{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "1",
    "document_number": "307",
    "date": "06/25/21",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": true
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 307 Filed 06/25/21 Page 1 of 21\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\nUnited States of America, -v- Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant.\n20-cr-330 (AJN) OPINION & ORDER\nALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: Maxwell moves to suppress evidence obtained through a grand jury subpoena to a law firm involved in earlier civil litigation against her. She contends that because the documents sought by the subpoena were previously subject to a protective order, the Government obtained them in violation of her rights against compelled self-incrimination, against unreasonable searches and seizures, and to due process of law. For the reasons that follow, the Court concludes that the evidence should not be suppressed and that Maxwell is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing.\nI. Background\nIn late 2015, Virginia Giuffre sued Maxwell for defamation. See Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 15-cv-7433 (S.D.N.Y.). Giuffre alleged that Maxwell defamed her by accusing her of lying about Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein sexually abusing her. The law firm Boies Schiller Flexner LLP (BSF) represented Giuffre in the dispute. The parties litigated the case for about two years before signing a confidential settlement agreement.\nEarly in the civil litigation, one of the attorneys representing Giuffre approached an Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) in the Southern District of New York and requested a",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 307 Filed 06/25/21 Page 1 of 21",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "United States of America, -v- Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant.",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "stamp",
      "content": "USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: DATE FILED: 6/25/2021",
      "position": "margin"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "20-cr-330 (AJN) OPINION & ORDER",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: Maxwell moves to suppress evidence obtained through a grand jury subpoena to a law firm involved in earlier civil litigation against her. She contends that because the documents sought by the subpoena were previously subject to a protective order, the Government obtained them in violation of her rights against compelled self-incrimination, against unreasonable searches and seizures, and to due process of law. For the reasons that follow, the Court concludes that the evidence should not be suppressed and that Maxwell is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "I. Background",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In late 2015, Virginia Giuffre sued Maxwell for defamation. See Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 15-cv-7433 (S.D.N.Y.). Giuffre alleged that Maxwell defamed her by accusing her of lying about Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein sexually abusing her. The law firm Boies Schiller Flexner LLP (BSF) represented Giuffre in the dispute. The parties litigated the case for about two years before signing a confidential settlement agreement.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Early in the civil litigation, one of the attorneys representing Giuffre approached an Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) in the Southern District of New York and requested a",
      "position": "body"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ghislaine Maxwell",
      "Alison J. Nathan",
      "Virginia Giuffre",
      "Jeffrey Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States District Court",
      "Southern District of New York",
      "Boies Schiller Flexner LLP"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "06/25/21",
      "2015"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 307",
      "20-cr-330 (AJN)",
      "15-cv-7433"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a stamp indicating electronic filing. The text is clear and legible, with no visible redactions or damage."
}