{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "7",
    "document_number": "136-9",
    "date": "02/04/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 136-9 Filed 02/04/21 Page 7 of 33\nthem in some later proceeding. In any case, the Court takes comfort in the fact that Ms. Maxwell recognizes that she has the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and evidence at her disposal when the appropriate time comes to fight this fight down the road.\nA word about Ms. Maxwell's July 2016 deposition. The full transcript of Ms. Maxwell's July 2016 deposition transcript was submitted as an exhibit annexed to her motion opposing a request to reopen that deposition, at docket entry 340-4. Excerpts of that transcript were also submitted as exhibits to various other briefing. Ms. Maxwell argues that the \"privacy interests of those who resist disclosure\" -- in the case of her deposition, Ms. Maxwell's interests -- counsel against unsealing deposition transcript. Ms. Maxwell argues that her discussion of certain \"intimate matters\" during that deposition should remain sealed.\nDuring this deposition, Ms. Maxwell was asked repeatedly about her own sexual activity with consenting adults. Unlike in her prior deposition, at her July 2016 deposition, she provided testimony in response to those questions. As noted earlier, the presumption of public access does attach to this transcript (although, has the Court has observed, to a lesser extent than if it were submitted in connection with a dispositive motion).\nHere, however, public access to certain parts of the SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 136-9 Filed 02/04/21 Page 7 of 33",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "them in some later proceeding. In any case, the Court takes comfort in the fact that Ms. Maxwell recognizes that she has the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and evidence at her disposal when the appropriate time comes to fight this fight down the road. A word about Ms. Maxwell's July 2016 deposition. The full transcript of Ms. Maxwell's July 2016 deposition transcript was submitted as an exhibit annexed to her motion opposing a request to reopen that deposition, at docket entry 340-4. Excerpts of that transcript were also submitted as exhibits to various other briefing. Ms. Maxwell argues that the \"privacy interests of those who resist disclosure\" -- in the case of her deposition, Ms. Maxwell's interests -- counsel against unsealing deposition transcript. Ms. Maxwell argues that her discussion of certain \"intimate matters\" during that deposition should remain sealed. During this deposition, Ms. Maxwell was asked repeatedly about her own sexual activity with consenting adults. Unlike in her prior deposition, at her July 2016 deposition, she provided testimony in response to those questions. As noted earlier, the presumption of public access does attach to this transcript (although, has the Court has observed, to a lesser extent than if it were submitted in connection with a dispositive motion). Here, however, public access to certain parts of the",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "July 2016",
      "02/04/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "136-9",
      "340-4",
      "(212) 805-0300"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ms. Maxwell. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document is from the Southern District of New York."
}