{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "8",
    "document_number": "136-9",
    "date": "02/04/21",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 136-9 Filed 02/04/21 Page 8 of 33\n1 transcript is outweighed by Ms. Maxwell's countervailing\n2 interests in resisting disclosure of the details of her\n3 private, intimate relationships with consenting adults. This\n4 testimony is, in any case, far afield from the sex trafficking\n5 and sexual abuse allegations that were central to the dispute\n6 in Giuffre v. Maxwell. Although the prurient interest of some\n7 may be left un satiated as a result, Ms. Maxwell's interest in\n8 keeping private the details of her sexual relationships with\n9 consenting adults warrants the sealing of those portions of her\n10 testimony (and any materials that reference them).\n11 For the sake of efficiency, my chambers will share\n12 with the parties a copy of the transcript that highlights the\n13 portions of Ms. Maxwell's deposition that should remain\n14 redacted. This will avoid, I know you're happy to hear, my\n15 reading into the record my line-by-line determinations\n16 regarding the full 193-page transcript.\n17 Ms. Giuffre, likewise, asserts certain privacy\n18 interests that she argues outweigh the presumption of public\n19 access in certain documents. The Court finds, as it did for\n20 the last round of motions it considered for unsealing, that\n21 Ms. Giuffre's privacy interests in her medical records, where\n22 they reference the medical treatment she received, outweigh any\n23 public interests in those materials. So when I refer to\n24 medical information to be redacted, I am referring to\n25 information describing medical treatment. The parties agree,\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00002474",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 136-9 Filed 02/04/21 Page 8 of 33",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 transcript is outweighed by Ms. Maxwell's countervailing\n2 interests in resisting disclosure of the details of her\n3 private, intimate relationships with consenting adults. This\n4 testimony is, in any case, far afield from the sex trafficking\n5 and sexual abuse allegations that were central to the dispute\n6 in Giuffre v. Maxwell. Although the prurient interest of some\n7 may be left un satiated as a result, Ms. Maxwell's interest in\n8 keeping private the details of her sexual relationships with\n9 consenting adults warrants the sealing of those portions of her\n10 testimony (and any materials that reference them).\n11 For the sake of efficiency, my chambers will share\n12 with the parties a copy of the transcript that highlights the\n13 portions of Ms. Maxwell's deposition that should remain\n14 redacted. This will avoid, I know you're happy to hear, my\n15 reading into the record my line-by-line determinations\n16 regarding the full 193-page transcript.\n17 Ms. Giuffre, likewise, asserts certain privacy\n18 interests that she argues outweigh the presumption of public\n19 access in certain documents. The Court finds, as it did for\n20 the last round of motions it considered for unsealing, that\n21 Ms. Giuffre's privacy interests in her medical records, where\n22 they reference the medical treatment she received, outweigh any\n23 public interests in those materials. So when I refer to\n24 medical information to be redacted, I am referring to\n25 information describing medical treatment. The parties agree,",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00002474",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Ms. Giuffre"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "02/04/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "136-9",
      "DOJ-OGR-00002474"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage to the text."
}