DOJ-OGR-00019629.jpg
687 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
687 KB
Summary
This legal document is a page from a court filing, likely a brief or opinion, dated October 2, 2020. It argues against allowing an immediate, or interlocutory, appeal from a person named Maxwell regarding a Protective Order. The text cites several legal precedents (Mohawk, Pappas, Van Cauwenberghe) to support the position that such orders are not appealable until after a final judgment is rendered in the case.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Nelson | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Nelson, 277 F.3d 164, 201-04, 213 (2d Cir. 2002)'.
|
| Caparros | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned in reference to a protective order in a case, stating 'like the protective order in Caparros, the Order her...
|
| Maxwell | Appellant |
The subject of the legal evaluation, whose appeal is being discussed. Mentioned multiple times, e.g., 'In evaluating ...
|
| Pappas | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'Pappas, 94 F.3d at 798'.
|
| Van Cauwenberghe | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'Van Cauwenberghe, 486 U.S. at 522'.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States | government agency |
Mentioned as a party in the case 'United States v. Nelson'.
|
| Court | judicial body |
Referenced throughout the document as the body evaluating Maxwell's appeal.
|
Key Quotes (5)
"not engage in an individualized jurisdictional inquiry,"Source
— Mohawk, 558 U.S. at 107
(Quoted to describe how the Court should evaluate Maxwell's appeal.)
DOJ-OGR-00019629.jpg
Quote #1
"on the entire category to which a claim belongs."Source
— Mohawk, 558 U.S. at 107
(Quoted to describe how the Court should evaluate Maxwell's appeal.)
DOJ-OGR-00019629.jpg
Quote #2
"[p]rotective orders that only regulate materials exchanged between the parties incident to litigation, like most discovery orders, are neither final orders, appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, nor injunctions, appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1)."Source
— Pappas, 94 F.3d at 798
(Quoted to explain why the Order declining to modify the Protective Order is not subject to interlocutory appeal.)
DOJ-OGR-00019629.jpg
Quote #3
"effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment."Source
— Van Cauwenberghe, 486 U.S. at 522
(Quoted as the third criterion for immediately appealable collateral orders, which Maxwell's claim does not meet.)
DOJ-OGR-00019629.jpg
Quote #4
"will become moot if review awaits conviction and sentence."Source
— Maxwell's brief (Br. 13)
(Maxwell's argument for likening her appeal to one denying a motion to reduce bail.)
DOJ-OGR-00019629.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,760 characters)
Case 20-3061, Document 82, 10/02/2020, 2944267, Page22 of 37
16
judgment appeal whether publicity biased trial jurors); United States v. Nelson, 277 F.3d 164, 201-04, 213 (2d Cir. 2002) (vacating conviction where district court improperly refused to excuse potential juror who admitted bias based upon knowledge of defendant’s previous acquittal). Accordingly, like the protective order in Caparros, the Order here will still be reviewable on appeal after entry of final judgment.
In evaluating Maxwell’s appeal, the Court should “not engage in an individualized jurisdictional inquiry,” but instead focus “on the entire category to which a claim belongs.” Mohawk, 558 U.S. at 107. The Order declining to modify the Protective Order is not subject to interlocutory appeal as “[p]rotective orders that only regulate materials exchanged between the parties incident to litigation, like most discovery orders, are neither final orders, appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, nor injunctions, appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).” Pappas, 94 F.3d at 798.
Maxwell nevertheless asks this Court to engage in an individualized jurisdictional inquiry to justify her immediate appeal. Contrary to Maxwell’s claims, the Order does not meet the third criterion of the standard for identifying immediately appealable collateral orders, which requires that the order being appealed from be “effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.” Van Cauwenberghe, 486 U.S. at 522. She likens her claim here to an appeal of an order denying a motion to reduce bail, arguing that her appeal “will become moot if review awaits conviction and sentence.” (Br. 13 (quotation omitted)). But that is not so. In an order denying a motion to reduce bail, the
DOJ-OGR-00019629
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document