{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "7",
    "document_number": "52",
    "date": "09/02/20",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 52 Filed 09/02/20 Page 7 of 8\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nAugust 17, 2020\nPage 7\nFurther, and as this Court knows, ample Second Circuit authority supports staying a civil case pending the resolution of a related criminal case. See SEC v. Blaszczak, No. 17-CV-3919 (AJN), 2018 WL 301091, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 3, 2018) (granting motion to stay civil case and holding that \"[a] district court may stay civil proceedings when related criminal proceedings are imminent or pending, and it will sometimes be prudential to do so\" (quoting Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. LY USA, Inc., 676 F.3d 83, 98 (2d Cir. 2012))). Among other things, the stay vindicates the Fifth Amendment and guards against witnesses learning information in the civil case and then \"conforming\" their testimony in the criminal case to what was disclosed in the civil case. This concern is all the more real when\n\nMs. Maxwell further anticipates the very immediate need to disclose the Materials to\n\nNotably, the Material at issue is not accuser-related or sensitive in any regard. These ex parte pleadings, hearings, and rulings are already known to\n. These materials, absent sealing, would enjoy a presumptive right of public access as judicial documents. Given that the Material has been disclosed in this case by the government under the terms of this Court's Order, and without any application to the sealing courts, the government has conceded that this Court has the authority to authorize use of the Material under the terms of this Court's Protective Order. And, the government has previously agreed that the appropriate forum to consider issues related to the civil Protective Order is in the civil litigation, positing the opinion \"that neither it nor this Court is well-positioned to, or should, become the arbiter of what is appropriate or permissible in civil cases.\" Doc. # 33 at 7. What Ms. Maxwell asks is that she be allowed to disclose, under seal, the Material so that\n\nThe Protective Order in this case\n\nThe Material, as part of the court files in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,\n\nDOJ-OGR-00001758",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 52 Filed 09/02/20 Page 7 of 8",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nAugust 17, 2020\nPage 7",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Further, and as this Court knows, ample Second Circuit authority supports staying a civil case pending the resolution of a related criminal case. See SEC v. Blaszczak, No. 17-CV-3919 (AJN), 2018 WL 301091, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 3, 2018) (granting motion to stay civil case and holding that \"[a] district court may stay civil proceedings when related criminal proceedings are imminent or pending, and it will sometimes be prudential to do so\" (quoting Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. LY USA, Inc., 676 F.3d 83, 98 (2d Cir. 2012))). Among other things, the stay vindicates the Fifth Amendment and guards against witnesses learning information in the civil case and then \"conforming\" their testimony in the criminal case to what was disclosed in the civil case. This concern is all the more real when",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Ms. Maxwell further anticipates the very immediate need to disclose the Materials to",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Notably, the Material at issue is not accuser-related or sensitive in any regard. These ex parte pleadings, hearings, and rulings are already known to. These materials, absent sealing, would enjoy a presumptive right of public access as judicial documents. Given that the Material has been disclosed in this case by the government under the terms of this Court's Order, and without any application to the sealing courts, the government has conceded that this Court has the authority to authorize use of the Material under the terms of this Court's Protective Order. And, the government has previously agreed that the appropriate forum to consider issues related to the civil Protective Order is in the civil litigation, positing the opinion \"that neither it nor this Court is well-positioned to, or should, become the arbiter of what is appropriate or permissible in civil cases.\" Doc. # 33 at 7. What Ms. Maxwell asks is that she be allowed to disclose, under seal, the Material so that",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Protective Order in this case",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Material, as part of the court files in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00001758",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Alison J. Nathan",
      "Ms. Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SEC"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Southern District of New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "August 17, 2020",
      "09/02/20",
      "Jan. 3, 2018"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "Document 52",
      "No. 17-CV-3919 (AJN)",
      "Doc. # 33",
      "DOJ-OGR-00001758"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with redactions. The redactions are likely due to sensitive information being withheld."
}