{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "7",
    "document_number": "212-2",
    "date": "04/16/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 212-2 Filed 04/16/21 Page 7 of 30\nApp.-0810\n\nG4LMGIUC\n6\n1 enforce the confidentiality appropriately.\n2 Now, with those preliminary thoughts in mind I am\n3 going to deny the motion at this time because I know that there\n4 is a statement, some kind of a statement from the mediator in\n5 the Florida action. When I get a piece of paper that says the\n6 Florida action is dismissed, a court order or whatever, then\n7 this motion can be renewed.\n8 Also, I want an affidavit from the two lawyers that\n9 there is no matter in which they are personally involved, that\n10 they are making no claim, there is no claims, there is no\n11 litigation in which they are involved. The reason I say that\n12 is that I would not grant the application for a pro hac status\n13 to a party in this or a related litigation. If I get those\n14 affidavits and the statement about the closure of the Florida\n15 case in which they are a party, then the application can be\n16 renewed and at that point I would be probably inclined, unless\n17 something else comes up or unless the defense tells me\n18 something that I don't now know, I would grant the application\n19 that brings us to the order itself and the meaning of the\n20 order. I think active in the litigation is the key phrase.\n21 The plaintiff has listed the people that she considers would be\n22 appropriate and it's these two gentleman and I think one other\n23 person, and that's fine. That is the definition.\n24 However, I'm also going to ask the parties to agree\n25 upon an order that would expand the confidentiality agreement.\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nDOJ-OGR-00003809",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 212-2 Filed 04/16/21 Page 7 of 30",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "App.-0810",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "G4LMGIUC\n6\n1 enforce the confidentiality appropriately.\n2 Now, with those preliminary thoughts in mind I am\n3 going to deny the motion at this time because I know that there\n4 is a statement, some kind of a statement from the mediator in\n5 the Florida action. When I get a piece of paper that says the\n6 Florida action is dismissed, a court order or whatever, then\n7 this motion can be renewed.\n8 Also, I want an affidavit from the two lawyers that\n9 there is no matter in which they are personally involved, that\n10 they are making no claim, there is no claims, there is no\n11 litigation in which they are involved. The reason I say that\n12 is that I would not grant the application for a pro hac status\n13 to a party in this or a related litigation. If I get those\n14 affidavits and the statement about the closure of the Florida\n15 case in which they are a party, then the application can be\n16 renewed and at that point I would be probably inclined, unless\n17 something else comes up or unless the defense tells me\n18 something that I don't now know, I would grant the application\n19 that brings us to the order itself and the meaning of the\n20 order. I think active in the litigation is the key phrase.\n21 The plaintiff has listed the people that she considers would be\n22 appropriate and it's these two gentleman and I think one other\n23 person, and that's fine. That is the definition.\n24 However, I'm also going to ask the parties to agree\n25 upon an order that would expand the confidentiality agreement.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003809",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Florida"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "04/16/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 212-2",
      "App.-0810",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003809"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or a legal document related to a court case. The text is typed, and there are no visible handwritten notes or stamps. The document includes a header with case information and a footer with the name and contact information of the reporting agency."
}