DOJ-OGR-00019380.jpg
682 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing / appellate brief (government response)
File Size:
682 KB
Summary
Page 14 of a legal filing (Case 20-3061) dated September 16, 2020. The text argues that Maxwell's attempt to appeal Judge Nathan's order regarding pretrial discovery and the unsealing of civil case documents should be denied, citing legal precedents that such orders are generally unreviewable on interlocutory appeal. It asserts that the risk of embarrassing information being disclosed is insufficient grounds for such an appeal.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Maxwell | Defendant/Appellant |
Ghislaine Maxwell; the text argues against her attempt to appeal a pretrial order regarding the unsealing of documents.
|
| Judge Nathan | District Court Judge |
Issued the specific Order that Maxwell is attempting to reverse.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Department of Justice (DOJ) |
Indicated by the footer stamp 'DOJ-OGR'.
|
|
| Second Circuit Court of Appeals |
Cited in legal precedent (2d Cir.).
|
|
| Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals |
Cited in legal precedent (9th Cir.).
|
Relationships (1)
Maxwell is challenging an Order issued by Judge Nathan.
Key Quotes (3)
"Maxwell seems to claim that reversal of Judge Nathan’s Order is necessary in order to prevent documents in a civil case from being unsealed."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019380.jpg
Quote #1
"Maxwell has identified no public interest or value that is “sufficiently strong to overcome the usual benefits of deferring appeal until litigation concludes.”"Source
DOJ-OGR-00019380.jpg
Quote #2
"Judge Nathan found speculative at best (Ex. F at 3) — a risk of unsealing is not significant enough to merit interlocutory appeal."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019380.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,634 characters)
Case 20-3061, Document 38, 09/16/2020, 2932233, Page14 of 23
the Speech or Debate Clause, or the forced administration of antipsychotic drugs.
See Midland Asphalt, 489 U.S. at 799; Sell, 539 U.S. at 176-77. The rights
implicated here do not meet the high threshold of expanding the collateral order
exception in criminal cases beyond those limited categories. Rather, this Order
falls within the category of rulings addressing pretrial discovery, which are
generally unreviewable on interlocutory appeal. See Pappas, 94 F.3d at 798;
Caparros, 800 F.2d at 24-26. Maxwell has identified no public interest or value
that is “sufficiently strong to overcome the usual benefits of deferring appeal until
litigation concludes.” Mohawk, 558 U.S. at 107.
See Midland Asphalt, 489 U.S. at 799; Sell, 539 U.S. at 176-77. The rights
implicated here do not meet the high threshold of expanding the collateral order
exception in criminal cases beyond those limited categories. Rather, this Order
falls within the category of rulings addressing pretrial discovery, which are
generally unreviewable on interlocutory appeal. See Pappas, 94 F.3d at 798;
Caparros, 800 F.2d at 24-26. Maxwell has identified no public interest or value
that is “sufficiently strong to overcome the usual benefits of deferring appeal until
litigation concludes.” Mohawk, 558 U.S. at 107.
19. Maxwell seems to claim that reversal of Judge Nathan’s Order
is necessary in order to prevent documents in a civil case from being unsealed.
Even assuming a presentation of criminal discovery materials would affect an
unsealing decision in a civil case — an argument that Judge Nathan found
speculative at best (Ex. F at 3) — a risk of unsealing is not significant enough to
merit interlocutory appeal. See United States v. Martoma, No. 13-4807, 2014 WL
68119, at *1 (2d Cir. Jan. 8, 2014) (concluding that even though the defendant’s
“personal interest in the privacy of embarrassing information is an interest that, as
a practical matter, cannot be vindicated after disclosure,” that interest is
insufficient to merit interlocutory appeal); United States v. Guerrero, 693 F.3d
990, 998 (9th Cir. 2012) (finding no jurisdiction over defendant’s interlocutory
is necessary in order to prevent documents in a civil case from being unsealed.
Even assuming a presentation of criminal discovery materials would affect an
unsealing decision in a civil case — an argument that Judge Nathan found
speculative at best (Ex. F at 3) — a risk of unsealing is not significant enough to
merit interlocutory appeal. See United States v. Martoma, No. 13-4807, 2014 WL
68119, at *1 (2d Cir. Jan. 8, 2014) (concluding that even though the defendant’s
“personal interest in the privacy of embarrassing information is an interest that, as
a practical matter, cannot be vindicated after disclosure,” that interest is
insufficient to merit interlocutory appeal); United States v. Guerrero, 693 F.3d
990, 998 (9th Cir. 2012) (finding no jurisdiction over defendant’s interlocutory
14
DOJ-OGR-00019380
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document