mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES007/DOJ-OGR-00019661.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "15",
    "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, Page15 of 23\n\nDisclose why (Court-1) granted the government's request .\n\nThe \"basic facts\" Ms. Maxwell is allowed to share thus do not include the \"material facts.\"\n\n***\n\nThe collateral order doctrine is, admittedly, the exception and not the rule. Its purpose is to avoid delay and piecemeal appeals.4 But it's not as inflexible as the government suggests, and its application is not oblivious to reality. It is a practical doctrine that exists for those few cases in which a post-trial appeal is inadequate to the task and the issue for immediate appeal is separable from the merits. This appeal, novel as it is, falls within those parameters.5\n\n4 Although the government says it \"remains to be seen\" whether this appeal will delay the criminal case, it offers no specifics or even speculation about how such a delay might be occasioned. Ans.Br. 19 n.5. To be clear, this appeal has nothing to do with the merits of the government's allegations against Ms. Maxwell, and it will not delay the criminal trial.\n\n5 As for Ms. Maxwell's alternative request that this Court exercise mandamus jurisdiction, the government's brief denies that Judge Nathan abused her discretion but doesn't otherwise contend that this Court may exercise mandamus jurisdiction. Ans.Br. 20–21. Because, as explained below, Judge Nathan abused her discretion, this Court should issue a writ of mandamus if it concludes that it lacks jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine.\n\n12\nDOJ-OGR-00019661",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 20-3061, Document 94, 10/08/2020, 2948481, Page15 of 23",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Disclose why (Court-1) granted the government's request .",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The \"basic facts\" Ms. Maxwell is allowed to share thus do not include the \"material facts.\"",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "***",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The collateral order doctrine is, admittedly, the exception and not the rule. Its purpose is to avoid delay and piecemeal appeals.4 But it's not as inflexible as the government suggests, and its application is not oblivious to reality. It is a practical doctrine that exists for those few cases in which a post-trial appeal is inadequate to the task and the issue for immediate appeal is separable from the merits. This appeal, novel as it is, falls within those parameters.5",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "4 Although the government says it \"remains to be seen\" whether this appeal will delay the criminal case, it offers no specifics or even speculation about how such a delay might be occasioned. Ans.Br. 19 n.5. To be clear, this appeal has nothing to do with the merits of the government's allegations against Ms. Maxwell, and it will not delay the criminal trial.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "5 As for Ms. Maxwell's alternative request that this Court exercise mandamus jurisdiction, the government's brief denies that Judge Nathan abused her discretion but doesn't otherwise contend that this Court may exercise mandamus jurisdiction. Ans.Br. 20–21. Because, as explained below, Judge Nathan abused her discretion, this Court should issue a writ of mandamus if it concludes that it lacks jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "12",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00019661",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Judge Nathan"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Court"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "10/08/2020"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "20-3061",
      "94",
      "2948481",
      "DOJ-OGR-00019661"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with redactions. The text is mostly clear, but some parts are blacked out."
}