{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "10",
    "document_number": "134",
    "date": "02/04/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 134 Filed 02/04/21 Page 10 of 23\n\nThe district court granted the motion. In requiring Maxwell to answer highly intrusive questions \"relating to [her] own sexual activity\" and \"her knowledge of the sexual activity of others,\" the court held that Maxwell's \"privacy concerns are alleviated by the protective order in this case.\"\n\nSecure in the belief that the Protective Order would be honoured, Maxwell appeared at a second deposition, in July 2016, and answered hundreds of pages worth of questions about\n\nand\n\nFrom the very first question, Maxwell discussed\n\n. She was asked\n\n.\n\nShe was asked\n\n.\n\nCount Six of the superseding indictment alleges that Maxwell provided false testimony when she testified during her July 2016 deposition that: (1) she could not recall whether sex toys or devices were used in sexual activities at Epstein's Palm Beach house; (2) she did not know whether Epstein possessed sex toys or devices used in sexual activities; (3) she wasn't aware that Epstein was having sexual activities with anyone other than herself when she was with him; and (4) she never gave anyone, including Accuser-2^3, a massage.\n\n3 The indictment refers to the accusers as Minor Victim-1, Minor Victim-2, and Minor Victim-3. We will refer to them as Accuser-1, Accuser-2, and Accuser-3.\n\n5\nDOJ-OGR-00002357",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 134 Filed 02/04/21 Page 10 of 23",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The district court granted the motion. In requiring Maxwell to answer highly intrusive questions \"relating to [her] own sexual activity\" and \"her knowledge of the sexual activity of others,\" the court held that Maxwell's \"privacy concerns are alleviated by the protective order in this case.\"\n\nSecure in the belief that the Protective Order would be honoured, Maxwell appeared at a second deposition, in July 2016, and answered hundreds of pages worth of questions about\n\nand\n\nFrom the very first question, Maxwell discussed\n\n. She was asked\n\n.\n\nShe was asked\n\n.\n\nCount Six of the superseding indictment alleges that Maxwell provided false testimony when she testified during her July 2016 deposition that: (1) she could not recall whether sex toys or devices were used in sexual activities at Epstein's Palm Beach house; (2) she did not know whether Epstein possessed sex toys or devices used in sexual activities; (3) she wasn't aware that Epstein was having sexual activities with anyone other than herself when she was with him; and (4) she never gave anyone, including Accuser-2^3, a massage.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "3 The indictment refers to the accusers as Minor Victim-1, Minor Victim-2, and Minor Victim-3. We will refer to them as Accuser-1, Accuser-2, and Accuser-3.",
      "position": "footnote"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "5",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00002357",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell",
      "Epstein",
      "Accuser-1",
      "Accuser-2",
      "Accuser-3",
      "Minor Victim-1",
      "Minor Victim-2",
      "Minor Victim-3"
    ],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [
      "Palm Beach"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "02/04/21",
      "July 2016"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "Document 134",
      "DOJ-OGR-00002357"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The text is mostly printed, with some redacted sections. There are no visible stamps or handwritten notes."
}