mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES007/DOJ-OGR-00019414.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "15",
    "document_number": "60",
    "date": "09/24/2020",
    "document_type": "Jurisdictional Statement",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 20-3061, Document 60, 09/24/2020, 2938278, Page15 of 58\n\nJurisdictional Statement\n\nThis Court has jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine to review a district court decision declining to modify the protective order. Pichler v. UNITE, 585 F.3d 741, 746 n.6 (3d Cir. 2009) (“We have jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine to review the denial of the motion to modify the Protective Order and the denial of the motion to reconsider.”); Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity Servs., Inc., 832 F.2d 739, 742 (2d Cir. 1987) (denial of motion to modify protective order is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine) (citing Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-47 (1949)); see also Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 44 (2d Cir. 2019) (appeal by intervenors challenging denial of motions to modify protective order and unseal).\n\nUnder the collateral order doctrine, an interlocutory order is immediately appealable if it (1) conclusively determines the disputed question, (2) resolves an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action, and (3) is effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment. Will v. Hallock, 546 U.S. 345, 349 (2006) (citing Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 144 (1993)).\n\nThe district court’s order declining to modify the protective order meets all three requirements: the court conclusively decided not to modify the protective\n\n10\n\nDOJ-OGR-00019414",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 20-3061, Document 60, 09/24/2020, 2938278, Page15 of 58",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Jurisdictional Statement",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "This Court has jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine to review a district court decision declining to modify the protective order. Pichler v. UNITE, 585 F.3d 741, 746 n.6 (3d Cir. 2009) (“We have jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine to review the denial of the motion to modify the Protective Order and the denial of the motion to reconsider.”); Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity Servs., Inc., 832 F.2d 739, 742 (2d Cir. 1987) (denial of motion to modify protective order is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine) (citing Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-47 (1949)); see also Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 44 (2d Cir. 2019) (appeal by intervenors challenging denial of motions to modify protective order and unseal).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Under the collateral order doctrine, an interlocutory order is immediately appealable if it (1) conclusively determines the disputed question, (2) resolves an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action, and (3) is effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment. Will v. Hallock, 546 U.S. 345, 349 (2006) (citing Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 144 (1993)).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The district court’s order declining to modify the protective order meets all three requirements: the court conclusively decided not to modify the protective",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "10",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00019414",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [
      "Puerto Rico"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "09/24/2020",
      "2009",
      "1987",
      "1949",
      "2019",
      "2006",
      "1993"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "20-3061",
      "60",
      "2938278",
      "15",
      "DOJ-OGR-00019414"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a legal brief or court filing, with a formal tone and citations to case law. The text is printed, with no handwritten annotations or stamps visible."
}