mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES007/DOJ-OGR-00019624.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "17",
    "document_number": "82",
    "date": "10/02/2020",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 20-3061, Document 82, 10/02/2020, 2944267, Page17 of 37\n\n11\n\n\"in ways that are only imperfectly reparable by appel-late reversal of a final district court judgment is not sufficient.\" Punn, 737 F.3d at 5. \"Instead, the decisive consideration is whether delaying review until the en-try of final judgment would imperil a substantial pub-lic interest or some particular value of a high order.\" Mohawk Indus., 558 U.S. at 107; see also Kensington Int'l Ltd. v. Republic of Congo, 461 F.3d 238, 241 (2d Cir. 2006). In a criminal case, the availability of post-judgment relief through reversal or vacatur of convic-tion, if warranted, will generally be sufficient to pro-tect whatever right a defendant claims was abridged by the district court's pretrial decision. See, e.g., Punn, 737 F.3d at 14 (\"Punn's claim can be adequately vindi-cated upon appeal from a final judgment.... [I]f Punn's arguments continue to fail before the district court, purportedly ill-gotten evidence or its fruits are admitted at his trial, and conviction results, appellate review will be available at that point[,] ... [and the Court] may order a new trial without the use of the ill-gotten evidence, or whatever additional remedies are necessary to ensure that Punn's legitimate interests are fully preserved.\"); United States v. Hitchcock, 992 F.2d 236, 239 (9th Cir. 1993) (district court's refusal to seal documents not immediately appealable because \"[r]eversal after trial, if it is warranted, will ade-quately protect ... interest[s]\" asserted by defend-ants).\n\nWhen applying the collateral order doctrine, the Supreme Court has \"generally denied review of pre-trial discovery orders.\" Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord, 449 U.S. 368, 377 (1981). This Court likewise\n\nDOJ-OGR-00019624",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 20-3061, Document 82, 10/02/2020, 2944267, Page17 of 37",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "11",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "\"in ways that are only imperfectly reparable by appel-late reversal of a final district court judgment is not sufficient.\" Punn, 737 F.3d at 5. \"Instead, the decisive consideration is whether delaying review until the en-try of final judgment would imperil a substantial pub-lic interest or some particular value of a high order.\" Mohawk Indus., 558 U.S. at 107; see also Kensington Int'l Ltd. v. Republic of Congo, 461 F.3d 238, 241 (2d Cir. 2006). In a criminal case, the availability of post-judgment relief through reversal or vacatur of convic-tion, if warranted, will generally be sufficient to pro-tect whatever right a defendant claims was abridged by the district court's pretrial decision. See, e.g., Punn, 737 F.3d at 14 (\"Punn's claim can be adequately vindi-cated upon appeal from a final judgment.... [I]f Punn's arguments continue to fail before the district court, purportedly ill-gotten evidence or its fruits are admitted at his trial, and conviction results, appellate review will be available at that point[,] ... [and the Court] may order a new trial without the use of the ill-gotten evidence, or whatever additional remedies are necessary to ensure that Punn's legitimate interests are fully preserved.\"); United States v. Hitchcock, 992 F.2d 236, 239 (9th Cir. 1993) (district court's refusal to seal documents not immediately appealable because \"[r]eversal after trial, if it is warranted, will ade-quately protect ... interest[s]\" asserted by defend-ants).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "When applying the collateral order doctrine, the Supreme Court has \"generally denied review of pre-trial discovery orders.\" Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord, 449 U.S. 368, 377 (1981). This Court likewise",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00019624",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Punn",
      "Hitchcock"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Mohawk Indus.",
      "Kensington Int'l Ltd.",
      "Republic of Congo",
      "United States",
      "Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.",
      "Risjord",
      "Court"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "10/02/2020",
      "1981"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "20-3061",
      "82",
      "2944267",
      "737 F.3d",
      "558 U.S.",
      "461 F.3d 238",
      "992 F.2d 236",
      "449 U.S. 368",
      "DOJ-OGR-00019624"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing, likely an appeal or a legal brief, discussing the collateral order doctrine and its application to pretrial discovery orders. The text includes citations to various court cases and legal precedents."
}