{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "3",
    "document_number": "217",
    "date": "04/19/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 217 Filed 04/19/21 Page 3 of 6\nThe Hon. Alison J. Nathan\nApril 1, 2021\nPage 3\nThe testimony at issue is undeniably private: it relates exclusively to Ms. Maxwell's consensual adult sexual activities involving \"sex toys or devices used in sexual activities\" and a \"three-way sexual\" encounter involving an adult \"blond and brunette.\" See Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 567 (U.S. 2003) (\"It suffices for us to acknowledge that adults may choose to enter upon [a] relationship in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons. When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring.\"); see also Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 485-86 (U.S. 1965). And Ms. Maxwell proposes only those redactions \"narrowly tailored\" to preserve her privacy interest in her intimate, consensual adult sexual activities. Press-Enterprise II, 106 S.Ct. at 2743. Rather than seek to redact either the argument or the surrounding testimony, Ms. Maxwell marked for redaction those limited portions of the deposition transcript that Judge Preska ordered sealed. The remaining unredacted portions generally describe the redacted testimony such that the public and media will have no issue ascertaining the nature of the legal issues nor fulfill their role in monitoring the Courts. Inclusion of the exact lines referencing \"three-way sexual activity\" or \"sex toys\" does not add to the argument but redacting those lines does preserve Ms. Maxwell's privacy in testimony that was both compelled and obtained under highly improper methods.\nIn addition to her privacy interests, Ms. Maxwell seeks to preserve her right to a fair trial free from unfair pretrial publicity concerning what may ultimately be deemed \"inadmissible\" evidence at the criminal trial. United States v. Doe, 63 F.3d 121, 128 (2d Cir. 1995) (\"compelling interests\" that counterbalance any presumption of access include the \"privacy interests of the defendant\" and the fair trial rights of the defendant).\nDOJ-OGR-00003849",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 217 Filed 04/19/21 Page 3 of 6",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Hon. Alison J. Nathan\nApril 1, 2021\nPage 3",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The testimony at issue is undeniably private: it relates exclusively to Ms. Maxwell's consensual adult sexual activities involving \"sex toys or devices used in sexual activities\" and a \"three-way sexual\" encounter involving an adult \"blond and brunette.\" See Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 567 (U.S. 2003) (\"It suffices for us to acknowledge that adults may choose to enter upon [a] relationship in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons. When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring.\"); see also Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 485-86 (U.S. 1965). And Ms. Maxwell proposes only those redactions \"narrowly tailored\" to preserve her privacy interest in her intimate, consensual adult sexual activities. Press-Enterprise II, 106 S.Ct. at 2743. Rather than seek to redact either the argument or the surrounding testimony, Ms. Maxwell marked for redaction those limited portions of the deposition transcript that Judge Preska ordered sealed. The remaining unredacted portions generally describe the redacted testimony such that the public and media will have no issue ascertaining the nature of the legal issues nor fulfill their role in monitoring the Courts. Inclusion of the exact lines referencing \"three-way sexual activity\" or \"sex toys\" does not add to the argument but redacting those lines does preserve Ms. Maxwell's privacy in testimony that was both compelled and obtained under highly improper methods.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In addition to her privacy interests, Ms. Maxwell seeks to preserve her right to a fair trial free from unfair pretrial publicity concerning what may ultimately be deemed \"inadmissible\" evidence at the criminal trial. United States v. Doe, 63 F.3d 121, 128 (2d Cir. 1995) (\"compelling interests\" that counterbalance any presumption of access include the \"privacy interests of the defendant\" and the fair trial rights of the defendant).",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003849",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Alison J. Nathan",
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Judge Preska"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "U.S. Supreme Court",
      "2d Cir."
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Texas",
      "Connecticut"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "April 1, 2021",
      "04/19/21",
      "2003",
      "1965",
      "1995"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 217",
      "539 U.S. 558",
      "381 U.S. 479",
      "63 F.3d 121",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003849"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ms. Maxwell. The text discusses the privacy interests of Ms. Maxwell and the need to redact certain portions of her testimony. The document includes citations to various court cases and legal precedents."
}