mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES007/DOJ-OGR-00019632.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "25",
    "document_number": "82",
    "date": "10/02/2020",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 20-3061, Document 82, 10/02/2020, 2944267, Page25 of 37\n\n19\n\nMaxwell nevertheless argues that reversal of the Order is necessary to prevent documents in a civil case from being unsealed. As further described below, 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. Second, and as further described below, Maxwell is already able to share the essential facts she wishes to convey under Judge Nathan's Order. As such, she has not shown how the Order damages her in any way. See Caparros, 800 F.2d at 26 (without a showing of serious harm, \"review cannot be granted under section 1292(a)(1)\").6\n\n(Br. 14). That remains to be seen. In the meantime, the litigation of this appeal undoubtedly consumes the resources of the parties, who must now litigate an issue twice in the middle of a pending criminal case—once before the District Court and a second time before this Court. It would be a much more efficient use of resources for the parties to focus on completing the criminal discovery process, preparing pretrial motions, and trial, after which any appeal consolidating all claimed errors could be taken.\n\n6 As noted in the Government's Motion to Dismiss, 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) provides that Courts of Appeals shall have jurisdiction over \"[i]nterlocutory orders of the district courts of the United States . . . or of the judges thereof, granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions, or refusing to dis-\n\nDOJ-OGR-00019632",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 20-3061, Document 82, 10/02/2020, 2944267, Page25 of 37",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "19",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Maxwell nevertheless argues that reversal of the Order is necessary to prevent documents in a civil case from being unsealed. As further described below, 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. Second, and as further described below, Maxwell is already able to share the essential facts she wishes to convey under Judge Nathan's Order. As such, she has not shown how the Order damages her in any way. See Caparros, 800 F.2d at 26 (without a showing of serious harm, \"review cannot be granted under section 1292(a)(1)\").6",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "(Br. 14). That remains to be seen. In the meantime, the litigation of this appeal undoubtedly consumes the resources of the parties, who must now litigate an issue twice in the middle of a pending criminal case—once before the District Court and a second time before this Court. It would be a much more efficient use of resources for the parties to focus on completing the criminal discovery process, preparing pretrial motions, and trial, after which any appeal consolidating all claimed errors could be taken.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "6 As noted in the Government's Motion to Dismiss, 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) provides that Courts of Appeals shall have jurisdiction over \"[i]nterlocutory orders of the district courts of the United States . . . or of the judges thereof, granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions, or refusing to dis-",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00019632",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell",
      "Judge Nathan"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government",
      "District Court",
      "Courts of Appeals"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "United States"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "10/02/2020"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "20-3061",
      "82",
      "2944267",
      "25",
      "DOJ-OGR-00019632"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a case involving Maxwell. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}