine) (citing Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545–47 (1949)); see also Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 44 (2d Cir. 2019) (appeal by intervenors challenging denial of motions to modify protective order and unseal).
Dated: September 3, 2020.
1
DOJ-OGR-00001769
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document