Event Details

This document is page 17 of a legal filing from September 2020, arguing against Ghislaine Maxwell's attempts to consolidate a civil appeal with issues related to her criminal case. The text argues that Maxwell is prematurely trying to challenge the Government's evidence-gathering methods (subpoenas) in the appellate court before Judge Nathan has had the opportunity to rule on them in the District Court criminal trial.

This page is from a legal brief (Document 38, Case 20-3061) dated September 16, 2020. It argues against an immediate appeal by Ghislaine Maxwell regarding the unsealing of civil case documents. The text contends that any potential prejudice to her criminal trial (due to publicity) can be adequately addressed through a standard appeal after a final judgment, rather than an interlocutory appeal.

This page from a legal filing (Case 20-3061) argues that an order denying Ghislaine Maxwell's motion to amend a Protective Order is not subject to interlocutory appeal. The text cites various legal precedents (Nelson, Midland Asphalt, Punn) to support the argument that her rights to a fair trial can be vindicated after a final judgment or during the criminal trial itself. It addresses Maxwell's concern that unsealing documents in civil cases might prejudice her criminal trial, asserting she can raise those issues in the criminal case if they arise.

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.