mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES007/DOJ-OGR-00019386.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "20",
    "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, Page20 of 23\n\nthese reasons alone, the Court should deny Maxwell's motion to consolidate these appeals.\n\n27. Maxwell has filed two separate appeals challenging two different orders by two different district judges. But Maxwell's consolidation motion makes plain that her goal — in both appeals — is to ask this Court to rule on an entirely different question: the lawfulness of the Government's applications to modify certain protective orders in other judicial proceedings. Maxwell's strategy is procedurally improper, for at least two reasons. First, none of the applications or orders with which Maxwell takes issue are before this Court for review — the civil appeal concerns Judge Preska's unsealing order, and this criminal appeal concerns Judge Nathan's Order denying Maxwell's request to modify the Protective Order. Maxwell's motion to consolidate offers no coherent explanation of the connection between the legality of the Government's prior applications and those two appeals. Indeed, as Judge Nathan found, Maxwell has failed to explain, despite a high volume of \"heated rhetoric,\" how those applications could have any possible impact on Judge Preska's decision to unseal filings in the civil litigation. (Ex. F at 3). Second, if Maxwell seeks to challenge the manner in which the Government gathered evidence in a criminal investigation, neither the civil appeal nor this interlocutory criminal appeal is the appropriate forum for her arguments on that score. Maxwell will have the opportunity to raise\n\n20\n\nDOJ-OGR-00019386",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 20-3061, Document 38, 09/16/2020, 2932233, Page20 of 23",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "these reasons alone, the Court should deny Maxwell's motion to consolidate these appeals.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "27. Maxwell has filed two separate appeals challenging two different orders by two different district judges. But Maxwell's consolidation motion makes plain that her goal — in both appeals — is to ask this Court to rule on an entirely different question: the lawfulness of the Government's applications to modify certain protective orders in other judicial proceedings. Maxwell's strategy is procedurally improper, for at least two reasons. First, none of the applications or orders with which Maxwell takes issue are before this Court for review — the civil appeal concerns Judge Preska's unsealing order, and this criminal appeal concerns Judge Nathan's Order denying Maxwell's request to modify the Protective Order. Maxwell's motion to consolidate offers no coherent explanation of the connection between the legality of the Government's prior applications and those two appeals. Indeed, as Judge Nathan found, Maxwell has failed to explain, despite a high volume of \"heated rhetoric,\" how those applications could have any possible impact on Judge Preska's decision to unseal filings in the civil litigation. (Ex. F at 3). Second, if Maxwell seeks to challenge the manner in which the Government gathered evidence in a criminal investigation, neither the civil appeal nor this interlocutory criminal appeal is the appropriate forum for her arguments on that score. Maxwell will have the opportunity to raise",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "20",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00019386",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell",
      "Judge Preska",
      "Judge Nathan"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "09/16/2020"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 20-3061",
      "Document 38",
      "DOJ-OGR-00019386"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a case involving Maxwell. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 20 of 23."
}