{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "34",
    "document_number": "2017-03-30-Auto-Notice-010002-File010238-Page34of36",
    "date": null,
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "As to the defense's most recent complaints, the malfunctioning of the sixth production that the defense complains of resulted from the defendant herself dropping the hard drive onto the ground, and that drive has been replaced. When the defense informed the Government that the drive containing the seventh production may be malfunctioning, the Government offered to have IT staff review the drive. In response, the defense indicated the drive was in fact still viewable and declined to have IT staff review it. Accordingly, it is the Government's understanding that the defendant currently has a full, readable set of discovery at the MDC. At the defense's request, the Government is preparing yet another copy containing all productions to date on a single drive so that the defendant will have a backup copy of discovery materials at the MDC.11 Throughout the defendant's pretrial detention, the Government has been responsive to the defense's concerns regarding access to discovery and counsel. The Government will continue to work with MDC legal counsel to ensure that the defendant is able to review her discovery and to communicate with defense counsel over the seven months still remaining before trial.\n\nAs to the defense complaints regarding the defendant's conditions of confinement, the defense notably does not suggest that the defendant should be housed in general population. Indeed, the defense appears to agree that the best way to ensure the defendant's safety while detained is to be away from general population. Unlike other inmates in protective custody, however, the defendant is released from her isolation cell for thirteen hours per day, has her own shower, has exclusive use of two different computers, has her own phone to use, and has her own television. Those conditions set her far apart from general population inmates, not to mention\n\n11 On this score, the Government notes the tension between the defense claim that the discovery produced to date contains little of value or relevant to the charges set forth in the Indictment, and the simultaneous claim that the defendant has been prejudiced by technical difficulties that have temporarily delayed her ability to review portions of those productions, productions which, according to the defense, counsel have already been able to conclude are essentially unimportant.",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "As to the defense's most recent complaints, the malfunctioning of the sixth production that the defense complains of resulted from the defendant herself dropping the hard drive onto the ground, and that drive has been replaced. When the defense informed the Government that the drive containing the seventh production may be malfunctioning, the Government offered to have IT staff review the drive. In response, the defense indicated the drive was in fact still viewable and declined to have IT staff review it. Accordingly, it is the Government's understanding that the defendant currently has a full, readable set of discovery at the MDC. At the defense's request, the Government is preparing yet another copy containing all productions to date on a single drive so that the defendant will have a backup copy of discovery materials at the MDC.11 Throughout the defendant's pretrial detention, the Government has been responsive to the defense's concerns regarding access to discovery and counsel. The Government will continue to work with MDC legal counsel to ensure that the defendant is able to review her discovery and to communicate with defense counsel over the seven months still remaining before trial.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "As to the defense complaints regarding the defendant's conditions of confinement, the defense notably does not suggest that the defendant should be housed in general population. Indeed, the defense appears to agree that the best way to ensure the defendant's safety while detained is to be away from general population. Unlike other inmates in protective custody, however, the defendant is released from her isolation cell for thirteen hours per day, has her own shower, has exclusive use of two different computers, has her own phone to use, and has her own television. Those conditions set her far apart from general population inmates, not to mention",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "11 On this score, the Government notes the tension between the defense claim that the discovery produced to date contains little of value or relevant to the charges set forth in the Indictment, and the simultaneous claim that the defendant has been prejudiced by technical difficulties that have temporarily delayed her ability to review portions of those productions, productions which, according to the defense, counsel have already been able to conclude are essentially unimportant.",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "31",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00001176",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "defendant"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government",
      "MDC",
      "IT",
      "DOJ"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "2017-03-30-Auto-Notice-010002-File010238-Page34of36",
      "DOJ-OGR-00001176"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing discussing the defendant's conditions of confinement and access to discovery materials. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 34 of 36."
}