{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "3",
    "document_number": "457",
    "date": "11/13/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 457 Filed 11/13/21 Page 3 of 8\nPage 3\nGuestrooms).” See Government Exhibit 606 at 7; see also id. at 10 (“JE and GM telephone directories [are] placed to the right of telephone” in “check off list” for “pre-arrival preparations” for the master bedroom); id. at 22 (“JE and GM telephone directories” in Vehicles and Bicycles section); id. at 23 (“JE and GM telephone directories placed to the right of the telephone” for “Ms Maxwell’s desk”).\nEmployee-1 has examined Government Exhibit 52 in preparation for trial and recognizes it to be the defendant’s contact book, copies of which were maintained in Epstein’s Palm Beach residence, among other locations. Employee-1 recognizes the shape, color, and binding of the book, and recognizes the formatting and style of the entries as consistent with the manner in which the defendant’s book was organized and the way in which entries appeared. Employee-1 also recognizes several of the contacts listed in Government Exhibit 52 as friends of the defendant and Epstein. The entries include, among others, the defendant’s family members. See GX 52E.\nII. Discussion\nA. Authenticity\nAs a general matter, “an item of evidence must ‘be authenticated through introduction of evidence sufficient to warrant a finding that the item is what the proponent says it is.” United States v. Corley, 679 F. App’x 1, 4 (2d Cir. 2017) (summary order) (quoting Crawford v. Tribeca Lending Corp., 815 F.3d 121, 126 (2d Cir. 2016)). “Under Rule 901 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, ‘[t]he requirement of authentication . . . as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.’” United States v. Jackson, 345 F.3d 59, 65 (2d Cir. 2003) (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 901(a)).\nThis bar for authentication “is ‘not particularly high.’” United States v. Bout, 651 F. App’x 62, 63–64 (2d Cir. 2016) (summary order) (quoting United States v. Gagliardi, 506 F.3d 140, 151 (2d Cir. 2007)).\nDOJ-OGR-00006965",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 457 Filed 11/13/21 Page 3 of 8",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Page 3",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Guestrooms).” See Government Exhibit 606 at 7; see also id. at 10 (“JE and GM telephone directories [are] placed to the right of telephone” in “check off list” for “pre-arrival preparations” for the master bedroom); id. at 22 (“JE and GM telephone directories” in Vehicles and Bicycles section); id. at 23 (“JE and GM telephone directories placed to the right of the telephone” for “Ms Maxwell’s desk”).\nEmployee-1 has examined Government Exhibit 52 in preparation for trial and recognizes it to be the defendant’s contact book, copies of which were maintained in Epstein’s Palm Beach residence, among other locations. Employee-1 recognizes the shape, color, and binding of the book, and recognizes the formatting and style of the entries as consistent with the manner in which the defendant’s book was organized and the way in which entries appeared. Employee-1 also recognizes several of the contacts listed in Government Exhibit 52 as friends of the defendant and Epstein. The entries include, among others, the defendant’s family members. See GX 52E.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "II. Discussion\nA. Authenticity",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "As a general matter, “an item of evidence must ‘be authenticated through introduction of evidence sufficient to warrant a finding that the item is what the proponent says it is.” United States v. Corley, 679 F. App’x 1, 4 (2d Cir. 2017) (summary order) (quoting Crawford v. Tribeca Lending Corp., 815 F.3d 121, 126 (2d Cir. 2016)). “Under Rule 901 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, ‘[t]he requirement of authentication . . . as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.’” United States v. Jackson, 345 F.3d 59, 65 (2d Cir. 2003) (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 901(a)).",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "This bar for authentication “is ‘not particularly high.’” United States v. Bout, 651 F. App’x 62, 63–64 (2d Cir. 2016) (summary order) (quoting United States v. Gagliardi, 506 F.3d 140, 151 (2d Cir. 2007)).",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00006965",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Employee-1",
      "JE",
      "GM",
      "Ms Maxwell",
      "Epstein",
      "Corley",
      "Crawford",
      "Jackson",
      "Bout",
      "Gagliardi"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Tribeca Lending Corp."
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Palm Beach"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "11/13/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 457",
      "Government Exhibit 606",
      "Government Exhibit 52",
      "GX 52E",
      "DOJ-OGR-00006965"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}