{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "18",
    "document_number": "134",
    "date": "02/04/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 134 Filed 02/04/21 Page 18 of 23\nhad in the Chemical Bank case. In no uncertain terms, explained why she had\nhaled the prosecutor back into court:\n\n\n\n\n\n\nEx. E, p 2.\n\nIn Chemical Bank, a protective order precluded parties to a civil case from disclosing\nconfidential documents to others. 154 F.R.D. at 92–93. Despite this prohibition, counsel for the\ndefendant approached the Manhattan District Attorney's Office and suggested that it had\nevidence of criminal violations relating to the case. Id. at 93. A grand jury issued a subpoena,\nand the defendant produced to the government various confidential documents without\ncomplying with any of the specific procedures or exceptions provided in the protective order. Id.\nOnce this collusion came to light, the district court reprimanded the defendant for its “disregard\nof the [protective] order[]” and admonished its behavior as “contrary to the traditions of the Bar\nwhich dictate that court orders be respected.” Id.\n\nIn addressing the government's application here, specifically asked\nwhether had acted as the defendant did in Chemical Bank. The prosecutor omitted\nany mention of his office's previous meetings with the firm, and falsely led the court to believe\nthat had not encouraged its investigation. Reassured by the misrepresentations,\ncommented:\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n13\nDOJ-OGR-00002365",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 134 Filed 02/04/21 Page 18 of 23",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "had in the Chemical Bank case. In no uncertain terms, explained why she had\nhaled the prosecutor back into court:",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Ex. E, p 2.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In Chemical Bank, a protective order precluded parties to a civil case from disclosing\nconfidential documents to others. 154 F.R.D. at 92–93. Despite this prohibition, counsel for the\ndefendant approached the Manhattan District Attorney's Office and suggested that it had\nevidence of criminal violations relating to the case. Id. at 93. A grand jury issued a subpoena,\nand the defendant produced to the government various confidential documents without\ncomplying with any of the specific procedures or exceptions provided in the protective order. Id.\nOnce this collusion came to light, the district court reprimanded the defendant for its “disregard\nof the [protective] order[]” and admonished its behavior as “contrary to the traditions of the Bar\nwhich dictate that court orders be respected.” Id.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In addressing the government's application here, specifically asked\nwhether had acted as the defendant did in Chemical Bank. The prosecutor omitted\nany mention of his office's previous meetings with the firm, and falsely led the court to believe\nthat had not encouraged its investigation. Reassured by the misrepresentations,\ncommented:",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "13",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00002365",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "Chemical Bank",
      "Manhattan District Attorney's Office"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Manhattan"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "02/04/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "Document 134",
      "154 F.R.D. at 92–93",
      "DOJ-OGR-00002365"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document contains redactions, likely for sensitive or personal information."
}