{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "10",
    "document_number": "38",
    "date": "09/16/2020",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 20-3061, Document 38, 09/16/2020, 2932233, Page10 of 23\n\nimperfectly reparable by appellate reversal of a final district court judgment is not sufficient.\" Punn, 737 F.3d at 5 (internal quotation mark omitted) (quoting Mohawk Indus., 558 U.S. at 107). \"Instead, the decisive consideration is whether delaying review until the entry of final judgment 'would imperil a substantial public interest' or 'some particular value of a high order.'\" Mohawk Indus., 558 U.S. at 107 (quoting Will v. Hallock, 546 U.S. 345, 352-53 (2006)); see also Kensington Int'l Ltd. v. Republic of Congo, 461 F.3d 238, 241 (2d Cir. 2006). In a criminal case, the availability of post-judgment relief through reversal or vacatur of conviction, if warranted, will generally be sufficient to protect whatever right a defendant claims was abridged by the district court's pretrial decision. See, e.g., Punn, 737 F.3d at 14 (\"Punn's claim can be adequately vindicated upon appeal from a final judgment. . . . [I]f Punn's arguments continue to fail before the district court, purportedly ill-gotten evidence or its fruits are admitted at his trial, and conviction results, appellate review will be available at that point[,] . . . [and the Court] may order a new trial without the use of the ill-gotten evidence, or whatever additional remedies are necessary to ensure that Punn's legitimate interests are fully preserved.\"); United States v. Hitchcock, 992 F.2d 236, 239 (9th Cir. 1993) (district court's refusal to seal documents not immediately appealable because \"[r]eversal after trial, if it is warranted, will adequately protect . . . interest[s]\" asserted by defendants).\n\n10\n\nDOJ-OGR-00019376",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 20-3061, Document 38, 09/16/2020, 2932233, Page10 of 23",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "imperfectly reparable by appellate reversal of a final district court judgment is not sufficient.\" Punn, 737 F.3d at 5 (internal quotation mark omitted) (quoting Mohawk Indus., 558 U.S. at 107). \"Instead, the decisive consideration is whether delaying review until the entry of final judgment 'would imperil a substantial public interest' or 'some particular value of a high order.'\" Mohawk Indus., 558 U.S. at 107 (quoting Will v. Hallock, 546 U.S. 345, 352-53 (2006)); see also Kensington Int'l Ltd. v. Republic of Congo, 461 F.3d 238, 241 (2d Cir. 2006). In a criminal case, the availability of post-judgment relief through reversal or vacatur of conviction, if warranted, will generally be sufficient to protect whatever right a defendant claims was abridged by the district court's pretrial decision. See, e.g., Punn, 737 F.3d at 14 (\"Punn's claim can be adequately vindicated upon appeal from a final judgment. . . . [I]f Punn's arguments continue to fail before the district court, purportedly ill-gotten evidence or its fruits are admitted at his trial, and conviction results, appellate review will be available at that point[,] . . . [and the Court] may order a new trial without the use of the ill-gotten evidence, or whatever additional remedies are necessary to ensure that Punn's legitimate interests are fully preserved.\"); United States v. Hitchcock, 992 F.2d 236, 239 (9th Cir. 1993) (district court's refusal to seal documents not immediately appealable because \"[r]eversal after trial, if it is warranted, will adequately protect . . . interest[s]\" asserted by defendants).",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "10",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00019376",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "U.S.",
      "Court"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Congo"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "09/16/2020",
      "2006"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "20-3061",
      "38",
      "2932233",
      "737 F.3d",
      "558 U.S.",
      "546 U.S.",
      "461 F.3d",
      "992 F.2d",
      "DOJ-OGR-00019376"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court document, likely from a federal court case. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 10 of 23."
}