{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "10",
    "document_number": "94",
    "date": "10/08/2020",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 20-3061, Document 94, 10/08/2020, 2948481, Page10 of 23\nCourt reviewing Judge Preska's decision deserve to know now , a post-trial appeal is insufficient. This Court, therefore, has jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine, because Judge Nathan's order is effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment. See Will, 546 U.S. at 349. In its final argument, the government says Ms. Maxwell \"fails to explain how the way the Government obtained the confidential criminal discovery materials at issue has any bearing on or in any way affects First Amendment principles governing unsealing decisions in a civil case.\" Ans.Br. 19. The government also claims that Ms. Maxwell \"is already able to share the essential facts she wishes to convey under Judge Nathan's Order.\" Ans.Br. 19. Neither contention has merit. The first contention is a retread of the government's response to Ms. Maxwell's motion to consolidate, in which the government professed not to understand the relationship between the two cases. Doc. 39, pp 19-21, ¶¶ 26-27. 7 DOJ-OGR-00019656",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 20-3061, Document 94, 10/08/2020, 2948481, Page10 of 23",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Court reviewing Judge Preska's decision deserve to know now , a post-trial appeal is insufficient. This Court, therefore, has jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine, because Judge Nathan's order is effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment. See Will, 546 U.S. at 349. In its final argument, the government says Ms. Maxwell \"fails to explain how the way the Government obtained the confidential criminal discovery materials at issue has any bearing on or in any way affects First Amendment principles governing unsealing decisions in a civil case.\" Ans.Br. 19. The government also claims that Ms. Maxwell \"is already able to share the essential facts she wishes to convey under Judge Nathan's Order.\" Ans.Br. 19. Neither contention has merit. The first contention is a retread of the government's response to Ms. Maxwell's motion to consolidate, in which the government professed not to understand the relationship between the two cases. Doc. 39, pp 19-21, ¶¶ 26-27.",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "7",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00019656",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Judge Preska",
      "Judge Nathan",
      "Ms. Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "10/08/2020"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 20-3061",
      "Document 94",
      "2948481",
      "Doc. 39",
      "DOJ-OGR-00019656"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document contains redactions, indicated by black bars. The text is a court document, likely related to a case involving Ms. Maxwell."
}