mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES007/DOJ-OGR-00019634.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "27",
    "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, Page27 of 37\n\n21\nlook primarily for the presence of a novel and significant question of law . . . and . . . the presence of a legal issue whose resolution will aid in the administration of justice.\" In re City of N.Y., 607 F.3d at 939.\n\nAs described below, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in issuing the Order. This Court should not issue a writ of mandamus and should instead follow its \"normal practice . . . to decline to treat improvident appeals as mandamus petitions.\" Caparos, 800 F.2d at 26. This case does not raise the rare and exceptional circumstance in which the Court should depart from its practice.\n\nPOINT II\n\nThe District Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Denying Maxwell's Motion to Modify the Protective Order\n\nEven if this Court had jurisdiction to hear Maxwell's appeal, the Order should be summarily affirmed because the District Court did not abuse its discretion. The Order—which was issued after receiving briefing from the parties—carefully evaluated Maxwell's request and reached a conclusion indisputably within the bounds of permissible discretion.\n\nA. Applicable Law\n\nThis Court reviews a district court's decision denying modification of a protective order for abuse of discretion. See, e.g., United States v. Longueil, 567 F. App'x 13, 16 (2d Cir. 2014) (finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion\n\nDOJ-OGR-00019634",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 20-3061, Document 82, 10/02/2020, 2944267, Page27 of 37",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "21\nlook primarily for the presence of a novel and significant question of law . . . and . . . the presence of a legal issue whose resolution will aid in the administration of justice.\" In re City of N.Y., 607 F.3d at 939.\n\nAs described below, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in issuing the Order. This Court should not issue a writ of mandamus and should instead follow its \"normal practice . . . to decline to treat improvident appeals as mandamus petitions.\" Caparos, 800 F.2d at 26. This case does not raise the rare and exceptional circumstance in which the Court should depart from its practice.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "POINT II\n\nThe District Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Denying Maxwell's Motion to Modify the Protective Order",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Even if this Court had jurisdiction to hear Maxwell's appeal, the Order should be summarily affirmed because the District Court did not abuse its discretion. The Order—which was issued after receiving briefing from the parties—carefully evaluated Maxwell's request and reached a conclusion indisputably within the bounds of permissible discretion.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "A. Applicable Law\n\nThis Court reviews a district court's decision denying modification of a protective order for abuse of discretion. See, e.g., United States v. Longueil, 567 F. App'x 13, 16 (2d Cir. 2014) (finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00019634",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "District Court",
      "Court"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "10/02/2020",
      "2014"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "20-3061",
      "82",
      "2944267",
      "607 F.3d",
      "800 F.2d",
      "567 F. App'x",
      "DOJ-OGR-00019634"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a case involving Maxwell. The text is primarily printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}