mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES007/DOJ-OGR-00019385.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "19",
    "document_number": "38",
    "date": "09/16/2020",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "was founded on the principle that when intervenors seek access to sealed records, \"orders denying access are final as to the intervenors.\" Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 117 (2d Cir. 2006) (emphasis added). By contrast, rulings governing the parties' use of discovery materials — such as Judge Nathan's Order here — are not appealable in the context of a criminal prosecution until after judgment is entered. See Caparros, 800 F.2d at 24; Pappas, 94 F.3d at 798.\n\n24. Judge Nathan's Order does not fall into one of the narrow categories of decisions in a criminal case reviewable on interlocutory appeal. Accordingly, Maxwell's appeal should be dismissed.\n\nII. THE MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE SHOULD BE DENIED\n\n25. Even if Maxwell's appeal is not dismissed — which it should be — her motion to consolidate the appeal in this criminal case with the appeal in the Giuffre v. Maxwell civil case should be denied.\n\n26. Despite Maxwell's efforts to characterize this criminal case as somehow intertwined with the Giuffre civil case, the issues on appeal are factually and legally distinct. The civil appeal concerns Judge Preska's order unsealing civil litigation materials. The Government is not a party to the civil suit, the Government has never intervened or appeared in the civil suit, the Government has had no role in the litigation that resulted in Judge Preska's order, and the Government has no legal interest in the relief Maxwell seeks in the civil case. For",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "was founded on the principle that when intervenors seek access to sealed records, \"orders denying access are final as to the intervenors.\" Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 117 (2d Cir. 2006) (emphasis added). By contrast, rulings governing the parties' use of discovery materials — such as Judge Nathan's Order here — are not appealable in the context of a criminal prosecution until after judgment is entered. See Caparros, 800 F.2d at 24; Pappas, 94 F.3d at 798.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "24. Judge Nathan's Order does not fall into one of the narrow categories of decisions in a criminal case reviewable on interlocutory appeal. Accordingly, Maxwell's appeal should be dismissed.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "II. THE MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE SHOULD BE DENIED",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "25. Even if Maxwell's appeal is not dismissed — which it should be — her motion to consolidate the appeal in this criminal case with the appeal in the Giuffre v. Maxwell civil case should be denied.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "26. Despite Maxwell's efforts to characterize this criminal case as somehow intertwined with the Giuffre civil case, the issues on appeal are factually and legally distinct. The civil appeal concerns Judge Preska's order unsealing civil litigation materials. The Government is not a party to the civil suit, the Government has never intervened or appeared in the civil suit, the Government has had no role in the litigation that resulted in Judge Preska's order, and the Government has no legal interest in the relief Maxwell seeks in the civil case. For",
      "position": "bottom"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell",
      "Nathan",
      "Preska",
      "Giuffre"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Onondaga"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "09/16/2020"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "20-3061",
      "Document 38",
      "2932233",
      "Page 19 of 23",
      "DOJ-OGR-00019385"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case involving Maxwell. The text discusses the appeal process and the motion to consolidate the appeal with a civil case. The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
}