mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES007/DOJ-OGR-00019638.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "25",
    "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, Page31 of 37\n\n25\n\ncertain discovery materials would impact the unsealing analysis under First Amendment principles in a civil matter. Even if Maxwell were correct that the way in which the Government obtained the materials was improper—and she is not—that fact would have no bearing on the analysis of whether materials in certain civil cases should be unsealed. Maxwell cites not a single case to support the conclusion that her desire to prevent the Government from raising an inevitable discovery argument in suppression litigation should impact the unsealing analysis in a civil case. She offers no coherent argument for how the criminal discovery materials would impact any decision in a civil case.\n\nAt bottom, it remains unclear what legal argument Maxwell wishes to make in her civil cases based on the criminal discovery materials she has identified or what relevance those materials have to the litigation of those civil matters. Accordingly, Judge Nathan did not abuse her discretion when concluding that Maxwell “furnishe[d] no substantive explanation regarding the relevance of the Documents to decisions to be made in those matters, let alone any explanation of why modifying the protective order in order to allow such disclosure is necessary to ensure the fair adjudication of those matters.” (A. 101).\n\nIn pressing for a different result here, Maxwell argues that “if the deposition material is unsealed, it may foreclose” any of her arguments to Judge Nathan about the perjury counts or other remedies available to Maxwell based on the Government’s alleged circumvention of Second Circuit law. (Br. 27). Maxwell claims that “all [she] seeks in this appeal is the ability to",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 20-3061, Document 82, 10/02/2020, 2944267, Page31 of 37",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "25",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "certain discovery materials would impact the unsealing analysis under First Amendment principles in a civil matter. Even if Maxwell were correct that the way in which the Government obtained the materials was improper—and she is not—that fact would have no bearing on the analysis of whether materials in certain civil cases should be unsealed. Maxwell cites not a single case to support the conclusion that her desire to prevent the Government from raising an inevitable discovery argument in suppression litigation should impact the unsealing analysis in a civil case. She offers no coherent argument for how the criminal discovery materials would impact any decision in a civil case.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "At bottom, it remains unclear what legal argument Maxwell wishes to make in her civil cases based on the criminal discovery materials she has identified or what relevance those materials have to the litigation of those civil matters. Accordingly, Judge Nathan did not abuse her discretion when concluding that Maxwell “furnishe[d] no substantive explanation regarding the relevance of the Documents to decisions to be made in those matters, let alone any explanation of why modifying the protective order in order to allow such disclosure is necessary to ensure the fair adjudication of those matters.” (A. 101).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In pressing for a different result here, Maxwell argues that “if the deposition material is unsealed, it may foreclose” any of her arguments to Judge Nathan about the perjury counts or other remedies available to Maxwell based on the Government’s alleged circumvention of Second Circuit law. (Br. 27). Maxwell claims that “all [she] seeks in this appeal is the ability to",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00019638",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell",
      "Judge Nathan"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government",
      "Second Circuit"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "10/02/2020"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "20-3061",
      "82",
      "2944267",
      "DOJ-OGR-00019638"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Maxwell. The text discusses the unsealing of certain discovery materials and the relevance of those materials to civil cases. The document includes citations to specific pages (A. 101) and briefs (Br. 27)."
}