mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES007/DOJ-OGR-00019426.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "27",
    "document_number": "60",
    "date": "09/24/2020",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 20-3061, Document 60, 09/24/2020, 2938278, Page27 of 58\n\nappealing Judge Nathan's order. A writ of mandamus is appropriate because only this Court can guarantee that all the judges below are on the same page.\n\nIssue Presented\n\nWhether Judge Nathan erred in refusing to modify the protective order for the limited purpose of allowing Ms. Maxwell to share with Judge Preska, under seal,\n\nSummary of the Argument\n\nThis Court has jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine. Judge Nathan's order (1) completely resolved whether the criminal protective order should be modified, (2) that question is an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action, and (3) it is effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment. Alternatively, mandamus review is appropriate to resolve the conflicting decisions below.\n\nOn the merits, this Court should permit modification of the criminal order so Ms. Maxwell can share with Judge Preska, under seal, just how the government came to possess her deposition transcripts,\n\nAt this point, Judge Preska is the only relevant participant who doesn't know this information. If Judge Preska's order unsealing the deposition transcript goes into effect without Judge Preska being offered an\n\n22\n\nDOJ-OGR-00019426",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 20-3061, Document 60, 09/24/2020, 2938278, Page27 of 58",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "appealing Judge Nathan's order. A writ of mandamus is appropriate because only this Court can guarantee that all the judges below are on the same page.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Issue Presented",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Whether Judge Nathan erred in refusing to modify the protective order for the limited purpose of allowing Ms. Maxwell to share with Judge Preska, under seal,",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Summary of the Argument",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "This Court has jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine. Judge Nathan's order (1) completely resolved whether the criminal protective order should be modified, (2) that question is an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action, and (3) it is effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment. Alternatively, mandamus review is appropriate to resolve the conflicting decisions below.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "On the merits, this Court should permit modification of the criminal order so Ms. Maxwell can share with Judge Preska, under seal, just how the government came to possess her deposition transcripts,",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "At this point, Judge Preska is the only relevant participant who doesn't know this information. If Judge Preska's order unsealing the deposition transcript goes into effect without Judge Preska being offered an",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "22",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00019426",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Judge Nathan",
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Judge Preska"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Court"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "09/24/2020"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "20-3061",
      "60",
      "2938278",
      "DOJ-OGR-00019426"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a case involving Ms. Maxwell. There are several redactions throughout the document."
}