mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES007/DOJ-OGR-00019361.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "19",
    "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, Page19 of 24\n\nthe appellate courts do not repeatedly intervene to second-guess prejudgment rulings.\" Mohawk, 558 U.S. at 106 (alterations in original) (internal quotation mark omitted) (quoting Firestone, 449 at 374; Richardson-Merrell Inc. v. Koller, 472 U.S. 424, 436 (1985)).\n\n23. The cases cited in Maxwell's notice of appeal do not alter this analysis. All three are inapposite because they involved appeals by intervenors — not parties — seeking to modify protective orders in civil cases. See Pichler v. UNITE, 585 F.3d 741, 745-746 (3d Cir. 2009) (third party intervenor foundation appealing order denying motion to modify protective order in civil litigation to allow third party access to discovery materials); Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity Servs., Inc., 832 F.2d 739, 741 (2d Cir. 1987) (Commodity Futures Trading Commission (\"CFTC\") acting as third party intervenor appealing order denying motion to modify protective order in civil litigation to allow CFTC to obtain discovery exchanged by parties to civil case permissible because \"[t]he entire controversy between the CFTC and the defendants in this case was disposed of by the district court's denial of the government's motion to modify the protective order\"); Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 46 (2d Cir. 2019) (third party intervenors, including members of the press, appealing order denying motion to modify protective order in civil litigation to allow third parties access to sealed filings, after parties to the litigation settled). Thus, appellate jurisdiction in those cases\n\n18\n\nDOJ-OGR-00019361",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 20-3061, Document 37, 09/16/2020, 2932231, Page19 of 24",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "the appellate courts do not repeatedly intervene to second-guess prejudgment rulings.\" Mohawk, 558 U.S. at 106 (alterations in original) (internal quotation mark omitted) (quoting Firestone, 449 at 374; Richardson-Merrell Inc. v. Koller, 472 U.S. 424, 436 (1985)).",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "23. The cases cited in Maxwell's notice of appeal do not alter this analysis. All three are inapposite because they involved appeals by intervenors — not parties — seeking to modify protective orders in civil cases. See Pichler v. UNITE, 585 F.3d 741, 745-746 (3d Cir. 2009) (third party intervenor foundation appealing order denying motion to modify protective order in civil litigation to allow third party access to discovery materials); Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity Servs., Inc., 832 F.2d 739, 741 (2d Cir. 1987) (Commodity Futures Trading Commission (\"CFTC\") acting as third party intervenor appealing order denying motion to modify protective order in civil litigation to allow CFTC to obtain discovery exchanged by parties to civil case permissible because \"[t]he entire controversy between the CFTC and the defendants in this case was disposed of by the district court's denial of the government's motion to modify the protective order\"); Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 46 (2d Cir. 2019) (third party intervenors, including members of the press, appealing order denying motion to modify protective order in civil litigation to allow third parties access to sealed filings, after parties to the litigation settled). Thus, appellate jurisdiction in those cases",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "18",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00019361",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Mohawk",
      "Firestone",
      "Richardson-Merrell Inc.",
      "Koller",
      "Pichler",
      "UNITE",
      "Minpeco S.A.",
      "Conticommodity Servs., Inc.",
      "Commodity Futures Trading Commission",
      "CFTC",
      "Brown"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "09/16/2020",
      "1985",
      "2009",
      "1987",
      "2019"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "20-3061",
      "37",
      "2932231",
      "DOJ-OGR-00019361"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing, likely an appellate brief, discussing the jurisdiction of appellate courts in civil cases involving protective orders and third-party intervenors. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten annotations. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}