{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "1 of 2",
    "document_number": "546",
    "date": "12/15/21",
    "document_type": "Letter",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 546 Filed 12/15/21 Page 1 of 2\nU.S Department of Justice\nUnited States Attorney\nSouthern District of New York\nThe Silvio J. Mollo Building\nOne Saint Andrew's Plaza\nNew York, New York 10007\nDecember 15, 2021\nBY ECF\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nUnited States District Court\nSouthern District of New York\nUnited States Courthouse\n40 Foley Square\nNew York, New York 10007\nRe: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)\nDear Judge Nathan:\nThe Government respectfully seeks redactions to the defendant's letter motion seeking testimony of Jack Scarola, Brad Edwards, and Robert Glassman, and the sealing of Exhibit 1 to that letter (Dkt. No. 544). The Government's proposed redactions are consistent with the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Although the letter and exhibit are judicial documents subject to the common law presumption of access, the limited proposed redactions and sealing are narrowly tailored to protect the privacy interests of a Minor Victim who is subject of the Court's pseudonym order.\nDOJ-OGR-00008383",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 546 Filed 12/15/21 Page 1 of 2",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "U.S Department of Justice\nUnited States Attorney\nSouthern District of New York\nThe Silvio J. Mollo Building\nOne Saint Andrew's Plaza\nNew York, New York 10007",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "December 15, 2021",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "BY ECF",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nUnited States District Court\nSouthern District of New York\nUnited States Courthouse\n40 Foley Square\nNew York, New York 10007",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Dear Judge Nathan:",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Government respectfully seeks redactions to the defendant's letter motion seeking testimony of Jack Scarola, Brad Edwards, and Robert Glassman, and the sealing of Exhibit 1 to that letter (Dkt. No. 544). The Government's proposed redactions are consistent with the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Although the letter and exhibit are judicial documents subject to the common law presumption of access, the limited proposed redactions and sealing are narrowly tailored to protect the privacy interests of a Minor Victim who is subject of the Court's pseudonym order.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00008383",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Alison J. Nathan",
      "Ghislaine Maxwell",
      "Jack Scarola",
      "Brad Edwards",
      "Robert Glassman"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "U.S Department of Justice",
      "United States Attorney",
      "United States District Court",
      "Southern District of New York"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "December 15, 2021",
      "12/15/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 546",
      "20 Cr. 330 (AJN)",
      "Dkt. No. 544",
      "DOJ-OGR-00008383"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a formal letter from the U.S. Department of Justice to the Honorable Alison J. Nathan regarding the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The letter discusses proposed redactions and sealing of certain documents. The document is well-formatted and printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps."
}