{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "5",
    "document_number": "35",
    "date": "07/29/20",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 35 Filed 07/29/20 Page 5 of 5\n\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nJuly 29, 2020\nPage 5\n\nBut this argument misses the point. The defense does not seek to impose any restrictions on the government's ability to share discovery materials with prospective witnesses and their counsel in whatever manner it deems necessary and appropriate. Instead, the defense is seeking a restriction, not on the government, but on what the prospective witnesses and their counsel can do with those materials in the interest of fairness to the defendant.\n\nThe government argues that the defense's proposal should be rejected because there does not appear to be a similar precedent. (Id. at 6). But the defense's proposal is necessary given the uncommon circumstances of this case. Here, there are numerous women who may be witnesses in the government's case who have simultaneously sued Ms. Maxwell, alleging the same conduct as that alleged in the indictment. Indeed, the criminal case and the civil cases are already intertwined because significant portions of the indictment appear to be based on a 2019 civil complaint filed against Ms. Maxwell by one of her accusers. Many of the accusers have also repeatedly made public allegations against Ms. Maxwell in the press and on social media. The defense has a legitimate concern that these individuals and their counsel will impermissibly use any discovery materials that are shared with them in this case to bolster their civil cases or to run to the press. As such, it is appropriate for the Court to require that the government's witnesses and their counsel, like the defendant and defense counsel, must use the discovery materials only for the purpose of preparing the criminal case.\n\n* * *\n\nFor the reasons set forth above, and in our opening letter, we respectfully submit that the Court should enter the defendant's proposed protective order.\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\n/s/ Christian R. Everdell\nMark S. Cohen\nChristian R. Everdell\nCOHEN & GRESSER LLP\n800 Third Avenue, 21st Floor\nNew York, New York 10022\n(212) 957-7600\n\ncc: All counsel of record (via ECF)\n\nDOJ-OGR-00001689",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 35 Filed 07/29/20 Page 5 of 5",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nJuly 29, 2020\nPage 5",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "But this argument misses the point. The defense does not seek to impose any restrictions on the government's ability to share discovery materials with prospective witnesses and their counsel in whatever manner it deems necessary and appropriate. Instead, the defense is seeking a restriction, not on the government, but on what the prospective witnesses and their counsel can do with those materials in the interest of fairness to the defendant.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The government argues that the defense's proposal should be rejected because there does not appear to be a similar precedent. (Id. at 6). But the defense's proposal is necessary given the uncommon circumstances of this case. Here, there are numerous women who may be witnesses in the government's case who have simultaneously sued Ms. Maxwell, alleging the same conduct as that alleged in the indictment. Indeed, the criminal case and the civil cases are already intertwined because significant portions of the indictment appear to be based on a 2019 civil complaint filed against Ms. Maxwell by one of her accusers. Many of the accusers have also repeatedly made public allegations against Ms. Maxwell in the press and on social media. The defense has a legitimate concern that these individuals and their counsel will impermissibly use any discovery materials that are shared with them in this case to bolster their civil cases or to run to the press. As such, it is appropriate for the Court to require that the government's witnesses and their counsel, like the defendant and defense counsel, must use the discovery materials only for the purpose of preparing the criminal case.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "* * *",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "For the reasons set forth above, and in our opening letter, we respectfully submit that the Court should enter the defendant's proposed protective order.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Respectfully submitted,",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "signature",
      "content": "/s/ Christian R. Everdell",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Mark S. Cohen\nChristian R. Everdell\nCOHEN & GRESSER LLP\n800 Third Avenue, 21st Floor\nNew York, New York 10022\n(212) 957-7600",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "cc: All counsel of record (via ECF)",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00001689",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Alison J. Nathan",
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Mark S. Cohen",
      "Christian R. Everdell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "COHEN & GRESSER LLP"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "July 29, 2020",
      "07/29/20",
      "2019"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "Document 35",
      "DOJ-OGR-00001689"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing in a criminal case, with a formal tone and legal language. The text is clear and legible, with no apparent redactions or damage."
}