mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES007/DOJ-OGR-00019379.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "13",
    "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, Page13 of 23\n\nrule is “interpreted . . . ‘with the utmost strictness,’” the appeal should be dismissed. Midland Asphalt, 489 U.S. at 799 (quoting Flanagan, 465 U.S. at 265). Among other things, the Order does not meet the third criterion of the standard for identifying immediately appealable collateral orders, which requires that the order being appealed from be “effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.” Van Cauwenberghe, 486 U.S. at 522 (internal quotation mark omitted) (quoting Coopers & Lybrand, 437 U.S. at 468). Accordingly, this Court does not have jurisdiction to review the Order, and Maxwell’s appeal should be dismissed.\n\n17. As an initial matter, when evaluating Maxwell’s appeal, this Court cannot engage in an “individualized jurisdictional inquiry” based on the facts of this case, but instead must focus on the “entire category to which a claim belongs.” Mohawk, 558 U.S. at 107 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Coopers & Lybrand, 437 U.S. at 473; Digital Equipment Corp. v. Desktop Direct, Inc., 511 U.S. 863, 868 (1994)). Here, like any other order regulating the use of discovery materials exchanged by the parties during litigation, Judge Nathan’s Order declining to modify the Protective Order in this criminal case is not subject to interlocutory appeal. See Pappas, 94 F.3d at 798; Capiro, 800 F.2d at 24-26.\n\n18. There can be no serious suggestion that this Order falls within the four categories of orders that the Supreme Court has identified as appealable prejudgment in criminal cases, as the Order does not address bail, double jeopardy,\n\n13\n\nDOJ-OGR-00019379",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 20-3061, Document 38, 09/16/2020, 2932233, Page13 of 23",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "rule is “interpreted . . . ‘with the utmost strictness,’” the appeal should be dismissed. Midland Asphalt, 489 U.S. at 799 (quoting Flanagan, 465 U.S. at 265). Among other things, the Order does not meet the third criterion of the standard for identifying immediately appealable collateral orders, which requires that the order being appealed from be “effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.” Van Cauwenberghe, 486 U.S. at 522 (internal quotation mark omitted) (quoting Coopers & Lybrand, 437 U.S. at 468). Accordingly, this Court does not have jurisdiction to review the Order, and Maxwell’s appeal should be dismissed.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "17. As an initial matter, when evaluating Maxwell’s appeal, this Court cannot engage in an “individualized jurisdictional inquiry” based on the facts of this case, but instead must focus on the “entire category to which a claim belongs.” Mohawk, 558 U.S. at 107 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Coopers & Lybrand, 437 U.S. at 473; Digital Equipment Corp. v. Desktop Direct, Inc., 511 U.S. 863, 868 (1994)). Here, like any other order regulating the use of discovery materials exchanged by the parties during litigation, Judge Nathan’s Order declining to modify the Protective Order in this criminal case is not subject to interlocutory appeal. See Pappas, 94 F.3d at 798; Capiro, 800 F.2d at 24-26.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "18. There can be no serious suggestion that this Order falls within the four categories of orders that the Supreme Court has identified as appealable prejudgment in criminal cases, as the Order does not address bail, double jeopardy,",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "13",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00019379",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell",
      "Nathan"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Supreme Court"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "09/16/2020"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 20-3061",
      "Document 38",
      "DOJ-OGR-00019379"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Maxwell. The text discusses the appealability of a court order and cites various legal precedents. The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
}