{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "7",
    "document_number": "311-1",
    "date": "07/02/21",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 311-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 7 of 23\n\nxj3q1gra SEALED\n1 protective order is overturned in some way, that those would be redacted as to individuals' names, personally identifying information --\n2\n3 THE COURT: Probably.\n4\n5 MR. ROSSMILLER: -- which I would expect, your Honor.\n6 I don't believe that any indication is that the underlying discovery materials are likely to be unsealed, and I'm not sure whether that's at issue, but in any event --\n7\n8\n9 THE COURT: I don't think it is. I think the only thing that's at issue in the case that the Second Circuit has heard is the publicly -- only here, not publicly -- filed litigation documents, which is essentially a lawsuit, a libel action that has been filed and litigated under seal. It was settled by terms that would have expired because the protective order doesn't extend until it goes on to a trial, but there wasn't a trial.\n10\n11\n12\n13 And I'm struggling with this for two reasons.\n14 First of all, it's like how much deference to give to this protective order that was issued by some judge, not myself, on the basis of I don't know what, except that from the questions that the Second Circuit asked about the litigation documents, it seemed like they were being critical of Judge Sweet for not having a particularized inquiry into each document that was sought to be filed in accordance with the protective order as to why this contained confidential\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 SDNY_GM_00000858 DOJ-OGR-00004900",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 311-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 7 of 23",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "xj3q1gra SEALED",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 protective order is overturned in some way, that those would be redacted as to individuals' names, personally identifying information --\n2\n3 THE COURT: Probably.\n4\n5 MR. ROSSMILLER: -- which I would expect, your Honor.\n6 I don't believe that any indication is that the underlying discovery materials are likely to be unsealed, and I'm not sure whether that's at issue, but in any event --\n7\n8\n9 THE COURT: I don't think it is. I think the only thing that's at issue in the case that the Second Circuit has heard is the publicly -- only here, not publicly -- filed litigation documents, which is essentially a lawsuit, a libel action that has been filed and litigated under seal. It was settled by terms that would have expired because the protective order doesn't extend until it goes on to a trial, but there wasn't a trial.\n10\n11\n12\n13 And I'm struggling with this for two reasons.\n14 First of all, it's like how much deference to give to this protective order that was issued by some judge, not myself, on the basis of I don't know what, except that from the questions that the Second Circuit asked about the litigation documents, it seemed like they were being critical of Judge Sweet for not having a particularized inquiry into each document that was sought to be filed in accordance with the protective order as to why this contained confidential",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 SDNY_GM_00000858 DOJ-OGR-00004900",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "MR. ROSSMILLER",
      "Judge Sweet"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Second Circuit",
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "07/02/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "311-1",
      "SDNY_GM_00000858",
      "DOJ-OGR-00004900"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a header indicating it is page 7 of 23. The content discusses a protective order and its implications. The footer contains information about the reporting company and reference numbers."
}