DOJ-OGR-00019427.jpg
630 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal brief / appellate filing
File Size:
630 KB
Summary
This is a page from a legal brief filed on September 24, 2020, in Case 20-3061. It argues that Judge Nathan erred by not modifying a protective order, preventing Ghislaine Maxwell from sharing sealed material with Judge Preska, which the defense claims is necessary to protect Maxwell's rights under the *Martindell* precedent. The document highlights the complexity of the litigation, noting that six sets of judicial officers are handling interrelated questions regarding Maxwell.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant/Appellant |
Subject of the legal arguments; seeking modification of a protective order.
|
| Judge Preska | District Judge |
Judge handling a related matter (unsealing of documents) who Maxwell argues needs access to sealed information.
|
| Judge Nathan | District Judge |
Judge whose refusal to modify the protective order is being appealed.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Government |
Opposing party in the criminal case.
|
|
| Court of Appeals |
Implied by 'this Court' and 'panels of this Court' handling the interlocutory appeal.
|
Timeline (2 events)
2020-09-24
Filing of legal document (Document 60) in Case 20-3061.
Court of Appeals (implied)
Ghislaine Maxwell
Legal Counsel
Unspecified
Relationships (2)
Maxwell is appealing Judge Nathan's refusal to modify a protective order.
Maxwell seeks to share sealed information with Judge Preska.
Key Quotes (3)
"Ms. Maxwell may never be able to challenge in the criminal case the government’s violation of her rights under Martindell."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019427.jpg
Quote #1
"Judge Nathan erred in refusing to modify the protective order for the limited purpose of allowing Ms. Maxwell to share with Judge Preska, under seal, material information"Source
DOJ-OGR-00019427.jpg
Quote #2
"This appeal is one part of an extraordinary series of events in which six sets of judicial officers are trying to resolve related... legal questions involving one common party: Ghislaine Maxwell."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019427.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,399 characters)
Case 20-3061, Document 60, 09/24/2020, 2938278, Page28 of 58
opportunity to reevaluate her decision in light of this information, Ms. Maxwell
may never be able to challenge in the criminal case the government’s violation of
her rights under Martindell. Likewise, if Judge Preska is asked to rule on a motion to
stay the unsealing until the conclusion of the criminal case without knowledge that
the sealed materials [REDACTED], Ms. Maxwell
will never be able to challenge that decision. A modification of the protective order
will not prejudice the government, which has not articulated a persuasive reason
why Judge Preska should remain in the dark.
may never be able to challenge in the criminal case the government’s violation of
her rights under Martindell. Likewise, if Judge Preska is asked to rule on a motion to
stay the unsealing until the conclusion of the criminal case without knowledge that
the sealed materials [REDACTED], Ms. Maxwell
will never be able to challenge that decision. A modification of the protective order
will not prejudice the government, which has not articulated a persuasive reason
why Judge Preska should remain in the dark.
Argument
I. Judge Nathan erred in refusing to modify the protective order for the
limited purpose of allowing Ms. Maxwell to share with Judge Preska,
under seal, material information [REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
limited purpose of allowing Ms. Maxwell to share with Judge Preska,
under seal, material information [REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
This appeal is one part of an extraordinary series of events in which six sets
of judicial officers are trying to resolve related—sometimes inextricably
interrelated—legal questions involving one common party: Ghislaine Maxwell.
Those six sets of judicial officers are four district judges [REDACTED]
[REDACTED] and two panels of this Court (the panel
presiding over Giuffre v. Maxwell and the panel presiding over this interlocutory
appeal). Yet because of Ms. Maxwell’s legal opponents’ tactical choices, no one set
of judicial officers are trying to resolve related—sometimes inextricably
interrelated—legal questions involving one common party: Ghislaine Maxwell.
Those six sets of judicial officers are four district judges [REDACTED]
[REDACTED] and two panels of this Court (the panel
presiding over Giuffre v. Maxwell and the panel presiding over this interlocutory
appeal). Yet because of Ms. Maxwell’s legal opponents’ tactical choices, no one set
23
DOJ-OGR-00019427
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document