DOJ-OGR-00019424.jpg
672 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal brief / court filing (appellate)
File Size:
672 KB
Summary
This page is from a legal brief (Case 20-3061, Document 60) filed on September 24, 2020. It argues that if Ms. Maxwell cannot appeal Judge Nathan's order via the 'collateral order doctrine,' the appellate court should instead issue a 'writ of mandamus' to modify the protective order. The document outlines legal precedents and the three specific conditions required to issue such a writ.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Maxwell | Petitioner/Defendant |
Requesting the Court to exercise mandamus jurisdiction to modify a protective order.
|
| Judge Nathan | District Court Judge |
Issued an order that Maxwell is attempting to appeal or modify.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| District Court |
The court against which the writ of mandamus is directed.
|
|
| This Court |
The court receiving the petition (likely 2nd Circuit based on case context).
|
|
| DOJ-OGR |
Department of Justice - Office of Government Information Services (indicated in Bates stamp).
|
Timeline (1 events)
Relationships (1)
Maxwell is challenging Judge Nathan's order regarding a protective order.
Key Quotes (2)
"Assuming Ms. Maxwell cannot appeal Judge Nathan’s order under the collateral order doctrine, this Court should exercise mandamus jurisdiction"Source
DOJ-OGR-00019424.jpg
Quote #1
"Three conditions must exist for this Court to issue a writ of mandamus: (1) the petitioner must demonstrate the right to issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable; (2) she must have no other adequate means to attain the relief desired; and (3) the issuing court must be satisfied the writ is appropriate."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019424.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,583 characters)
Case 20-3061, Document 60, 09/24/2020, 2938278, Page25 of 58
Assuming Ms. Maxwell cannot appeal Judge Nathan’s order under the
collateral order doctrine, this Court should exercise mandamus jurisdiction and
issue a writ of mandamus directing the district court to modify the protective order
as requested by Ms. Maxwell. E.g., Wilk v. Am. Med. Ass’n, 635 F.2d 1295, 1298
(7th Cir. 1980) (declining to decide whether the collateral order applied and instead
issuing a writ of mandamus to vacate a district court decision declining to modify
protective order), superseded by rule on other grounds as recognized in Bond v. Utreras,
585 F.3d 1061, 1068 n.4 (7th Cir. 2009); see Pappas, 94 F.3d at 798 (recognizing that
protective orders in criminal cases “[i]n rare instances . . . might raise issues
available for review via a petition for writ of mandamus”).
collateral order doctrine, this Court should exercise mandamus jurisdiction and
issue a writ of mandamus directing the district court to modify the protective order
as requested by Ms. Maxwell. E.g., Wilk v. Am. Med. Ass’n, 635 F.2d 1295, 1298
(7th Cir. 1980) (declining to decide whether the collateral order applied and instead
issuing a writ of mandamus to vacate a district court decision declining to modify
protective order), superseded by rule on other grounds as recognized in Bond v. Utreras,
585 F.3d 1061, 1068 n.4 (7th Cir. 2009); see Pappas, 94 F.3d at 798 (recognizing that
protective orders in criminal cases “[i]n rare instances . . . might raise issues
available for review via a petition for writ of mandamus”).
A writ of mandamus issued under the All Writs Act “confine[s] the court
against which mandamus is sought to a lawful exercise of its prescribed
jurisdiction.” In re City of N.Y., 607 F.3d 923, 932 (2d Cir. 2010) (internal
quotations omitted). A writ is properly issued when “exceptional circumstances
amount[] to a . . . clear abuse of discretion.” Id. (internal quotations omitted).
against which mandamus is sought to a lawful exercise of its prescribed
jurisdiction.” In re City of N.Y., 607 F.3d 923, 932 (2d Cir. 2010) (internal
quotations omitted). A writ is properly issued when “exceptional circumstances
amount[] to a . . . clear abuse of discretion.” Id. (internal quotations omitted).
Three conditions must exist for this Court to issue a writ of mandamus:
(1) the petitioner must demonstrate the right to issuance of the writ is clear and
indisputable; (2) she must have no other adequate means to attain the relief
desired; and (3) the issuing court must be satisfied the writ is appropriate. In re
(1) the petitioner must demonstrate the right to issuance of the writ is clear and
indisputable; (2) she must have no other adequate means to attain the relief
desired; and (3) the issuing court must be satisfied the writ is appropriate. In re
20
DOJ-OGR-00019424
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document