{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "5",
    "document_number": "136-9",
    "date": "02/04/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 136-9 Filed 02/04/21 Page 5 of 33\n\n1 Those additional Does have asserted privacy interests that\n2 purportedly weigh against unsealing their names and related\n3 materials. The Court will undertake its review of those\n4 submissions when it comes time to consider the unsealing of the\n5 names of those Does, after the parties have had a chance to\n6 respond to those submissions today. The only nonparty Does the\n7 Court has considered for unsealing are Does 1 and 2, who have\n8 submitted no formal objection to unsealing, but who did ask\n9 belatedly that their names not be revealed.\n\n10 Moving to the countervailing interests advanced by the\n11 parties:\n\n12 First, Ms. Maxwell argues that the unsealing of\n13 certain documents -- and portions thereof -- will create a\n14 \"media frenzy\" that will unlawfully jeopardize her right to a\n15 fair trial, and which will also violate Local Criminal Rule\n16 23.1. Local Rule 23.1 prohibits the release of nonpublic\n17 information or opinion where there is a \"substantial likelihood\n18 that such dissemination will interfere with a fair trial or\n19 otherwise prejudice the administration of justice.\" Local\n20 Criminal Rule 23.1(a). By its terms, this rule applies to\n21 \"lawyers or law firms, \"government agents and police officers,\"\n22 \"in connection with pending or imminent criminal litigation\n23 with which they are associated.  Id. It is not clear to the\n24 Court that this particular rule is applicable to courts'\n25 unsealing of these documents, in which the public has long had\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nDOJ-OGR-00002471",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 136-9 Filed 02/04/21 Page 5 of 33",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 Those additional Does have asserted privacy interests that\n2 purportedly weigh against unsealing their names and related\n3 materials. The Court will undertake its review of those\n4 submissions when it comes time to consider the unsealing of the\n5 names of those Does, after the parties have had a chance to\n6 respond to those submissions today. The only nonparty Does the\n7 Court has considered for unsealing are Does 1 and 2, who have\n8 submitted no formal objection to unsealing, but who did ask\n9 belatedly that their names not be revealed.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "10 Moving to the countervailing interests advanced by the\n11 parties:",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "12 First, Ms. Maxwell argues that the unsealing of\n13 certain documents -- and portions thereof -- will create a\n14 \"media frenzy\" that will unlawfully jeopardize her right to a\n15 fair trial, and which will also violate Local Criminal Rule\n16 23.1. Local Rule 23.1 prohibits the release of nonpublic\n17 information or opinion where there is a \"substantial likelihood\n18 that such dissemination will interfere with a fair trial or\n19 otherwise prejudice the administration of justice.\" Local\n20 Criminal Rule 23.1(a). By its terms, this rule applies to\n21 \"lawyers or law firms, \"government agents and police officers,\"\n22 \"in connection with pending or imminent criminal litigation\n23 with which they are associated.  Id. It is not clear to the\n24 Court that this particular rule is applicable to courts'\n25 unsealing of these documents, in which the public has long had",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00002471",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "02/04/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "136-9",
      "DOJ-OGR-00002471"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or legal document. The text is mostly clear, but there may be some minor formatting issues due to the OCR process."
}