DOJ-OGR-00019656.jpg
557 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal brief / court filing (appeal reply brief)
File Size:
557 KB
Summary
This page from a legal brief (Case 20-3061) dated October 8, 2020, argues that the appellate court has jurisdiction to review Judge Preska's decision because Judge Nathan's order is unreviewable post-judgment. The text counters the Government's arguments regarding the unsealing of confidential criminal discovery materials and references a previous motion to consolidate cases. Significant portions of the text are redacted.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant/Appellant |
Subject of the legal argument regarding unsealing of documents and motion to consolidate.
|
| Judge Preska | Judge |
Her decision is being reviewed by the Court.
|
| Judge Nathan | Judge |
Author of an order that the defense claims is effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Government |
Opposing party in the appeal; argued that Maxwell failed to explain the relevance of how discovery materials were obt...
|
|
| This Court |
The court hearing the current appeal (likely 2nd Circuit based on case number format).
|
Timeline (1 events)
Relationships (2)
Government arguing against Maxwell's appeals regarding unsealing documents.
Both judges have issued orders relevant to the same legal proceedings involving Maxwell.
Key Quotes (3)
"Judge Nathan’s order is effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019656.jpg
Quote #1
"Ms. Maxwell 'fails to explain how the way the Government obtained the confidential criminal discovery materials at issue has any bearing on or in any way affects First Amendment principles governing unsealing decisions in a civil case.'"Source
DOJ-OGR-00019656.jpg
Quote #2
"The government professed not to understand the relationship between the two cases."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019656.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,172 characters)
Case 20-3061, Document 94, 10/08/2020, 2948481, Page10 of 23
Court reviewing Judge Preska’s decision deserve to know now [REDACTED], a post-trial appeal is insufficient.
This Court, therefore, has jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine, because Judge Nathan’s order is effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment. See Will, 546 U.S. at 349.
In its final argument, the government says Ms. Maxwell “fails to explain how the way the Government obtained the confidential criminal discovery materials at issue has any bearing on or in any way affects First Amendment principles governing unsealing decisions in a civil case.” Ans.Br. 19. The government also claims that Ms. Maxwell “is already able to share the essential facts she wishes to convey under Judge Nathan’s Order.” Ans.Br. 19. Neither contention has merit.
The first contention is a retread of the government’s response to Ms. Maxwell’s motion to consolidate, in which the government professed not to understand the relationship between the two cases. Doc. 39, pp 19–21, ¶¶ 26–27.
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
7
DOJ-OGR-00019656
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document