mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES007/DOJ-OGR-00019595.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "4",
    "document_number": "69",
    "date": "09/28/2020",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 44 (2d Cir. 2019) (appeal by intervenors challenging denial of motions to modify protective order and unseal).\n\nUnder the collateral order doctrine, an interlocutory order is immediately appealable if it (1) conclusively determines the disputed question, (2) resolves an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action, and (3) is effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment. Will v. Hallock, 546 U.S. 345, 349 (2006) (citing Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 144 (1993)).\n\nThe district court's order declining to modify the protective order meets all three requirements: the court conclusively decided not to modify the protective order, App. 99-103; the propriety of modifying the protective order is completely separate from the merits of the government's criminal allegations against Ms. Maxwell; and appellate review of the order will be impossible following final judgment because a post-judgment appeal will be moot since, by that time, Judge Preska's decision unsealing the deposition material in Giuffre v. Maxwell, Nos. 20-2413 (2d Cir.)/15-cv-7433 (S.D.N.Y.) will have gone into effect.\n\nThat is the very point of this appeal, after all: to share with Judge Preska the critical new information Ms. Maxwell has learned before it's too late. All",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 44 (2d Cir. 2019) (appeal by intervenors challenging denial of motions to modify protective order and unseal).",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Under the collateral order doctrine, an interlocutory order is immediately appealable if it (1) conclusively determines the disputed question, (2) resolves an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action, and (3) is effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment. Will v. Hallock, 546 U.S. 345, 349 (2006) (citing Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 144 (1993)).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The district court's order declining to modify the protective order meets all three requirements: the court conclusively decided not to modify the protective order, App. 99-103; the propriety of modifying the protective order is completely separate from the merits of the government's criminal allegations against Ms. Maxwell; and appellate review of the order will be impossible following final judgment because a post-judgment appeal will be moot since, by that time, Judge Preska's decision unsealing the deposition material in Giuffre v. Maxwell, Nos. 20-2413 (2d Cir.)/15-cv-7433 (S.D.N.Y.) will have gone into effect.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "That is the very point of this appeal, after all: to share with Judge Preska the critical new information Ms. Maxwell has learned before it's too late. All",
      "position": "bottom"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Hallock",
      "Maxwell",
      "Preska",
      "Giuffre"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Auth.",
      "Metcalf & Eddy, Inc."
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "09/28/2020"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "20-3061",
      "69",
      "929 F.3d 41",
      "546 U.S. 345",
      "506 U.S. 139",
      "20-2413",
      "15-cv-7433",
      "DOJ-OGR-00019595"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Maxwell. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 4 of 15."
}