DOJ-OGR-00019363.jpg
668 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing / court brief (appellate)
File Size:
668 KB
Summary
This document is page 21 of a legal filing (Case 20-3061) dated September 16, 2020. The Government argues that the Court should deny Ghislaine Maxwell's motion to consolidate two separate appeals (one civil regarding unsealing, one criminal regarding a protective order). The text asserts that Maxwell's strategy is procedurally improper and attempts to litigate the Government's evidence-gathering methods in the wrong forum.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant/Appellant |
Filed two separate appeals and a motion to consolidate them; accused of using 'heated rhetoric'.
|
| Judge Preska | District Judge |
Presided over the civil litigation; issued an 'unsealing order' which Maxwell is appealing.
|
| Judge Nathan | District Judge |
Presided over the criminal case; issued an order denying Maxwell's request to modify the Protective Order.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Government |
The prosecution/appellee; defending the lawfulness of applications to modify protective orders.
|
|
| Court |
The appellate court reviewing the motion to consolidate.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (implied by Bates stamp DOJ-OGR).
|
Timeline (3 events)
2020-09-16
Filing of Document 37 in Case 20-3061 opposing Maxwell's motion to consolidate appeals.
Court of Appeals
Prior to 2020-09-16
Judge Preska issues unsealing order in civil litigation.
District Court
Prior to 2020-09-16
Judge Nathan denies Maxwell's request to modify Protective Order.
District Court
Relationships (2)
Maxwell is appealing Judge Preska's unsealing order.
Maxwell is appealing Judge Nathan's order concerning the Protective Order.
Key Quotes (3)
"Maxwell’s strategy is procedurally improper, for at least two reasons."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019363.jpg
Quote #1
"Maxwell has failed to explain, despite a high volume of “heated rhetoric,” how those applications could have any possible impact on Judge Preska’s decision to unseal filings in the civil litigation."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019363.jpg
Quote #2
"Maxwell’s motion to consolidate offers no coherent explanation of the connection between the legality of the Government’s prior applications and those two appeals."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019363.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,587 characters)
Case 20-3061, Document 37, 09/16/2020, 2932231, Page21 of 24
these reasons alone, the Court should deny Maxwell’s motion to consolidate these
appeals.
appeals.
27. Maxwell has filed two separate appeals challenging two
different orders by two different district judges. But Maxwell’s consolidation
motion makes plain that her goal — in both appeals — is to ask this Court to rule
on an entirely different question: the lawfulness of the Government’s applications
to modify certain protective orders in other judicial proceedings. Maxwell’s
strategy is procedurally improper, for at least two reasons. First, none of the
applications or orders with which Maxwell takes issue are before this Court for
review — the civil appeal concerns Judge Preska’s unsealing order, and this
criminal appeal concerns Judge Nathan’s Order denying Maxwell’s request to
modify the Protective Order. Maxwell’s motion to consolidate offers no coherent
explanation of the connection between the legality of the Government’s prior
applications and those two appeals. Indeed, as Judge Nathan found, Maxwell has
failed to explain, despite a high volume of “heated rhetoric,” how those
applications could have any possible impact on Judge Preska’s decision to unseal
filings in the civil litigation. (Ex. F at 3). Second, if Maxwell seeks to challenge
the manner in which the Government gathered evidence in a criminal investigation,
neither the civil appeal nor this interlocutory criminal appeal is the appropriate
forum for her arguments on that score. Maxwell will have the opportunity to raise
different orders by two different district judges. But Maxwell’s consolidation
motion makes plain that her goal — in both appeals — is to ask this Court to rule
on an entirely different question: the lawfulness of the Government’s applications
to modify certain protective orders in other judicial proceedings. Maxwell’s
strategy is procedurally improper, for at least two reasons. First, none of the
applications or orders with which Maxwell takes issue are before this Court for
review — the civil appeal concerns Judge Preska’s unsealing order, and this
criminal appeal concerns Judge Nathan’s Order denying Maxwell’s request to
modify the Protective Order. Maxwell’s motion to consolidate offers no coherent
explanation of the connection between the legality of the Government’s prior
applications and those two appeals. Indeed, as Judge Nathan found, Maxwell has
failed to explain, despite a high volume of “heated rhetoric,” how those
applications could have any possible impact on Judge Preska’s decision to unseal
filings in the civil litigation. (Ex. F at 3). Second, if Maxwell seeks to challenge
the manner in which the Government gathered evidence in a criminal investigation,
neither the civil appeal nor this interlocutory criminal appeal is the appropriate
forum for her arguments on that score. Maxwell will have the opportunity to raise
20
DOJ-OGR-00019363
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document