mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES007/DOJ-OGR-00019651.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "5",
    "document_number": "94",
    "date": "10/08/2020",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "on the civil protective order's guarantee of confidentiality in declining to invoke her Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. Instead of fairly addressing these arguments, however, the government retreats to the claim that Ms. Maxwell “does not articulate” or “does not explain” why Judge Preska and this Court need to know . Ans.Br. 18 n.4 & 27. But just because the government lacks a persuasive response does not mean Ms. Maxwell hasn’t explained or articulated herself. The question then is what could justify keeping Judge Preska and this Court in the dark about the relevant facts. And if that's the question, the government's brief provides no answer. Jurisdiction There are three conditions to seeking interlocutory review under the collateral order doctrine: The order on appeal must (1) conclusively determine the disputed question, (2) resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action, and (3) be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment. Will v. Hallock, 546 U.S. 345, 349 (2006) (citing Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 144 (1993)). The government",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "on the civil protective order's guarantee of confidentiality in declining to invoke her Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Instead of fairly addressing these arguments, however, the government retreats to the claim that Ms. Maxwell “does not articulate” or “does not explain” why Judge Preska and this Court need to know",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "handwritten",
      "content": "",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": ". Ans.Br. 18 n.4 & 27. But just because the government lacks a persuasive response does not mean Ms. Maxwell hasn’t explained or articulated herself. The question then is what could justify keeping Judge Preska and this Court in the dark about the relevant facts. And if that's the question, the government's brief provides no answer.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Jurisdiction",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "There are three conditions to seeking interlocutory review under the collateral order doctrine: The order on appeal must (1) conclusively determine the disputed question, (2) resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action, and (3) be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment. Will v. Hallock, 546 U.S. 345, 349 (2006) (citing Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 144 (1993)). The government",
      "position": "bottom"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Judge Preska"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Auth.",
      "Metcalf & Eddy, Inc."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "10/08/2020",
      "2006",
      "1993"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 20-3061",
      "Document 94",
      "2948481",
      "Page 5 of 23",
      "DOJ-OGR-00019651"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ms. Maxwell. The text is mostly printed, with one instance of redaction. The document includes citations to legal precedents and references to specific pages and documents."
}