{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "16",
    "document_number": "142",
    "date": "02/04/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 142 Filed 02/04/21 Page 16 of 38\nprosecuted. Nor does the NPA contain any language limiting its binding effect on other USAOs, as standard agreements typically do.\nB. The Negotiation of the NPA\nUnlike standard non-prosecution agreements, the NPA here was heavily negotiated. Negotiations began in January 2007, lasted for a period of eight months, and were “extensive.” In re Wild, 955 F.3d 1196, 1198-99 (11th Cir.), reh'g en banc granted, opinion vacated, 967 F.3d 1285 (11th Cir. 2020). Discovery has revealed that See, e.g., Exh. C ; Exh. D . In addition, . See, e.g., Exh. E ; Exh. F . Id. It is our understanding that the negotiations involved the entire hierarchy of the USAO for the SDFL, all of whom signed off on the NPA. Discovery indicates that . Further, the investigation leading up to the NPA was not limited to the SDFL: A privilege log produced by the government in civil litigation indicates that the USAO-SDFL involved the USAO for this District in its investigation of Epstein, and that attorneys from the USAO-SDFL traveled to New York and interviewed and/or subpoenaed New York-based witnesses. Privilege Log, Doe v. United States, Case No. 9:08-CV-80736 (S.D. Fla.), Dkt. No. 212-1 (filed July 19, 2013) (“SDFL Privilege Log”), at 4, 5, 7. Moreover, 11 DOJ-OGR-00002588",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 142 Filed 02/04/21 Page 16 of 38",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "prosecuted. Nor does the NPA contain any language limiting its binding effect on other USAOs, as standard agreements typically do.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "B. The Negotiation of the NPA",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Unlike standard non-prosecution agreements, the NPA here was heavily negotiated. Negotiations began in January 2007, lasted for a period of eight months, and were “extensive.” In re Wild, 955 F.3d 1196, 1198-99 (11th Cir.), reh'g en banc granted, opinion vacated, 967 F.3d 1285 (11th Cir. 2020). Discovery has revealed that See, e.g., Exh. C ; Exh. D . In addition, . See, e.g., Exh. E ; Exh. F . Id. It is our understanding that the negotiations involved the entire hierarchy of the USAO for the SDFL, all of whom signed off on the NPA. Discovery indicates that . Further, the investigation leading up to the NPA was not limited to the SDFL: A privilege log produced by the government in civil litigation indicates that the USAO-SDFL involved the USAO for this District in its investigation of Epstein, and that attorneys from the USAO-SDFL traveled to New York and interviewed and/or subpoenaed New York-based witnesses. Privilege Log, Doe v. United States, Case No. 9:08-CV-80736 (S.D. Fla.), Dkt. No. 212-1 (filed July 19, 2013) (“SDFL Privilege Log”), at 4, 5, 7. Moreover,",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "11",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00002588",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "USAOs",
      "USAO",
      "SDFL",
      "USAO-SDFL"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "January 2007",
      "July 19, 2013",
      "02/04/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "142",
      "955 F.3d 1196",
      "967 F.3d 1285",
      "9:08-CV-80736",
      "212-1"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with redactions. The redactions are likely due to sensitive information being withheld."
}