mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES007/DOJ-OGR-00019380.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "14",
    "document_number": "38",
    "date": "09/16/2020",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 20-3061, Document 38, 09/16/2020, 2932233, Page14 of 23\n\nthe Speech or Debate Clause, or the forced administration of antipsychotic drugs. See Midland Asphalt, 489 U.S. at 799; Sell, 539 U.S. at 176-77. The rights implicated here do not meet the high threshold of expanding the collateral order exception in criminal cases beyond those limited categories. Rather, this Order falls within the category of rulings addressing pretrial discovery, which are generally unreviewable on interlocutory appeal. See Pappas, 94 F.3d at 798; Caparros, 800 F.2d at 24-26. Maxwell has identified no public interest or value that is \"sufficiently strong to overcome the usual benefits of deferring appeal until litigation concludes.\" Mohawk, 558 U.S. at 107.\n\n19. Maxwell seems to claim that reversal of Judge Nathan's Order is necessary in order to prevent documents in a civil case from being unsealed.\n\nEven assuming a presentation of criminal discovery materials would affect an unsealing decision in a civil case — an argument that Judge Nathan found speculative at best (Ex. F at 3) — a risk of unsealing is not significant enough to merit interlocutory appeal. See 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\n\n14\n\nDOJ-OGR-00019380",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 20-3061, Document 38, 09/16/2020, 2932233, Page14 of 23",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "the Speech or Debate Clause, or the forced administration of antipsychotic drugs. See Midland Asphalt, 489 U.S. at 799; Sell, 539 U.S. at 176-77. The rights implicated here do not meet the high threshold of expanding the collateral order exception in criminal cases beyond those limited categories. Rather, this Order falls within the category of rulings addressing pretrial discovery, which are generally unreviewable on interlocutory appeal. See Pappas, 94 F.3d at 798; Caparros, 800 F.2d at 24-26. Maxwell has identified no public interest or value that is \"sufficiently strong to overcome the usual benefits of deferring appeal until litigation concludes.\" Mohawk, 558 U.S. at 107.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "19. Maxwell seems to claim that reversal of Judge Nathan's Order is necessary in order to prevent documents in a civil case from being unsealed.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Even assuming a presentation of criminal discovery materials would affect an unsealing decision in a civil case — an argument that Judge Nathan found speculative at best (Ex. F at 3) — a risk of unsealing is not significant enough to merit interlocutory appeal. See 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",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "14",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00019380",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell",
      "Nathan",
      "Martoma",
      "Guerrero"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "U.S.",
      "2d Cir.",
      "9th Cir."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "09/16/2020",
      "Jan. 8, 2014",
      "2012"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 20-3061",
      "Document 38",
      "2932233",
      "No. 13-4807"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing, likely an appeal brief, discussing legal precedents and the reviewability of certain orders on interlocutory appeal. The text is dense and technical, referencing multiple legal cases and statutes."
}