{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "42",
    "document_number": "465",
    "date": "11/15/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 465 Filed 11/15/21 Page 42 of 127 42 LB15MAX2\n1    voluntary dismissal of civil litigation pursuant to a\n2    settlement agreement, and after the dismissal the defendant\n3    sought costs as a prevailing party under Federal Rule of Civil\n4    Procedure 54(d)(1), and at least as described in the papers the\n5    alleged victims opted to pay the fairly minimal amount sought\n6    rather than burden the court and other resources with continued\n7    litigation.\n8        The fact that the defendant received costs pursuant to\n9    civil procedure 54(d) after a civil settlement just has no\n10   relevance to the charges at hand as far as I can tell and there\n11   is substantial danger of confusing the issues and misleading\n12   the jury. If the defense elicited that the defendant was the\n13   prevailing party, a layjuror would almost certainly assume that\n14   that was some kind of adjudication on the merits relevant to\n15   this case but there is no evidence that there was any relevance\n16   adjudication on the merits and certainly none relevant to the\n17   case. Any probative value gained by the introduction would be\n18   substantially outweighed by juror confusion and the waste of\n19   time needed to explain the differing postures of the current\n20   case and the prior civil litigation. So on those 401/403\n21   balancing grounds the government's motion in this regard is\n22   granted.\n23        Any questions before I turn to the defense motions?\n24   MS. MOE: Not from the government, your Honor. Thank\n25   you.\n    SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\n    DOJ-OGR-00007093",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 465 Filed 11/15/21 Page 42 of 127 42 LB15MAX2",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1    voluntary dismissal of civil litigation pursuant to a\n2    settlement agreement, and after the dismissal the defendant\n3    sought costs as a prevailing party under Federal Rule of Civil\n4    Procedure 54(d)(1), and at least as described in the papers the\n5    alleged victims opted to pay the fairly minimal amount sought\n6    rather than burden the court and other resources with continued\n7    litigation.\n8        The fact that the defendant received costs pursuant to\n9    civil procedure 54(d) after a civil settlement just has no\n10   relevance to the charges at hand as far as I can tell and there\n11   is substantial danger of confusing the issues and misleading\n12   the jury. If the defense elicited that the defendant was the\n13   prevailing party, a layjuror would almost certainly assume that\n14   that was some kind of adjudication on the merits relevant to\n15   this case but there is no evidence that there was any relevance\n16   adjudication on the merits and certainly none relevant to the\n17   case. Any probative value gained by the introduction would be\n18   substantially outweighed by juror confusion and the waste of\n19   time needed to explain the differing postures of the current\n20   case and the prior civil litigation. So on those 401/403\n21   balancing grounds the government's motion in this regard is\n22   granted.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "23        Any questions before I turn to the defense motions?",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "24   MS. MOE: Not from the government, your Honor. Thank\n25   you.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00007093",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "MS. MOE"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "11/15/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 465",
      "DOJ-OGR-00007093"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage to the document."
}