DOJ-OGR-00019361.jpg
679 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
7
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal brief / court filing (appellate)
File Size:
679 KB
Summary
This document is page 19 of a legal brief filed on September 16, 2020, likely by the prosecution or a respondent opposing an appeal by Ghislaine Maxwell. The text argues that the cases Maxwell cited in her notice of appeal are irrelevant ('inapposite') because they deal with third-party intervenors (like the press or the CFTC) seeking to modify protective orders, whereas Maxwell is a direct party to the case. It specifically distinguishes the current situation from *Brown v. Maxwell* and other precedents regarding appellate jurisdiction over protective orders.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant/Appellant |
Mentioned regarding her 'notice of appeal' and legal arguments related to protective orders.
|
| Brown | Plaintiff/Intervenor |
Named party in cited case 'Brown v. Maxwell' (2019).
|
Organizations (7)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) |
Cited as a third-party intervenor in the 'Minpeco S.A.' case example.
|
|
| UNITE |
Party in cited case 'Pichler v. UNITE'.
|
|
| Minpeco S.A. |
Party in cited case.
|
|
| Conticommodity Servs., Inc. |
Party in cited case.
|
|
| Department of Justice |
Implied by Bates stamp 'DOJ-OGR'.
|
|
| Second Circuit Court of Appeals |
Referenced as '2d Cir.' in case citations.
|
|
| Third Circuit Court of Appeals |
Referenced as '3d Cir.' in case citations.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2020-09-16
Filing of Document 37 in Case 20-3061.
Court of Appeals (likely 2nd Circuit)
Relationships (1)
Citation of 'Brown v. Maxwell'
Key Quotes (3)
"The cases cited in Maxwell’s notice of appeal do not alter this analysis."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019361.jpg
Quote #1
"All three are inapposite because they involved appeals by intervenors — not parties — seeking to modify protective orders in civil cases."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019361.jpg
Quote #2
"appellate courts do not repeatedly intervene to second-guess prejudgment rulings."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019361.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,619 characters)
Case 20-3061, Document 37, 09/16/2020, 2932231, Page19 of 24
the appellate courts do not repeatedly intervene to second-guess prejudgment
rulings.” Mohawk, 558 U.S. at 106 (alterations in original) (internal quotation
mark omitted) (quoting Firestone, 449 at 374; Richardson-Merrell Inc. v. Koller,
472 U.S. 424, 436 (1985)).
rulings.” Mohawk, 558 U.S. at 106 (alterations in original) (internal quotation
mark omitted) (quoting Firestone, 449 at 374; Richardson-Merrell Inc. v. Koller,
472 U.S. 424, 436 (1985)).
23. The cases cited in Maxwell’s notice of appeal do not alter this
analysis. All three are inapposite because they involved appeals by intervenors —
not parties — seeking to modify protective orders in civil cases. See Pichler v.
UNITE, 585 F.3d 741, 745-746 (3d Cir. 2009) (third party intervernor foundation
appealing order denying motion to modify protective order in civil litigation to
allow third party access to discovery materials); Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity
Servs., Inc., 832 F.2d 739, 741 (2d Cir. 1987) (Commodity Futures Trading
Commission (“CFTC”) acting as third party intervenor appealing order denying
motion to modify protective order in civil litigation to allow CFTC to obtain
discovery exchanged by parties to civil case permissible because “[t]he entire
controversy between the CFTC and the defendants in this case was disposed of by
the district court’s denial of the government’s motion to modify the protective
order”); Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 46 (2d Cir. 2019) (third party intervenors,
including members of the press, appealing order denying motion to modify
protective order in civil litigation to allow third parties access to sealed filings,
after parties to the litigation settled). Thus, appellate jurisdiction in those cases
analysis. All three are inapposite because they involved appeals by intervenors —
not parties — seeking to modify protective orders in civil cases. See Pichler v.
UNITE, 585 F.3d 741, 745-746 (3d Cir. 2009) (third party intervernor foundation
appealing order denying motion to modify protective order in civil litigation to
allow third party access to discovery materials); Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity
Servs., Inc., 832 F.2d 739, 741 (2d Cir. 1987) (Commodity Futures Trading
Commission (“CFTC”) acting as third party intervenor appealing order denying
motion to modify protective order in civil litigation to allow CFTC to obtain
discovery exchanged by parties to civil case permissible because “[t]he entire
controversy between the CFTC and the defendants in this case was disposed of by
the district court’s denial of the government’s motion to modify the protective
order”); Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 46 (2d Cir. 2019) (third party intervenors,
including members of the press, appealing order denying motion to modify
protective order in civil litigation to allow third parties access to sealed filings,
after parties to the litigation settled). Thus, appellate jurisdiction in those cases
18
DOJ-OGR-00019361
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document