mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES007/DOJ-OGR-00019630.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "23",
    "document_number": "82",
    "date": "10/02/2020",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 20-3061, Document 82, 10/02/2020, 2944267, Page23 of 37\n\n17\n\n\"issue is finally resolved and is independent of the issues to be tried, and the order becomes moot if review awaits conviction and sentence.\" Flanagan, 465 U.S. at 266. Unlike a request for bail reduction, however, an order denying modification of a protective order does not become moot upon conviction and sentence.\n\n\"The standard for review set forth in Flanagan is not easily met,\" and Maxwell has not done so here. Ca-parros, 800 F.2d at 25. To the extent Maxwell still wishes to use materials she obtained through criminal discovery for other purposes after entry of final judgment in the criminal case, she can seek authorization from this Court to do so then. If Maxwell complains that her inability to use criminal discovery materials in civil matters may result in premature unsealing or prejudicial pretrial publicity, she can likewise raise those claims before this Court on appeal after entry of final judgment in her criminal case. See, e.g., United States v. Martoma, No. 13-4807, 2014 WL 68119, at *1 (2d Cir. Jan. 8, 2014) (concluding that even though the defendant's \"personal interest in the privacy of embarrassing information is an interest that, as a practical matter, cannot be vindicated after disclosure,\" that interest is insufficient to merit interlocutory appeal); United States v. Guerrero, 693 F.3d 990, 998 (9th Cir. 2012) (finding no jurisdiction over defendant's interlocutory appeal from unsealing of competency evaluation because \"any alleged incursions on criminal defendants' rights to privacy and a fair trial do not render the unsealing order effectively unreviewable on appeal\"); Hitchcock, 992 F.2d at 238-39 (district court's refusal to seal documents not immediately appealable because \"[r]eversal after trial, if it is warranted, will\n\nDOJ-OGR-00019630",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 20-3061, Document 82, 10/02/2020, 2944267, Page23 of 37",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "17",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "\"issue is finally resolved and is independent of the issues to be tried, and the order becomes moot if review awaits conviction and sentence.\" Flanagan, 465 U.S. at 266. Unlike a request for bail reduction, however, an order denying modification of a protective order does not become moot upon conviction and sentence.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "\"The standard for review set forth in Flanagan is not easily met,\" and Maxwell has not done so here. Ca-parros, 800 F.2d at 25. To the extent Maxwell still wishes to use materials she obtained through criminal discovery for other purposes after entry of final judgment in the criminal case, she can seek authorization from this Court to do so then. If Maxwell complains that her inability to use criminal discovery materials in civil matters may result in premature unsealing or prejudicial pretrial publicity, she can likewise raise those claims before this Court on appeal after entry of final judgment in her criminal case. See, e.g., United States v. Martoma, No. 13-4807, 2014 WL 68119, at *1 (2d Cir. Jan. 8, 2014) (concluding that even though the defendant's \"personal interest in the privacy of embarrassing information is an interest that, as a practical matter, cannot be vindicated after disclosure,\" that interest is insufficient to merit interlocutory appeal); United States v. Guerrero, 693 F.3d 990, 998 (9th Cir. 2012) (finding no jurisdiction over defendant's interlocutory appeal from unsealing of competency evaluation because \"any alleged incursions on criminal defendants' rights to privacy and a fair trial do not render the unsealing order effectively unreviewable on appeal\"); Hitchcock, 992 F.2d at 238-39 (district court's refusal to seal documents not immediately appealable because \"[r]eversal after trial, if it is warranted, will",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00019630",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell",
      "Flanagan",
      "Martoma",
      "Guerrero",
      "Hitchcock"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "U.S.",
      "2d Cir.",
      "9th Cir."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "10/02/2020",
      "Jan. 8, 2014",
      "2012"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 20-3061",
      "Document 82",
      "2944267",
      "No. 13-4807"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a case involving Maxwell. The text references various legal precedents and court decisions. The document is printed and contains no handwritten text or stamps. The quality is clear, with no visible redactions or damage."
}