DOJ-OGR-00019425.jpg
537 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
5
Organizations
2
Locations
3
Events
3
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal brief / court filing (appellate)
File Size:
537 KB
Summary
This document is page 21 (filed as page 26) of a legal brief in Case 20-3061, filed on September 24, 2020. It argues that a writ of mandamus is appropriate because Judge Nathan abused her discretion regarding a protective order and Judge Preska's unsealing order relies on inconsistent decisions within the Southern District of New York. The text discusses the unsealing of deposition materials and claims prejudice against Ms. Maxwell, though specific details are heavily redacted.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant/Appellant |
Subject of the legal arguments; seeking relief from protective/unsealing orders.
|
| Judge Nathan | Judge |
Accused of abusing discretion in declining to modify a protective order.
|
| Judge Preska | Judge |
Issued an unsealing order that Maxwell requested be reevaluated.
|
Organizations (5)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany |
Cited in legal case precedent (745 F.3d 30).
|
|
| Southern District of New York |
Jurisdiction where judges allegedly reached inconsistent decisions.
|
|
| 2d Cir. |
Second Circuit Court of Appeals (cited in case law).
|
|
| The government |
Opposing party trying to prevent Maxwell from taking specific action.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (inferred from footer DOJ-OGR).
|
Timeline (3 events)
2020-09-24
Filing of Document 60 in Case 20-3061
Court of Appeals (implied by case number format)
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location mentioned in case citation.
|
|
|
Legal jurisdiction.
|
Relationships (3)
Maxwell claims Judge Nathan abused discretion regarding a protective order.
Maxwell requested Preska reevaluate an unsealing order.
Government is trying to prevent Ms. Maxwell from action.
Key Quotes (4)
"Judge Nathan clearly abused her discretion in declining to modify the protective order."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019425.jpg
Quote #1
"Ms. Maxwell has no other adequate means to attain the relief necessary"Source
DOJ-OGR-00019425.jpg
Quote #2
"the judges in the Southern District of New York have reached inconsistent decisions to prejudice of Ms. Maxwell."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019425.jpg
Quote #3
"And now the government is trying to prevent Ms. Maxwell from"Source
DOJ-OGR-00019425.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,110 characters)
Case 20-3061, Document 60, 09/24/2020, 2938278, Page26 of 58
Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany, N.Y., 745 F.3d 30, 35 (2d Cir. 2014). All three
conditions exist here.
conditions exist here.
First, as elaborated below, Judge Nathan clearly abused her discretion in
declining to modify the protective order.
declining to modify the protective order.
Second, Ms. Maxwell has no other adequate means to attain the relief
necessary because her request for Judge Preska to reevaluate her unsealing order
with the benefit of knowing what everyone else knows [REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED] will become moot once the deposition
material is unsealed (as this Court already recognized by staying the unsealing
order pending appeal).
necessary because her request for Judge Preska to reevaluate her unsealing order
with the benefit of knowing what everyone else knows [REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED] will become moot once the deposition
material is unsealed (as this Court already recognized by staying the unsealing
order pending appeal).
Finally, it is appropriate for this Court to issue a writ of mandamus because,
as explained in Ms. Maxwell’s motion to consolidate, the judges in the Southern
District of New York have reached inconsistent decisions to prejudice of Ms.
Maxwell. And while there is no dispute Ms. Maxwell has the right to appeal Judge
Preska’s order, [REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED] And now the government is trying to prevent Ms. Maxwell from
as explained in Ms. Maxwell’s motion to consolidate, the judges in the Southern
District of New York have reached inconsistent decisions to prejudice of Ms.
Maxwell. And while there is no dispute Ms. Maxwell has the right to appeal Judge
Preska’s order, [REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED] And now the government is trying to prevent Ms. Maxwell from
21
DOJ-OGR-00019425
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document