{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "2 of 10",
    "document_number": "66",
    "date": "07/29/25",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 66 Filed 07/29/25 Page 2 of 10\n\nI. Preliminary Statement\nThe Government respectfully submits this memorandum in response to the Court's Orders concerning the two pending motions to unseal grand jury transcripts (Epstein Dkt. 61; Maxwell Dkt. 785) in cases prosecuted in this District. (Epstein Dkt. 63 at 1-3; Maxwell Dkt. 789 at 1-3). This memorandum, as directed by the Court, addresses the specific facts and factors highlighted in the Court's Orders relevant to the particular grand jury materials at issue here. (Epstein Dkt. 63 at 1-3; Maxwell Dkt. 789 at 1-3). In order to ensure that \"[t]ransparency in this process ... not be at the expense of [the Government's] obligation under the law to protect victims\" (Epstein Dkt. 61 at 2; Maxwell Dkt. 785 at 2), the Government also respectfully requests leave to file a supplemental submission once the Government and the Court have received any filings from the victims or others referenced in the transcripts.\n\nII. The Court's Orders\nAs the Court recognized (Epstein Dkt. 63 at 1-2; Maxwell Dkt. 789 at 1-2), the Second Circuit has held that \"there are certain 'special circumstances' in which release of grand jury records is appropriate even outside the boundaries of the rule.\" In re Craig, 131 F.3d 99, 102 (2d Cir. 1997); see also In re Biaggi, 478 F.2d 489, 494 (2d Cir. 1973) (supplemental opinion) (Friendly, C.J.) (recognizing that there are certain \"special circumstances\" in which release of grand jury records is appropriate even outside of the boundaries of Rule 6(e)).1 The Second Circuit enumerated a list of non-exhaustive factors for trial courts to consider when deciding such motions:\n\n1 There is currently a Circuit split. See Pitch v. United States, 953 F.3d 1226, 1233 & n.6 (11th Cir. 2020) (en banc) (describing the Circuit split); In re Petition for Order Directing Release of Records, 27 F.4th 84, 90-91 (1st Cir. 2022) (same). In light of this split, when the Government sought similar relief seeking to unseal grand jury transcripts in the Southern District of Florida from 2005 and 2007 relating to Epstein, the Honorable Robin L. Rosenberg—who is bound by the Eleventh Circuit's rule barring extra-Rule disclosures set forth in Pitch—denied that motion. In re\n\nDOJ-OGR-00000747",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 66 Filed 07/29/25 Page 2 of 10",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "I. Preliminary Statement\nThe Government respectfully submits this memorandum in response to the Court's Orders concerning the two pending motions to unseal grand jury transcripts (Epstein Dkt. 61; Maxwell Dkt. 785) in cases prosecuted in this District. (Epstein Dkt. 63 at 1-3; Maxwell Dkt. 789 at 1-3). This memorandum, as directed by the Court, addresses the specific facts and factors highlighted in the Court's Orders relevant to the particular grand jury materials at issue here. (Epstein Dkt. 63 at 1-3; Maxwell Dkt. 789 at 1-3). In order to ensure that \"[t]ransparency in this process ... not be at the expense of [the Government's] obligation under the law to protect victims\" (Epstein Dkt. 61 at 2; Maxwell Dkt. 785 at 2), the Government also respectfully requests leave to file a supplemental submission once the Government and the Court have received any filings from the victims or others referenced in the transcripts.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "II. The Court's Orders\nAs the Court recognized (Epstein Dkt. 63 at 1-2; Maxwell Dkt. 789 at 1-2), the Second Circuit has held that \"there are certain 'special circumstances' in which release of grand jury records is appropriate even outside the boundaries of the rule.\" In re Craig, 131 F.3d 99, 102 (2d Cir. 1997); see also In re Biaggi, 478 F.2d 489, 494 (2d Cir. 1973) (supplemental opinion) (Friendly, C.J.) (recognizing that there are certain \"special circumstances\" in which release of grand jury records is appropriate even outside of the boundaries of Rule 6(e)).1 The Second Circuit enumerated a list of non-exhaustive factors for trial courts to consider when deciding such motions:",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 There is currently a Circuit split. See Pitch v. United States, 953 F.3d 1226, 1233 & n.6 (11th Cir. 2020) (en banc) (describing the Circuit split); In re Petition for Order Directing Release of Records, 27 F.4th 84, 90-91 (1st Cir. 2022) (same). In light of this split, when the Government sought similar relief seeking to unseal grand jury transcripts in the Southern District of Florida from 2005 and 2007 relating to Epstein, the Honorable Robin L. Rosenberg—who is bound by the Eleventh Circuit's rule barring extra-Rule disclosures set forth in Pitch—denied that motion. In re",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00000747",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Epstein",
      "Maxwell",
      "Craig",
      "Biaggi",
      "Friendly",
      "Pitch",
      "Robin L. Rosenberg"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government",
      "Court",
      "Second Circuit",
      "Eleventh Circuit"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Southern District of Florida"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "07/29/25",
      "2005",
      "2007"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:19-cr-00490-RMB",
      "Document 66",
      "Dkt. 61",
      "Dkt. 63",
      "Dkt. 785",
      "Dkt. 789",
      "953 F.3d 1226",
      "27 F.4th 84",
      "131 F.3d 99",
      "478 F.2d 489"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the unsealing of grand jury transcripts in cases involving Epstein and Maxwell. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}