{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "13",
    "document_number": "311-4",
    "date": "07/02/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 311-4 Filed 07/02/21 Page 13 of 27\nTo Be Filed Under Seal\na grand jury subpoena, with which the party (the defendant) complied. At no point did the defendant seek relief from the protective order. Id. When the other party to the protective order learned of the defendant's blatant disregard of its obligations, it moved for sanctions in the civil action. Id.\nThe district court condemned the defendant's behavior as \"entirely unnecessary and inappropriate,\" but nonetheless refused to sanction the defendant—apparently because, had the defendant sought relief from that order, the judge would have granted its request. Id. at 93–94.\nWhile the Martindell factors were never mentioned expressly by the district court, Judge Broderick observed that the confidentiality order did not implicate \"technological trade secrets, currently sensitive customer lists, or contemporaneously sensitive competitive information which could benefit rivals\"—factors that, if present, he would have had more difficulty balancing against the investigative needs of law enforcement. Id. at 94.\nThere are three reasons why Chemical Bank does not justify this Court's refusing to apply the Martindell factors to the Government's application. First and foremost, the opinion of another district judge does not trump an opinion from the Second Circuit. Second, while a reader of Chemical Bank cannot be certain whether the district court complied with Martindell, the language quoted above certainly suggests that the district court engaged in the balancing exercise that Martindell contemplated. Finally, nothing in the record suggests that the Government's investigation in this case was occasioned by Boies Schiller—a point to which I will return later in this opinion.\nThe Court will, therefore, analyze the Government's request in light of the Martindell factors.\n12\nSDNY_GM_00000886\nDOJ-OGR-00004936",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 311-4 Filed 07/02/21 Page 13 of 27",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "To Be Filed Under Seal",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "a grand jury subpoena, with which the party (the defendant) complied. At no point did the defendant seek relief from the protective order. Id. When the other party to the protective order learned of the defendant's blatant disregard of its obligations, it moved for sanctions in the civil action. Id.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The district court condemned the defendant's behavior as \"entirely unnecessary and inappropriate,\" but nonetheless refused to sanction the defendant—apparently because, had the defendant sought relief from that order, the judge would have granted its request. Id. at 93–94.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "While the Martindell factors were never mentioned expressly by the district court, Judge Broderick observed that the confidentiality order did not implicate \"technological trade secrets, currently sensitive customer lists, or contemporaneously sensitive competitive information which could benefit rivals\"—factors that, if present, he would have had more difficulty balancing against the investigative needs of law enforcement. Id. at 94.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "There are three reasons why Chemical Bank does not justify this Court's refusing to apply the Martindell factors to the Government's application. First and foremost, the opinion of another district judge does not trump an opinion from the Second Circuit. Second, while a reader of Chemical Bank cannot be certain whether the district court complied with Martindell, the language quoted above certainly suggests that the district court engaged in the balancing exercise that Martindell contemplated. Finally, nothing in the record suggests that the Government's investigation in this case was occasioned by Boies Schiller—a point to which I will return later in this opinion.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Court will, therefore, analyze the Government's request in light of the Martindell factors.",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "12",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SDNY_GM_00000886",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00004936",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Judge Broderick"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Chemical Bank",
      "Boies Schiller",
      "Second Circuit"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "07/02/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "311-4",
      "SDNY_GM_00000886",
      "DOJ-OGR-00004936"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is marked 'To Be Filed Under Seal'."
}