mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES007/DOJ-OGR-00019356.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "14",
    "document_number": "37",
    "date": "09/16/2020",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 20-3061, Document 37, 09/16/2020, 2932231, Page14 of 24\n\nrule is “interpreted . . . ‘with the utmost strictness,’” the appeal should be\ndismissed. Midland Asphalt, 489 U.S. at 799 (quoting Flanagan, 465 U.S. at 265).\nAmong other things, the Order does not meet the third criterion of the standard for\nidentifying immediately appealable collateral orders, which requires that the order\nbeing appealed from be “effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final\njudgment.” Van Cauwenberghe, 486 U.S. at 522 (internal quotation mark omitted)\n(quoting Coopers & Lybrand, 437 U.S. at 468). Accordingly, this Court does not\nhave jurisdiction to review the Order, and Maxwell’s appeal should be dismissed.\n\n17. As an initial matter, when evaluating Maxwell’s appeal, this\nCourt cannot engage in an “individualized jurisdictional inquiry” based on the facts\nof this case, but instead must focus on the “entire category to which a claim\nbelongs.” Mohawk, 558 U.S. at 107 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting\nCoopers & Lybrand, 437 U.S. at 473; Digital Equipment Corp. v. Desktop Direct,\nInc., 511 U.S. 863, 868 (1994)). Here, like any other order regulating the use of\ndiscovery materials exchanged by the parties during litigation, Judge Nathan’s\nOrder declining to modify the Protective Order in this criminal case is not subject\nto interlocutory appeal. See Pappas, 94 F.3d at 798; Caparros, 800 F.2d at 24-26.\n\n18. There can be no serious suggestion that this Order falls within\nthe four categories of orders that the Supreme Court has identified as appealable\nprejudgment in criminal cases, as the Order does not address bail, double jeopardy,\n\n13\n\nDOJ-OGR-00019356",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 20-3061, Document 37, 09/16/2020, 2932231, Page14 of 24",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "rule is “interpreted . . . ‘with the utmost strictness,’” the appeal should be\ndismissed. Midland Asphalt, 489 U.S. at 799 (quoting Flanagan, 465 U.S. at 265).\nAmong other things, the Order does not meet the third criterion of the standard for\nidentifying immediately appealable collateral orders, which requires that the order\nbeing appealed from be “effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final\njudgment.” Van Cauwenberghe, 486 U.S. at 522 (internal quotation mark omitted)\n(quoting Coopers & Lybrand, 437 U.S. at 468). Accordingly, this Court does not\nhave jurisdiction to review the Order, and Maxwell’s appeal should be dismissed.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "17. As an initial matter, when evaluating Maxwell’s appeal, this\nCourt cannot engage in an “individualized jurisdictional inquiry” based on the facts\nof this case, but instead must focus on the “entire category to which a claim\nbelongs.” Mohawk, 558 U.S. at 107 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting\nCoopers & Lybrand, 437 U.S. at 473; Digital Equipment Corp. v. Desktop Direct,\nInc., 511 U.S. 863, 868 (1994)). Here, like any other order regulating the use of\ndiscovery materials exchanged by the parties during litigation, Judge Nathan’s\nOrder declining to modify the Protective Order in this criminal case is not subject\nto interlocutory appeal. See Pappas, 94 F.3d at 798; Caparros, 800 F.2d at 24-26.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "18. There can be no serious suggestion that this Order falls within\nthe four categories of orders that the Supreme Court has identified as appealable\nprejudgment in criminal cases, as the Order does not address bail, double jeopardy,",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "13",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00019356",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell",
      "Nathan"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Supreme Court"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "09/16/2020"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "20-3061",
      "37",
      "2932231",
      "DOJ-OGR-00019356"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Maxwell. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}