{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "101",
    "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 101 of 239\n\nprovided to Boies Schiller shortly after it was issued. The materials provided by Boies Schiller included, in addition to deposition transcripts of Maxwell and other individuals, materials produced by Giuffre, Maxwell, and non-parties, and court-related pleadings in the civil case.\n\n7. Magistrate Judge Netburn's Order\n\nOn or about April 9, 2019, the Government advised Judge Netburn, who had not yet ruled on the Government's other application in Jane Doe 43 v. Epstein, et al., 17 Civ. 0616 (JGK) (SN), of Chief Judge McMahon's decision via ex parte and sealed letter. (Def. Mot. 3, Ex. I). Subsequently, on April 16, 2019, Judge Netburn denied the Government's application. (Def. Mot. 3, Ex. H). Judge Netburn found that she was authorized under the All Writs Act to modify the protective order, but declined to do so as the Government had not established exceptional circumstances or a compelling need. (Id. at 3). She concluded that on the record before her, the parties' reliance on the protective order was reasonable and the presumption of confidentiality should apply. (Id. at 5-6). The court rejected the Government's arguments for exceptional circumstances and compelling need as relying on \"the general desire for secrecy\" and \"unpersuasive\" under the Martindell standard. (Id. at 6). Judge Netburn concluded that \"the Government must demonstrate not that this investigation is an extraordinary circumstance, but that the reason for seeking the documents is so extraordinary or compelling that there is a need to modify the Protective Order. The Government has not met that standard.\" (Id. at 7) (emphasis in original).\n\n8. Unsealing of Maxwell's Depositions\n\nThree months after Chief Judge McMahon issued her Order, Giuffre v. Maxwell was reassigned to the Honorable Loretta A. Preska on July 9, 2019. On or about July 23, 2020, Judge Preska ordered unsealed certain litigation materials, including, and related to, Maxwell's April 74 DOJ-OGR-00003035",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 101 of 239",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "provided to Boies Schiller shortly after it was issued. The materials provided by Boies Schiller included, in addition to deposition transcripts of Maxwell and other individuals, materials produced by Giuffre, Maxwell, and non-parties, and court-related pleadings in the civil case.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "7. Magistrate Judge Netburn's Order",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "On or about April 9, 2019, the Government advised Judge Netburn, who had not yet ruled on the Government's other application in Jane Doe 43 v. Epstein, et al., 17 Civ. 0616 (JGK) (SN), of Chief Judge McMahon's decision via ex parte and sealed letter. (Def. Mot. 3, Ex. I). Subsequently, on April 16, 2019, Judge Netburn denied the Government's application. (Def. Mot. 3, Ex. H). Judge Netburn found that she was authorized under the All Writs Act to modify the protective order, but declined to do so as the Government had not established exceptional circumstances or a compelling need. (Id. at 3). She concluded that on the record before her, the parties' reliance on the protective order was reasonable and the presumption of confidentiality should apply. (Id. at 5-6). The court rejected the Government's arguments for exceptional circumstances and compelling need as relying on \"the general desire for secrecy\" and \"unpersuasive\" under the Martindell standard. (Id. at 6). Judge Netburn concluded that \"the Government must demonstrate not that this investigation is an extraordinary circumstance, but that the reason for seeking the documents is so extraordinary or compelling that there is a need to modify the Protective Order. The Government has not met that standard.\" (Id. at 7) (emphasis in original).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "8. Unsealing of Maxwell's Depositions",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Three months after Chief Judge McMahon issued her Order, Giuffre v. Maxwell was reassigned to the Honorable Loretta A. Preska on July 9, 2019. On or about July 23, 2020, Judge Preska ordered unsealed certain litigation materials, including, and related to, Maxwell's April",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "74 DOJ-OGR-00003035",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell",
      "Giuffre",
      "Epstein",
      "Netburn",
      "McMahon",
      "Preska"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Boies Schiller"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "April 9, 2019",
      "April 16, 2019",
      "July 9, 2019",
      "July 23, 2020",
      "April 16, 2021"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 204",
      "17 Civ. 0616 (JGK) (SN)",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003035"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of United States v. Maxwell. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}