mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES007/DOJ-OGR-00019652.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "6",
    "document_number": "94",
    "date": "10/08/2020",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 20-3061, Document 94, 10/08/2020, 2948481, Page6 of 23\ndoes not appear to dispute that Judge Nathan's order satisfies the first two conditions.1\nInstead, the government focuses on the third condition, arguing that Ms. Maxwell can appeal Judge Nathan's order after her criminal jury trial. Ans.Br. 16.\nBut the government can make this argument only by obscuring the relief Ms. Maxwell actually seeks.\nTo be clear, Ms. Maxwell seeks permission to share with Judge Preska and this Court, under seal, just what the government obtained\n\n\n\n\n\n1 Perhaps suggesting that Judge Nathan's order is not \"final,\" the government notes that the order \"did not end the entire litigation as to [Ms.] Maxwell. To the contrary, [Ms.] Maxwell is scheduled to file pretrial motions in December 2020 and to proceed to trial in July 2021.\" Ans.Br. 14.\nThis is just a truism, as no one disputes that \"Judge Nathan's Order did not end the entire litigation.\" If it had, Ms. Maxwell would have invoked this Court's jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.\nBut it is because \"Judge Nathan's Order did not end the entire litigation\" that Ms. Maxwell invokes the collateral order doctrine as a basis for this Court's jurisdiction. And in evaluating the applicability of that doctrine, the government does not appear to dispute that Judge Nathan's order \"conclusively determined the disputed question\": Whether the criminal protective order should be modified. That is all \"finality\" requires in the collateral order context.\n3\nDOJ-OGR-00019652",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 20-3061, Document 94, 10/08/2020, 2948481, Page6 of 23",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "does not appear to dispute that Judge Nathan's order satisfies the first two conditions.1\nInstead, the government focuses on the third condition, arguing that Ms. Maxwell can appeal Judge Nathan's order after her criminal jury trial. Ans.Br. 16.\nBut the government can make this argument only by obscuring the relief Ms. Maxwell actually seeks.\nTo be clear, Ms. Maxwell seeks permission to share with Judge Preska and this Court, under seal, just what the government obtained",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 Perhaps suggesting that Judge Nathan's order is not \"final,\" the government notes that the order \"did not end the entire litigation as to [Ms.] Maxwell. To the contrary, [Ms.] Maxwell is scheduled to file pretrial motions in December 2020 and to proceed to trial in July 2021.\" Ans.Br. 14.\nThis is just a truism, as no one disputes that \"Judge Nathan's Order did not end the entire litigation.\" If it had, Ms. Maxwell would have invoked this Court's jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.\nBut it is because \"Judge Nathan's Order did not end the entire litigation\" that Ms. Maxwell invokes the collateral order doctrine as a basis for this Court's jurisdiction. And in evaluating the applicability of that doctrine, the government does not appear to dispute that Judge Nathan's order \"conclusively determined the disputed question\": Whether the criminal protective order should be modified. That is all \"finality\" requires in the collateral order context.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "3",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00019652",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Judge Nathan",
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Judge Preska"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Court"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "10/08/2020",
      "December 2020",
      "July 2021"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "20-3061",
      "94",
      "2948481",
      "28 U.S.C. § 1291",
      "DOJ-OGR-00019652"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ms. Maxwell. The text is mostly printed, with some redacted sections. There are no visible stamps or handwritten annotations."
}