DOJ-OGR-00019633.jpg
661 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
5
Organizations
2
Locations
0
Events
1
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal brief / court filing (appellate)
File Size:
661 KB
Summary
This page is from a legal brief (Case 20-3061, Document 82) filed on October 2, 2020. The text argues against Ghislaine Maxwell's attempt to use a writ of mandamus to modify a Protective Order, citing that such writs are 'extraordinary remedies' reserved for exceptional circumstances like judicial abuse of power. It references legal precedents (Cheney, Glotzer) to support the argument that pretrial discovery orders are generally not reviewable on direct appeal.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant/Appellant |
Subject of the legal argument; seeking a writ of mandamus to modify a Protective Order.
|
| Cheney | Legal precedent subject |
Cited in case law (Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court).
|
| Glotzer | Legal precedent subject |
Cited in case law (In re S.E.C. ex rel. Glotzer).
|
| Pappas | Legal precedent subject |
Cited in case law.
|
| Caparros | Legal precedent subject |
Cited in case law.
|
Organizations (5)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| U.S. District Court |
The lower court whose orders Maxwell is contesting.
|
|
| Supreme Court |
Cited for legal standards regarding mandamus.
|
|
| Second Circuit Court of Appeals |
Implied by '2d Cir.' citations; the court receiving this brief.
|
|
| Department of Justice (DOJ) |
Indicated by Bates stamp prefix DOJ-OGR.
|
|
| S.E.C. |
Cited in case law.
|
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in case citation.
|
|
|
Implied by 'City of N.Y.' case citation.
|
Relationships (1)
Maxwell is attempting to appeal or modify the District Court's Protective Order via writ of mandamus.
Key Quotes (5)
"Maxwell suggests that this Court should exercise mandamus jurisdiction and issue the extraordinary relief of a writ of mandamus directing the District Court to modify the Protective Order"Source
DOJ-OGR-00019633.jpg
Quote #1
"The Supreme Court has described this as 'a drastic and extraordinary remedy reserved for really extraordinary causes.'"Source
DOJ-OGR-00019633.jpg
Quote #2
"issue[s] a writ of mandamus only in exceptional circumstances amounting to a judicial usurpation of power or a clear abuse of discretion."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019633.jpg
Quote #3
"Pretrial discovery orders . . . generally are not reviewable on direct appeal"Source
DOJ-OGR-00019633.jpg
Quote #4
"Orders regulating discovery in a criminal case, even if couched using 'words of restraint,' are not injunctions and are therefore not appealable under § 1292(a)(1)."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019633.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,690 characters)
Case 20-3061, Document 82, 10/02/2020, 2944267, Page26 of 37
20
In an attempt to sidestep the jurisdictional issue, Maxwell suggests that this Court should exercise mandamus jurisdiction and issue the extraordinary relief of a writ of mandamus directing the District Court to modify the Protective Order if Maxwell “cannot appeal” the Order under the collateral order doctrine. (Br. 20). The Supreme Court has described this as “a drastic and extraordinary remedy reserved for really extraordinary causes.” Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court for Dist. of Columbia, 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004). This Court has made clear that it “issue[s] a writ of mandamus only in exceptional circumstances amounting to a judicial usurpation of power or a clear abuse of discretion.” In re City of N.Y., 607 F.3d 923, 932 (2d Cir. 2010).
“Pretrial discovery orders . . . generally are not reviewable on direct appeal, and we have expressed reluctance to circumvent this salutary rule by use of mandamus.” In re S.E.C. ex rel. Glotzer, 374 F.3d 184, 187 (2d Cir. 2004). “Nevertheless, mandamus may be available where a discovery question is of extraordinary significance or there is extreme need for reversal of the district court’s mandate before the case goes to judgment.” Id. “To determine whether mandamus is appropriate in the context of a discovery ruling, we
_________________
solve or modify injunctions, except where a direct review may be had in the Supreme Court.” Orders regulating discovery in a criminal case, even if couched using “words of restraint,” are not injunctions and are therefore not appealable under § 1292(a)(1). See Pappas, 94 F.3d at 798; Caparros, 800 F.2d at 26.
DOJ-OGR-00019633
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document