{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "16",
    "document_number": "212",
    "date": "04/16/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 212 Filed 04/16/21 Page 16 of 20\n\nMaxwell with perjury.3 There are compelling reasons, therefore, to think the government and Boies Schiller collaborated and that Boies Schiller's conduct was in part at the government's behest.\n\nThe record in the Giuffre case preceding the first deposition supports this conclusion as well. Based on Giuffre's claim of an ongoing investigation, Maxwell requested, prior to her deposition, that Giuffre disclose any alleged \"on-going criminal investigation by law enforcement\" or alternatively to stay the action pending completion of any such investigation. Ex. A. In part, Maxwell needed information concerning any such investigation to assess \"the impact on any 5th Amendment privilege.\" Ex. A, p 3. The district court declined to afford Ms. Maxwell the requested relief. Ex. B.\n\nThe day before Maxwell's April 2016 deposition, however, Judge Sweet ordered that \"[a]ny materials that [Giuffre] has with respect to any criminal investigations will be turned over [by Giuffre] except for any statements made by [Giuffre] to law enforcement authority.\" Ex. B, p 21. Maxwell had in fact served a discovery request on Boies Schiller for any such documents, yet Giuffre produced no such materials, and the deposition proceeded as scheduled the next day.\n\nIn reliance on the Protective Order, which included no exception for any law enforcement need or subpoena and based on Giuffre's failure to disclose any \"ongoing criminal investigation,\" Maxwell did not assert her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination during that deposition and testified truthfully.\n\nAs explained in Maxwell's Pretrial Motion No. 3 and the Reply in Support Thereof, the government has now disclosed several documents \"with respect to any criminal investigations\"\n\n3 Stephen Rex Brown, Manhattan federal prosecutors declined to pursue Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell case in 2016, New York Daily News (Oct. 13, 2020), https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny-jeffrey-epstein-maxwell-case-20201013-jmzh17zdrzdgrbbs7yc6bfnszu-story.html.",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 212 Filed 04/16/21 Page 16 of 20",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Maxwell with perjury.3 There are compelling reasons, therefore, to think the government and Boies Schiller collaborated and that Boies Schiller's conduct was in part at the government's behest.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The record in the Giuffre case preceding the first deposition supports this conclusion as well. Based on Giuffre's claim of an ongoing investigation, Maxwell requested, prior to her deposition, that Giuffre disclose any alleged \"on-going criminal investigation by law enforcement\" or alternatively to stay the action pending completion of any such investigation. Ex. A. In part, Maxwell needed information concerning any such investigation to assess \"the impact on any 5th Amendment privilege.\" Ex. A, p 3. The district court declined to afford Ms. Maxwell the requested relief. Ex. B.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The day before Maxwell's April 2016 deposition, however, Judge Sweet ordered that \"[a]ny materials that [Giuffre] has with respect to any criminal investigations will be turned over [by Giuffre] except for any statements made by [Giuffre] to law enforcement authority.\" Ex. B, p 21. Maxwell had in fact served a discovery request on Boies Schiller for any such documents, yet Giuffre produced no such materials, and the deposition proceeded as scheduled the next day.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In reliance on the Protective Order, which included no exception for any law enforcement need or subpoena and based on Giuffre's failure to disclose any \"ongoing criminal investigation,\" Maxwell did not assert her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination during that deposition and testified truthfully.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "As explained in Maxwell's Pretrial Motion No. 3 and the Reply in Support Thereof, the government has now disclosed several documents \"with respect to any criminal investigations\"",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "3 Stephen Rex Brown, Manhattan federal prosecutors declined to pursue Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell case in 2016, New York Daily News (Oct. 13, 2020), https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny-jeffrey-epstein-maxwell-case-20201013-jmzh17zdrzdgrbbs7yc6bfnszu-story.html.",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "11",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003790",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell",
      "Giuffre",
      "Jeffrey Epstein",
      "Ghislaine Maxwell",
      "Stephen Rex Brown"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Boies Schiller",
      "New York Daily News"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Manhattan"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "April 2016",
      "Oct. 13, 2020",
      "04/16/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 212",
      "Ex. A",
      "Ex. B",
      "Pretrial Motion No. 3",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003790"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ghislaine Maxwell. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document includes references to other court documents and news articles."
}