mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES007/DOJ-OGR-00019621.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "14",
    "document_number": "82",
    "date": "10/02/2020",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "with the appeal currently pending in Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 20-2413. (2d Cir. Dkt. 17). The Government is not a party to the appeal in Giuffre v. Maxwell, which concerns an order issued in a civil case unsealing materials that were previously filed under seal. On September 16, 2020, the Government filed a motion to dismiss Maxwell's appeal for lack of jurisdiction and requested that this Court deny Maxwell's motion for consolidation (the \"Motion to Dismiss\"). (2d Cir. Dkt. 37).\n\nARGUMENT\n\nPOINT I\n\nThis Court Lacks Jurisdiction To Hear This Appeal\n\nAs explained in the Government's Motion to Dismiss, the final judgment rule precludes jurisdiction over Maxwell's appeal of the Order. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Maxwell fails to explain how the Order falls within the \"small class\" of decisions that constitute immediately appealable collateral orders. See Van Cauwenberghe v. Biard, 486 U.S. 517, 522 (1988). Accordingly, this Court should dismiss Maxwell's appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.\n\nA. Applicable Law\n\nTitle 28, United States Code, Section 1291 expressly limits the jurisdiction of Courts of Appeals to \"final decisions of the district courts.\" 28 U.S.C. § 1291. \"This final judgment rule requires that a party must ordinarily raise all claims of error in a single appeal",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "with the appeal currently pending in Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 20-2413. (2d Cir. Dkt. 17). The Government is not a party to the appeal in Giuffre v. Maxwell, which concerns an order issued in a civil case unsealing materials that were previously filed under seal. On September 16, 2020, the Government filed a motion to dismiss Maxwell's appeal for lack of jurisdiction and requested that this Court deny Maxwell's motion for consolidation (the \"Motion to Dismiss\"). (2d Cir. Dkt. 37).",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "ARGUMENT",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "POINT I",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "This Court Lacks Jurisdiction To Hear This Appeal",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "As explained in the Government's Motion to Dismiss, the final judgment rule precludes jurisdiction over Maxwell's appeal of the Order. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Maxwell fails to explain how the Order falls within the \"small class\" of decisions that constitute immediately appealable collateral orders. See Van Cauwenberghe v. Biard, 486 U.S. 517, 522 (1988). Accordingly, this Court should dismiss Maxwell's appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "A. Applicable Law",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Title 28, United States Code, Section 1291 expressly limits the jurisdiction of Courts of Appeals to \"final decisions of the district courts.\" 28 U.S.C. § 1291. \"This final judgment rule requires that a party must ordinarily raise all claims of error in a single appeal",
      "position": "bottom"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell",
      "Giuffre",
      "Biard",
      "Van Cauwenberghe"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government",
      "Courts of Appeals",
      "Court"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "United States"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "September 16, 2020",
      "10/02/2020"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "20-3061",
      "Document 82",
      "2944267",
      "Page 14 of 37",
      "20-2413",
      "2d Cir. Dkt. 17",
      "2d Cir. Dkt. 37",
      "28 U.S.C. § 1291",
      "486 U.S. 517",
      "DOJ-OGR-00019621"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case Giuffre v. Maxwell. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 14 of 37."
}