DOJ-OGR-00019602.jpg
705 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
1
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
705 KB
Summary
This legal document is a filing in Ms. Maxwell's civil appeal, arguing against an order by Judge Preska to unseal her deposition. The core argument is that unsealing the deposition would prejudice her ability to properly litigate the government's conduct (the 'Martindell' issue) before Judge Nathan in her separate criminal case. The document refutes the government's characterization of her argument, stating she is not asking the appeals court to rule on the merits of the criminal case issue, but rather to preserve the status quo to protect her Fifth Amendment rights.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Maxwell | Appellant |
The subject of the legal filing, arguing against the unsealing of her deposition material in a civil appeal to avoid ...
|
| Judge Preska | Judge |
The judge whose order to unseal deposition material is being appealed by Ms. Maxwell.
|
| Judge Nathan | Judge |
The judge presiding over Ms. Maxwell's criminal case, before whom she intends to make an argument regarding 'Martinde...
|
| Martindell |
Mentioned in the context of a legal principle or case ('Martindell' issue) that Ms. Maxwell wants to litigate in her ...
|
|
| Giuffre | Party in a lawsuit |
Mentioned in the case citation 'Giuffre v. Maxwell', indicating they are the opposing party in the civil case.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| District Court | government agency |
Mentioned as the court where the criminal case is being adjudicated.
|
Timeline (2 events)
A civil appeal by Ms. Maxwell regarding Judge Preska's order to unseal deposition material.
A criminal case against Ms. Maxwell, presided over by Judge Nathan.
District Court
Relationships (2)
The document describes Ms. Maxwell's legal arguments against the government's position in both a civil appeal and a criminal case.
The case is cited as 'Giuffre v. Maxwell', indicating they are opposing parties in a lawsuit.
Key Quotes (2)
"The civil case is not the appropriate forum to litigate the government’s apparent violation of Martindell. Ms. Maxwell intends to make that argument to Judge Nathan in the criminal case. But if Judge Preska’s unsealing order is affirmed and Ms. Maxwell’s deposition is released, her ability to make that argument before Judge Nathan will be prejudiced. Keeping the deposition material sealed will preserve the status quo and protect Ms. Maxwell’s right to litigate Martindell and the Fifth Amendment in the criminal proceeding."Source
— Ms. Maxwell
(Quoted from Ms. Maxwell's opening brief in the appeal of Judge Preska's unsealing order.)
DOJ-OGR-00019602.jpg
Quote #1
"seeks to have this Court reach the merits of her arguments on [the Martindell] issue in the context of the civil appeal, and before they have been properly litigated before and adjudicated by the District Court in the criminal case."Source
— government
(A characterization of Ms. Maxwell's argument by the government, which the document claims is a mischaracterization.)
DOJ-OGR-00019602.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,608 characters)
Case 20-3061, Document 69, 09/28/2020, 2940206, Page11 of 15
District Court in the criminal case.” Doc. 37, p 17 (emphasis in original). That is not so.
In the civil appeal, Ms. Maxwell is not asking this Court to rule on the propriety of the government’s conduct in circumventing Martindell. Rather, Ms. Maxwell’s argument in the civil appeal is that, unless this Court reverses Judge Preska’s order unsealing the deposition material, Ms. Maxwell may never be able to challenge before Judge Nathan the government’s conduct in obtaining her depositions. As Ms. Maxwell said in her opening brief in the appeal of Judge Preska’s unsealing order:
The civil case is not the appropriate forum to litigate the government’s apparent violation of Martindell. Ms. Maxwell intends to make that argument to Judge Nathan in the criminal case. But if Judge Preska’s unsealing order is affirmed and Ms. Maxwell’s deposition is released, her ability to make that argument before Judge Nathan will be prejudiced. Keeping the deposition material sealed will preserve the status quo and protect Ms. Maxwell’s right to litigate Martindell and the Fifth Amendment in the criminal proceeding.
Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 20-2413, ECF Dkt. 69, p 33. Only by mischaracterizing Ms. Maxwell’s argument can the government contend that she “seeks to have this Court reach the merits of her arguments on [the Martindell] issue in the context of the civil appeal, and before they have been properly litigated before and adjudicated by the District Court in the criminal case.” See Doc. 37, p 17. Ms. Maxwell’s point
10
DOJ-OGR-00019602
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document