{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "12",
    "document_number": "136",
    "date": "02/04/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 136 Filed 02/04/21 Page 12 of 27\n\nA. No.\nQ. Other than yourself and the blond and brunette that you have identified as having been involved in three-way sexual activities, with whom did Mr. Epstein have sexual activities?\nA. I wasn't aware that he was having sexual activities with anyone when I was with him other than myself.\nQ. I want to be sure that I'm clear. Is it your testimony that in the 1990s and 2000s, you were not aware that Mr. Epstein was having sexual activities with anyone other than yourself and the blond and brunette on those few occasions when they were involved with you?\nA. That is my testimony, that is correct. . . .\nQ. Is it your testimony that you've never given anybody a massage?\nA. I have not given anyone a massage.\nQ. You never gave Mr. Epstein a massage, is that your testimony?\nA. That is my testimony.\nQ. You never gave [Minor Victim-2] a massage is your testimony?\nA. I never gave [Minor Victim-2] a massage.\nId. ¶ 23.\n\nIII. Post-Indictment Proceedings in the Civil Case\n\nAs the Court is already well-aware based on prior litigation, Judge Preska currently is overseeing both the remand unsealing proceedings in the Giuffre v. Maxwell case as well as the Giuffre v. Dershowitz matter. Last week, Judge Preska issued a ruling in connection with the request from Ms. Giuffre and the Miami Herald to unseal the second Maxwell deposition from July 2016. As is pertinent here, Judge Preska ruled:\n\n\"During this deposition, Ms. Maxwell was asked repeatedly about her own sexual activity with consenting adults. Unlike in her prior deposition, at her July 2016 deposition, she provided testimony in response to those questions. . . . This testimony is, in any case, far afield from the sex trafficking and sexual abuse allegations that were central to the dispute in Giuffre v. Maxwell.\"\n\n7\nDOJ-OGR-00002421",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 136 Filed 02/04/21 Page 12 of 27",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "A. No.\nQ. Other than yourself and the blond and brunette that you have identified as having been involved in three-way sexual activities, with whom did Mr. Epstein have sexual activities?\nA. I wasn't aware that he was having sexual activities with anyone when I was with him other than myself.\nQ. I want to be sure that I'm clear. Is it your testimony that in the 1990s and 2000s, you were not aware that Mr. Epstein was having sexual activities with anyone other than yourself and the blond and brunette on those few occasions when they were involved with you?\nA. That is my testimony, that is correct. . . .\nQ. Is it your testimony that you've never given anybody a massage?\nA. I have not given anyone a massage.\nQ. You never gave Mr. Epstein a massage, is that your testimony?\nA. That is my testimony.\nQ. You never gave [Minor Victim-2] a massage is your testimony?\nA. I never gave [Minor Victim-2] a massage.\nId. ¶ 23.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "III. Post-Indictment Proceedings in the Civil Case",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "As the Court is already well-aware based on prior litigation, Judge Preska currently is overseeing both the remand unsealing proceedings in the Giuffre v. Maxwell case as well as the Giuffre v. Dershowitz matter. Last week, Judge Preska issued a ruling in connection with the request from Ms. Giuffre and the Miami Herald to unseal the second Maxwell deposition from July 2016. As is pertinent here, Judge Preska ruled:\n\n\"During this deposition, Ms. Maxwell was asked repeatedly about her own sexual activity with consenting adults. Unlike in her prior deposition, at her July 2016 deposition, she provided testimony in response to those questions. . . . This testimony is, in any case, far afield from the sex trafficking and sexual abuse allegations that were central to the dispute in Giuffre v. Maxwell.\"",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "7\nDOJ-OGR-00002421",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Mr. Epstein",
      "Ms. Giuffre",
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Judge Preska",
      "Minor Victim-2"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Miami Herald"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "1990s",
      "2000s",
      "July 2016",
      "02/04/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "Document 136",
      "Page 12 of 27",
      "DOJ-OGR-00002421"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or filing related to a case involving Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. The text includes a mix of testimony and legal proceedings."
}