{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "9",
    "document_number": "136-9",
    "date": "02/04/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 136-9 Filed 02/04/21 Page 9 of 33 8\nhowever, that references to health care providers in their institutions may be unsealed.\nMs. Giuffre likewise argues that, for certain police reports, the privacy interests of certain persons warrant continued sealing where they were minor victims. Because these police reports were obtained through a public records request, they should be unsealed and docketed in the form that they were received from the law enforcement agency. This is also consistent with the approach that the Court of Appeals has taken. Consistent with the Court of Appeals' approach, other personal information in these police reports, such as addresses, should be redacted from previously undisclosed reports, to the extent such information has not already been redacted by the law enforcement agency.\nAs for the names and identifying information of nonparty Does: At this stage, unless otherwise noted, the only Does for whom names and identifying information should be unsealed are Does 1 and 2. The Court has already noted that the names of Does 1 and 2, portions of their deposition transcripts, and portions of the Palm Beach police report ascribed to them, have already been made public. Doe 1 gave a press interview about the subject matter of this action. Does 1 and 2 did, relatedly, ask that their names not be disclosed, after the horse was already out of the barn. They were given an additional opportunity to lodge formal objections, but did\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 136-9 Filed 02/04/21 Page 9 of 33 8\nhowever, that references to health care providers in their institutions may be unsealed.\nMs. Giuffre likewise argues that, for certain police reports, the privacy interests of certain persons warrant continued sealing where they were minor victims. Because these police reports were obtained through a public records request, they should be unsealed and docketed in the form that they were received from the law enforcement agency. This is also consistent with the approach that the Court of Appeals has taken. Consistent with the Court of Appeals' approach, other personal information in these police reports, such as addresses, should be redacted from previously undisclosed reports, to the extent such information has not already been redacted by the law enforcement agency.\nAs for the names and identifying information of nonparty Does: At this stage, unless otherwise noted, the only Does for whom names and identifying information should be unsealed are Does 1 and 2. The Court has already noted that the names of Does 1 and 2, portions of their deposition transcripts, and portions of the Palm Beach police report ascribed to them, have already been made public. Doe 1 gave a press interview about the subject matter of this action. Does 1 and 2 did, relatedly, ask that their names not be disclosed, after the horse was already out of the barn. They were given an additional opportunity to lodge formal objections, but did",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "bottom"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Giuffre",
      "Doe 1",
      "Doe 2"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Court of Appeals",
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.",
      "law enforcement agency"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Palm Beach"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "02/04/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "136-9",
      "212-805-0300"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a clear and legible text. There are no visible redactions or damage to the document."
}