mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES007/DOJ-OGR-00019593.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "2",
    "document_number": "69",
    "date": "09/28/2020",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 20-3061, Document 69, 09/28/2020, 2940206, Page2 of 15\n\nBackground\n\nThis appeal challenges the district court's order denying Ms. Maxwell's motion to modify the protective order. Ms. Maxwell's limited request sought permission from Judge Nathan to share certain information with another Article III judge.\n\nThe government contends this Court lacks jurisdiction to review Judge Nathan's order. But if the government is right, then Judge Nathan's order is unreviewable. The collateral order doctrine is not so rigid.\n\nWhile an interlocutory appeal is the exception and not the rule, all the conditions required to satisfy the collateral order doctrine exist here. First, Judge Nathan's order conclusively determined the disputed question (whether Ms. Maxwell could share relevant and material information with another Article III judge). Second, Judge Nathan's order resolved an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action (whether it is proper for one Article III judge, at the request of the government, to keep secret from a co-equal judge information relevant and material to the second judge's role in deciding a matter before her).\n\nAnd third, Judge Nathan's order is effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment (by the time of a final judgment, Judge Preska's order unsealing the deposition material will have gone into effect and Judge Preska will have ruled on 1\n\nDOJ-OGR-00019593",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 20-3061, Document 69, 09/28/2020, 2940206, Page2 of 15",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Background",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "This appeal challenges the district court's order denying Ms. Maxwell's motion to modify the protective order. Ms. Maxwell's limited request sought permission from Judge Nathan to share certain information with another Article III judge.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The government contends this Court lacks jurisdiction to review Judge Nathan's order. But if the government is right, then Judge Nathan's order is unreviewable. The collateral order doctrine is not so rigid.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "While an interlocutory appeal is the exception and not the rule, all the conditions required to satisfy the collateral order doctrine exist here. First, Judge Nathan's order conclusively determined the disputed question (whether Ms. Maxwell could share relevant and material information with another Article III judge). Second, Judge Nathan's order resolved an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action (whether it is proper for one Article III judge, at the request of the government, to keep secret from a co-equal judge information relevant and material to the second judge's role in deciding a matter before her).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "And third, Judge Nathan's order is effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment (by the time of a final judgment, Judge Preska's order unsealing the deposition material will have gone into effect and Judge Preska will have ruled on",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00019593",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell",
      "Nathan",
      "Preska"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Court",
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "09/28/2020"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "20-3061",
      "69",
      "2940206",
      "DOJ-OGR-00019593"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a case involving Ms. Maxwell. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 2 of a 15-page document."
}