DOJ-OGR-00019397.jpg
503 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing / court document (page 4 of 6)
File Size:
503 KB
Summary
This document is page 4 of a legal filing dated September 23, 2020, related to Case 20-3061. It argues in favor of a motion to consolidate legal proceedings involving Ms. Maxwell and Ms. Giuffre, asserting that consolidation will not cause delay or circumvent Judge Nathan's prior orders. The text emphasizes that the Court has already scheduled oral arguments for both cases on the same day.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant / Appellant |
Legal party arguing that unsealing orders affect her ability to litigate the lawfulness of government applications.
|
| Judge Nathan | Judge |
Judge whose order is being discussed; the text argues the motion is not attempting to circumvent her order.
|
| Ms. Giuffre | Plaintiff / Appellee |
Legal party opposing the consolidation; her argument regarding delay is dismissed in this document.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Government |
Referring to the prosecution/DOJ, specifically regarding applications to modify protective orders.
|
|
| This Court |
The appellate court reviewing the motion to consolidate.
|
|
| DOJ-OGR |
Department of Justice - Office of Government Relations (indicated by Bates stamp).
|
Timeline (2 events)
2020-09-23
Submission of legal document argument regarding motion to consolidate.
Court
Relationships (2)
Document argues against Giuffre's claims regarding delay.
Discussion of Judge Nathan's order in relation to Maxwell's motion.
Key Quotes (3)
"Ms. Maxwell’s point is that, unless the unsealing order is reversed, she might not ever be able to litigate “the lawfulness of the Government’s applications.”"Source
DOJ-OGR-00019397.jpg
Quote #1
"There is no merit to Ms. Giuffre’s argument that consolidation will cause meaningful delay."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019397.jpg
Quote #2
"This Court should grant the motion to consolidate."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019397.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,095 characters)
Case 20-3061, Document 54, 09/23/2020, 2937091, Page4 of 6
the Government’s applications to modify certain protective orders in other judicial
proceedings.” Ms. Maxwell’s point is that, unless the unsealing order is reversed,
she might not ever be able to litigate “the lawfulness of the Government’s
applications.”
proceedings.” Ms. Maxwell’s point is that, unless the unsealing order is reversed,
she might not ever be able to litigate “the lawfulness of the Government’s
applications.”
Moreover, the motion to consolidate is not an attempt to circumvent Judge
Nathan’s order before this Court can reach the merits. The motion to consolidate
simply endeavors to ensure that this Court does not find itself in the same position
as the several judges below, where only some of the judges are privy to the relevant
facts.
Nathan’s order before this Court can reach the merits. The motion to consolidate
simply endeavors to ensure that this Court does not find itself in the same position
as the several judges below, where only some of the judges are privy to the relevant
facts.
There is no merit to Ms. Giuffre’s argument that consolidation will cause
meaningful delay. Doc. 123, pp 4–5. This Court has scheduled oral argument in
both cases on the same day, as well as an argument on the motion to consolidate.
Whether that motion is granted or not will have no effect on the dispatch with
which this Court addresses the issues.
meaningful delay. Doc. 123, pp 4–5. This Court has scheduled oral argument in
both cases on the same day, as well as an argument on the motion to consolidate.
Whether that motion is granted or not will have no effect on the dispatch with
which this Court addresses the issues.
This Court should grant the motion to consolidate.
September 23, 2020.
4
DOJ-OGR-00019397
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document