Relationship Details

This is a page from a legal brief filed on September 28, 2020, in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (Case 20-3061). The text argues that a district court's refusal to modify a protective order is immediately appealable under the 'collateral order doctrine.' The filing contends that the appeal is necessary to share 'critical new information' with Judge Preska before deposition materials in the civil case *Giuffre v. Maxwell* are unsealed, arguing that post-judgment review would be moot.

This document is page 2 (labeled Page 5 of 23 in header) of a legal brief filed on October 8, 2020, in Case 20-3061 involving Ghislaine Maxwell. The text argues against the government's stance on Maxwell's Fifth Amendment rights and civil protective order, specifically criticizing the government for claiming Maxwell failed to articulate why Judge Preska needs certain information (which is redacted). The document also begins a section on 'Jurisdiction,' outlining the three conditions for interlocutory review under the collateral order doctrine, citing 'Will v. Hallock'.

This document is page 6 of a legal brief (likely a reply brief) filed on October 8, 2020, in the case of United States v. Maxwell (Case 20-3061). It argues that the appellate court has jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine to review Judge Nathan's order regarding a criminal protective order. The text notes that Maxwell is scheduled for trial in July 2021 and explicitly seeks permission to share specific information (which is redacted in the text) with Judge Preska and the appellate court under seal.