{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "107",
    "document_number": "204",
    "date": "04/16/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 107 of 239\n\npublic interest\" which resulted in the Government convening a grand jury to investigate a serious crime. (Def. Mot. 3, Ex. G at 22-23). The Court also noted that because the investigation was not publicly known, \"the ordinary exercise of grand jury power [i.e., to subpoena witnesses to testify and to produce documents] . . . would implicate and invite the very risk of disclosure—and the possibility of alerting potential criminal targets that they are under investigation, causing them to destroy evidence, flee from prosecution, or otherwise seriously jeopardize the Investigation—that caused the Government to proceed via subpoena [to Boies Schiller] and its related Application.\" (Id. at 23-24). The Court further noted that the \"Government's interest is bolstered\" as the request was made by a grand jury that had issued a \"subpoena for the production of documents as part of an ongoing investigation.\" (Id. at 25). In support of her argument, the defendant cites Palmieri where the Second Circuit, applying Martindell, reversed the district court's decision granting the state Attorney General's motion to intervene to modify sealing orders. (Def. Mot. 11 at 14). Maxwell's reliance on Palmieri is of no avail. There, the Second Circuit held that the district court erred by not expressly finding that the state had shown improvidence, extraordinary circumstances, or compelling need before modifying the sealing orders in a civil case. Palmieri, 779 F.2d at 862, 866. By contrast, here Chief Judge McMahon made this explicit finding.\n\nJudge Netburn, on the other hand, rejected the Government's arguments for exceptional circumstances and compelling need as \"unpersuasive\" under the Martindell standard. (Def. Mot. 3, Ex. H at 6). Maxwell argues that Judge Netburn was \"exactly right\" in her analysis of whether exceptional circumstances existed, but ignores the fact that Chief Judge McMahon made contrary findings on this point. That two neutral judicial officers were presented with the facts, analyzed the law, and reached varying conclusions based on different findings shows that there are guardrails in place to ensure compliance with Martindell. In other words, the Government in no\n\n80\n\nDOJ-OGR-00003041",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 107 of 239",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "public interest\" which resulted in the Government convening a grand jury to investigate a serious crime. (Def. Mot. 3, Ex. G at 22-23). The Court also noted that because the investigation was not publicly known, \"the ordinary exercise of grand jury power [i.e., to subpoena witnesses to testify and to produce documents] . . . would implicate and invite the very risk of disclosure—and the possibility of alerting potential criminal targets that they are under investigation, causing them to destroy evidence, flee from prosecution, or otherwise seriously jeopardize the Investigation—that caused the Government to proceed via subpoena [to Boies Schiller] and its related Application.\" (Id. at 23-24). The Court further noted that the \"Government's interest is bolstered\" as the request was made by a grand jury that had issued a \"subpoena for the production of documents as part of an ongoing investigation.\" (Id. at 25). In support of her argument, the defendant cites Palmieri where the Second Circuit, applying Martindell, reversed the district court's decision granting the state Attorney General's motion to intervene to modify sealing orders. (Def. Mot. 11 at 14). Maxwell's reliance on Palmieri is of no avail. There, the Second Circuit held that the district court erred by not expressly finding that the state had shown improvidencence, extraordinary circumstances, or compelling need before modifying the sealing orders in a civil case. Palmieri, 779 F.2d at 862, 866. By contrast, here Chief Judge McMahon made this explicit finding.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Judge Netburn, on the other hand, rejected the Government's arguments for exceptional circumstances and compelling need as \"unpersuasive\" under the Martindell standard. (Def. Mot. 3, Ex. H at 6). Maxwell argues that Judge Netburn was \"exactly right\" in her analysis of whether exceptional circumstances existed, but ignores the fact that Chief Judge McMahon made contrary findings on this point. That two neutral judicial officers were presented with the facts, analyzed the law, and reached varying conclusions based on different findings shows that there are guardrails in place to ensure compliance with Martindell. In other words, the Government in no",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "80",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003041",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell",
      "Judge Netburn",
      "Chief Judge McMahon"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Boies Schiller",
      "Government",
      "Second Circuit",
      "state Attorney General"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "04/16/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 204",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003041"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is mostly printed, with no handwritten content or stamps visible. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}