DOJ-OGR-00019594.jpg
604 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
7
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing / court brief (appeal)
File Size:
604 KB
Summary
This document is page 3 of a legal brief (Case 20-3061) filed on September 28, 2020, arguing that the appellate court has jurisdiction to review a district court's decision regarding a protective order in the Ghislaine Maxwell case. The text focuses on the 'collateral order doctrine' and cites legal precedents to support the claim that the unsealing order can be appealed immediately without waiting for the criminal trial to conclude. It mentions Ms. Maxwell's intention to stay the unsealing process.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant / Appellant |
Mentioned as 'Ms. Maxwell'; document discusses her intended motion to stay the unsealing process.
|
| Pichler | Legal Citation Party |
Plaintiff in cited case Pichler v. UNITE.
|
| Cohen | Legal Citation Party |
Plaintiff in cited case Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.
|
| Brown | Legal Citation Party |
Mentioned in 'see also Brown v.' at the bottom of the page.
|
Organizations (7)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| UNITE |
Defendant in cited case Pichler v. UNITE.
|
|
| Minpeco S.A. |
Plaintiff in cited case Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity Servs., Inc.
|
|
| Conticommodity Servs., Inc. |
Defendant in cited case Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity Servs., Inc.
|
|
| Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. |
Defendant in cited case Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.
|
|
| 3d Cir. |
Third Circuit Court (legal citation source).
|
|
| 2d Cir. |
Second Circuit Court (legal citation source).
|
|
| Department of Justice (DOJ) |
Implied by Bates stamp prefix 'DOJ-OGR'.
|
Relationships (1)
Document discusses Ms. Maxwell's motions and the district court's abuse of discretion.
Key Quotes (3)
"The validity of the order can be assessed now without waiting until the trial is complete, and nothing about this appeal delays the criminal case."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019594.jpg
Quote #1
"This Court has jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine to review a district court decision declining to modify the protective order."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019594.jpg
Quote #2
"Alternatively, for the reasons given below, this Court can exercise mandamus jurisdiction to correct the district court’s clear abuse of discretion."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019594.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,377 characters)
Case 20-3061, Document 69, 09/28/2020, 2940206, Page3 of 15
other unsealing requests and Ms. Maxwell’s intended motion to stay the unsealing
process, all without the benefit of knowing information relevant to those decisions).
process, all without the benefit of knowing information relevant to those decisions).
Finally, the exercise of jurisdiction here adheres to the purposes of the
collateral order doctrine. The validity of the order can be assessed now without
waiting until the trial is complete, and nothing about this appeal delays the criminal
case.
collateral order doctrine. The validity of the order can be assessed now without
waiting until the trial is complete, and nothing about this appeal delays the criminal
case.
Alternatively, for the reasons given below, this Court can exercise
mandamus jurisdiction to correct the district court’s clear abuse of discretion.
mandamus jurisdiction to correct the district court’s clear abuse of discretion.
Argument
I. This Court has jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine.
This Court has jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine to review a
district court decision declining to modify the protective order. Pichler v. UNITE,
585 F.3d 741, 746 n.6 (3d Cir. 2009) (“We have jurisdiction under the collateral
order doctrine to review the denial of the motion to modify the Protective Order
and the denial of the motion to reconsider.”); Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity
Servs., Inc., 832 F.2d 739, 742 (2d Cir. 1987) (denial of motion to modify protective
order is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine) (citing Cohen v.
Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545–47 (1949)); see also Brown v.
district court decision declining to modify the protective order. Pichler v. UNITE,
585 F.3d 741, 746 n.6 (3d Cir. 2009) (“We have jurisdiction under the collateral
order doctrine to review the denial of the motion to modify the Protective Order
and the denial of the motion to reconsider.”); Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity
Servs., Inc., 832 F.2d 739, 742 (2d Cir. 1987) (denial of motion to modify protective
order is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine) (citing Cohen v.
Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545–47 (1949)); see also Brown v.
2
DOJ-OGR-00019594
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document