DOJ-OGR-00019299.jpg
459 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal court filing / appellate brief
File Size:
459 KB
Summary
This is page 13 of a legal filing (Document 17) from Case 20-3061, dated September 10, 2020. The text argues against modifying a protective order due to grand jury secrecy but argues that, based on the precedent of Brown v. Maxwell, Ms. Maxwell should be allowed to share information learned from Judge Nathan with Judge Preska. A significant portion of the page is redacted.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant/Appellant |
Requesting to share information learned from Judge Nathan with Judge Preska.
|
| Judge Preska | District Judge |
The judge Ms. Maxwell wishes to share information with; referenced regarding access to material.
|
| Judge Nathan | Judge |
Source of information Ms. Maxwell learned and wishes to share.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Department of Justice (DOJ) |
Indicated by the Bates stamp 'DOJ-OGR-00019299'.
|
|
| Grand Jury |
Mentioned in the context of an ongoing investigation and secrecy.
|
|
| The Court |
Likely the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (based on case number format 20-3061 and reference to 'this Cou...
|
Relationships (2)
Maxwell's request to share information with Judge Preska.
Maxwell learned information from Judge Nathan.
Key Quotes (3)
"modification of the protective order would destroy the secrecy of the ongoing grand jury investigation."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019299.jpg
Quote #1
"A fair and consistent application of the decision in Brown supports Ms. Maxwell’s request to share with Judge Preska the information she learned from Judge Nathan."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019299.jpg
Quote #2
"There’s no reason Judge Preska should be deprived access to material presumptively available to the public."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019299.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (755 characters)
Case 20-3061, Document 17, 09/10/2020, 2928288, Page13 of 15
modification of the protective order would destroy the secrecy of the ongoing grand
jury investigation. Ex. G, p 3–4. [REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED] In Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d at 47–
48, this Court concluded that the right of access demanded the unsealing of the
civil summary judgment material. A fair and consistent application of the decision
in Brown supports Ms. Maxwell’s request to share with Judge Preska the
information she learned from Judge Nathan. There’s no reason Judge Preska
should be deprived access to material presumptively available to the public.
jury investigation. Ex. G, p 3–4. [REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED] In Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d at 47–
48, this Court concluded that the right of access demanded the unsealing of the
civil summary judgment material. A fair and consistent application of the decision
in Brown supports Ms. Maxwell’s request to share with Judge Preska the
information she learned from Judge Nathan. There’s no reason Judge Preska
should be deprived access to material presumptively available to the public.
12
DOJ-OGR-00019299
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document