DOJ-OGR-00019356.jpg
700 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal brief / court filing (appellate)
File Size:
700 KB
Summary
This page from a legal brief (Case 20-3061, dated Sept 16, 2020) argues that Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The text contends that Judge Nathan's refusal to modify a Protective Order is not an 'immediately appealable collateral order' and does not fall under categories allowing prejudgment appeals in criminal cases.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Maxwell | Defendant/Appellant |
Ghislaine Maxwell; the subject of the appeal which the document argues should be dismissed.
|
| Judge Nathan | District Judge |
Issued the Order declining to modify the Protective Order which is the subject of the appeal.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Supreme Court |
Cited for legal precedents (Midland Asphalt, Van Cauwenberghe, Mohawk, etc.).
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice; indicated by the Bates stamp 'DOJ-OGR'.
|
|
| This Court |
The court hearing the appeal (likely 2nd Circuit based on context of Maxwell case).
|
Relationships (1)
Maxwell is appealing Judge Nathan's order regarding a protective order.
Key Quotes (3)
"Accordingly, this Court does not have jurisdiction to review the Order, and Maxwell’s appeal should be dismissed."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019356.jpg
Quote #1
"Judge Nathan’s Order declining to modify the Protective Order in this criminal case is not subject to interlocutory appeal."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019356.jpg
Quote #2
"the Order does not meet the third criterion of the standard for identifying immediately appealable collateral orders"Source
DOJ-OGR-00019356.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,670 characters)
Case 20-3061, Document 37, 09/16/2020, 2932231, Page14 of 24
rule is “interpreted . . . ‘with the utmost strictness,’” the appeal should be
dismissed. Midland Asphalt, 489 U.S. at 799 (quoting Flanagan, 465 U.S. at 265).
Among other things, the Order does not meet the third criterion of the standard for
identifying immediately appealable collateral orders, which requires that the order
being appealed from be “effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final
judgment.” Van Cauwenberghe, 486 U.S. at 522 (internal quotation mark omitted)
(quoting Coopers & Lybrand, 437 U.S. at 468). Accordingly, this Court does not
have jurisdiction to review the Order, and Maxwell’s appeal should be dismissed.
dismissed. Midland Asphalt, 489 U.S. at 799 (quoting Flanagan, 465 U.S. at 265).
Among other things, the Order does not meet the third criterion of the standard for
identifying immediately appealable collateral orders, which requires that the order
being appealed from be “effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final
judgment.” Van Cauwenberghe, 486 U.S. at 522 (internal quotation mark omitted)
(quoting Coopers & Lybrand, 437 U.S. at 468). Accordingly, this Court does not
have jurisdiction to review the Order, and Maxwell’s appeal should be dismissed.
17. As an initial matter, when evaluating Maxwell’s appeal, this Court
cannot engage in an “individualized jurisdictional inquiry” based on the facts
of this case, but instead must focus on the “entire category to which a claim
belongs.” Mohawk, 558 U.S. at 107 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting
Coopers & Lybrand, 437 U.S. at 473; Digital Equipment Corp. v. Desktop Direct,
Inc., 511 U.S. 863, 868 (1994)). Here, like any other order regulating the use of
discovery materials exchanged by the parties during litigation, Judge Nathan’s
Order declining to modify the Protective Order in this criminal case is not subject
to interlocutory appeal. See Pappas, 94 F.3d at 798; Caparros, 800 F.2d at 24-26.
cannot engage in an “individualized jurisdictional inquiry” based on the facts
of this case, but instead must focus on the “entire category to which a claim
belongs.” Mohawk, 558 U.S. at 107 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting
Coopers & Lybrand, 437 U.S. at 473; Digital Equipment Corp. v. Desktop Direct,
Inc., 511 U.S. 863, 868 (1994)). Here, like any other order regulating the use of
discovery materials exchanged by the parties during litigation, Judge Nathan’s
Order declining to modify the Protective Order in this criminal case is not subject
to interlocutory appeal. See Pappas, 94 F.3d at 798; Caparros, 800 F.2d at 24-26.
18. There can be no serious suggestion that this Order falls within
the four categories of orders that the Supreme Court has identified as appealable
prejudgment in criminal cases, as the Order does not address bail, double jeopardy,
the four categories of orders that the Supreme Court has identified as appealable
prejudgment in criminal cases, as the Order does not address bail, double jeopardy,
13
DOJ-OGR-00019356
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document