DOJ-OGR-00019637.jpg
667 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal brief / court filing (appellate)
File Size:
667 KB
Summary
This document is page 24 (PDF page 30) of a legal brief filed by the Government on October 2, 2020. It argues that Judge Nathan did not abuse her discretion in denying Maxwell's request to modify a Protective Order. The text asserts that Maxwell failed to explain why criminal discovery materials were necessary for pending civil litigation or relevant to First Amendment issues regarding public docketing.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Maxwell | Defendant/Appellant |
Attempting to modify a protective order to use criminal discovery materials in civil litigation.
|
| Judge Nathan | District Court Judge |
Issued an Order denying Maxwell's motion; her discretion is being defended in this document.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| District Court |
The lower court where the original order was issued.
|
|
| Government |
The prosecution/respondent arguing against Maxwell's appeal.
|
Timeline (2 events)
2020-10-02
Prior to 2020-10-02
Judge Nathan issued an Order denying Maxwell's motion to modify a Protective Order
District Court
Relationships (2)
Judge Nathan issued an Order denying Maxwell's motion.
Government is arguing against Maxwell's appeal regarding discovery materials.
Key Quotes (3)
"Maxwell offered no coherent explanation of how the criminal discovery materials could have any conceivable impact on the issues pending in civil litigation."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019637.jpg
Quote #1
"Judge Nathan did not abuse her discretion when determining that Maxwell had offered no basis for determining that good cause justified a modification of the Protective Order."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019637.jpg
Quote #2
"Maxwell still fails to explain why she needs to use materials relating to the Government’s applications seeking the modification of certain protective orders in other judicial proceedings."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019637.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,686 characters)
Case 20-3061, Document 82, 10/02/2020, 2944267, Page30 of 37
24
does not suggest that Judge Nathan committed legal error when issuing the Order denying her motion.
Second, Judge Nathan did not abuse her discretion when determining that Maxwell had offered no basis for determining that good cause justified a modification of the Protective Order. In her briefing before the District Court, Maxwell offered no coherent explanation of how the criminal discovery materials could have any conceivable impact on the issues pending in civil litigation. She cited no case law suggesting that, for example, the possibility of an inevitable discovery argument by the Government should foreclose unsealing in a civil case, or that unsealing analysis should be affected by a concern about pretrial publicity in a separate criminal case. In the absence of any such explanation, Judge Nathan’s Order declining to modify the Protective Order did not amount to an abuse of her broad discretion when overseeing an ongoing criminal case.
Even on this appeal, Maxwell still fails to explain why she needs to use materials relating to the Government’s applications seeking the modification of certain protective orders in other judicial proceedings. As far as the Government is aware, the only issue pending in the civil litigation in which Maxwell seeks to use those criminal discovery materials involves whether the First Amendment requires that certain filings in those cases be made available on the public docket. Maxwell cannot explain why certain criminal discovery materials are relevant to the issues pending in those cases or how the manner in which the Government obtained
DOJ-OGR-00019637
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document