mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES007/DOJ-OGR-00019418.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "19",
    "document_number": "60",
    "date": "09/24/2020",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 20-3061, Document 60, 09/24/2020, 2938278, Page19 of 58\n\nshe learned from Judge Nathan, Judge Preska's order unsealing the deposition material will go into effect without Judge Preska's having the opportunity to reconsider her decision in light of the new information. And once the deposition material is unsealed, the cat is irretrievably out of the bag. That is precisely why this Court stayed Judge Preska's order pending appeal. Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 20-2413 (2d Cir.), Doc. 30.\n\nSecond, the appeal of Judge Nathan's order is entirely \"independent of the issues to be tried\" in the criminal case and its \"validity can[] be adequately reviewed\" now. See Flanagan, 465 U.S. at 268. There is nothing about Ms. Maxwell's request to share information with Judge Preska that must wait until the criminal trial is over. To the contrary, waiting until the criminal trial is over will moot the issue.\n\nThird, this appeal does not and will not delay the criminal case, which is proceeding apace notwithstanding the proceedings before this Court. See id. at 264 (explaining that interlocutory appeals in criminal cases are generally disfavored because of the \"societal interest in providing a speedy trial\").4\n\n4 The fact that the criminal case is proceeding on course despite this appeal confirms that this appeal involves an issue completely separate from the merits of the criminal action.\n\n14\nDOJ-OGR-00019418",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 20-3061, Document 60, 09/24/2020, 2938278, Page19 of 58",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "she learned from Judge Nathan, Judge Preska's order unsealing the deposition material will go into effect without Judge Preska's having the opportunity to reconsider her decision in light of the new information. And once the deposition material is unsealed, the cat is irretrievably out of the bag. That is precisely why this Court stayed Judge Preska's order pending appeal. Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 20-2413 (2d Cir.), Doc. 30.",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Second, the appeal of Judge Nathan's order is entirely \"independent of the issues to be tried\" in the criminal case and its \"validity can[] be adequately reviewed\" now. See Flanagan, 465 U.S. at 268. There is nothing about Ms. Maxwell's request to share information with Judge Preska that must wait until the criminal trial is over. To the contrary, waiting until the criminal trial is over will moot the issue.",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Third, this appeal does not and will not delay the criminal case, which is proceeding apace notwithstanding the proceedings before this Court. See id. at 264 (explaining that interlocutory appeals in criminal cases are generally disfavored because of the \"societal interest in providing a speedy trial\").4",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "4 The fact that the criminal case is proceeding on course despite this appeal confirms that this appeal involves an issue completely separate from the merits of the criminal action.",
      "position": "footnote"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "14",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00019418",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Judge Nathan",
      "Judge Preska",
      "Ms. Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Court"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "09/24/2020"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "20-3061",
      "60",
      "2938278",
      "20-2413",
      "Doc. 30",
      "465 U.S.",
      "DOJ-OGR-00019418"
    ]
  },
  "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 19 of 58."
}