mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES007/DOJ-OGR-00019633.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "26",
    "document_number": "82",
    "date": "10/02/2020",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "20\n\nIn an attempt to sidestep the jurisdictional issue, Maxwell suggests that this Court should exercise mandamus jurisdiction and issue the extraordinary relief of a writ of mandamus directing the District Court to modify the Protective Order if Maxwell \"cannot appeal\" the Order under the collateral order doctrine. (Br. 20). The Supreme Court has described this as \"a drastic and extraordinary remedy reserved for really extraordinary causes.\" Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court for Dist. of Columbia, 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004). This Court has made clear that it \"issue[s] a writ of mandamus only in exceptional circumstances amounting to a judicial usurpation of power or a clear abuse of discretion.\" In re City of N.Y., 607 F.3d 923, 932 (2d Cir. 2010).\n\n\"Pretrial discovery orders . . . generally are not reviewable on direct appeal, and we have expressed reluctance to circumvent this salutary rule by use of mandamus.\" In re S.E.C. ex rel. Glotzer, 374 F.3d 184, 187 (2d Cir. 2004). \"Nevertheless, mandamus may be available where a discovery question is of extraordinary significance or there is extreme need for reversal of the district court's mandate before the case goes to judgment.\" Id. \"To determine whether mandamus is appropriate in the context of a discovery ruling, we\n\nsolve or modify injunctions, except where a direct review may be had in the Supreme Court.\" Orders regulating discovery in a criminal case, even if couching \"words of restraint,\" are not injunctions and are therefore not appealable under § 1292(a)(1). See Pap-pas, 94 F.3d at 798; Caparros, 800 F.2d at 26.\n\nDOJ-OGR-00019633",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "20",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In an attempt to sidestep the jurisdictional issue, Maxwell suggests that this Court should exercise mandamus jurisdiction and issue the extraordinary relief of a writ of mandamus directing the District Court to modify the Protective Order if Maxwell \"cannot appeal\" the Order under the collateral order doctrine. (Br. 20). The Supreme Court has described this as \"a drastic and extraordinary remedy reserved for really extraordinary causes.\" Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court for Dist. of Columbia, 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004). This Court has made clear that it \"issue[s] a writ of mandamus only in exceptional circumstances amounting to a judicial usurpation of power or a clear abuse of discretion.\" In re City of N.Y., 607 F.3d 923, 932 (2d Cir. 2010).\n\n\"Pretrial discovery orders . . . generally are not reviewable on direct appeal, and we have expressed reluctance to circumvent this salutary rule by use of mandamus.\" In re S.E.C. ex rel. Glotzer, 374 F.3d 184, 187 (2d Cir. 2004). \"Nevertheless, mandamus may be available where a discovery question is of extraordinary significance or there is extreme need for reversal of the district court's mandate before the case goes to judgment.\" Id. \"To determine whether mandamus is appropriate in the context of a discovery ruling, we",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "solve or modify injunctions, except where a direct review may be had in the Supreme Court.\" Orders regulating discovery in a criminal case, even if couching \"words of restraint,\" are not injunctions and are therefore not appealable under § 1292(a)(1). See Pap-pas, 94 F.3d at 798; Caparros, 800 F.2d at 26.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00019633",
      "position": "bottom"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell",
      "Cheney",
      "Glotzer",
      "Pap-pas",
      "Caparros"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Supreme Court",
      "U.S. Dist. Court for Dist. of Columbia",
      "S.E.C.",
      "District Court"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Columbia",
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "10/02/2020",
      "2004",
      "2010"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "20-3061",
      "82",
      "2944267",
      "20",
      "542 U.S. 367",
      "607 F.3d 923",
      "374 F.3d 184",
      "94 F.3d 798",
      "800 F.2d 26",
      "DOJ-OGR-00019633"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a case involving Maxwell. The text discusses the use of mandamus jurisdiction and the appealability of certain orders. The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
}