{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "2",
    "document_number": "37",
    "date": "07/30/20",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-0030-AJN Document 37 Filed 07/30/20 Page 2 of 3\n\nFirst, the Court finds that the Government has met its burden of showing good cause with regard to restricting the ability of Ms. Maxwell to publicly reference alleged victims and witnesses other than those who have publicly identified themselves in this litigation. As a general matter, it is undisputed that there is a strong and specific interest in protecting the privacy of alleged victims and witnesses in this case that supports restricting the disclosure of their identities. Dkt. No. 29 at 3 (acknowledging that as a baseline the protective order should \"prohibit[] Ms. Maxwell, defense counsel, and others on the defense team from disclosing or disseminating the identity of any alleged victim or potential witness referenced in the discovery materials\"); see also United States v. Corley, No. 13-cr-48, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 194426, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2016). The Defense argues this interest is significantly diminished for individuals who have spoken on the public record about Ms. Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein, because they have voluntarily chosen to identify themselves. But not all accusations or public statements are equal. Deciding to participate in or contribute to a criminal investigation or prosecution is a far different matter than simply making a public statement \"relating to\" Ms. Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein, particularly since such a statement might have occurred decades ago and have no relevance to the charges in this case. These individuals still maintain a significant privacy interest that must be safeguarded. The exception the Defense seeks is too broad and risks undermining the protections of the privacy of witnesses and alleged victims that is required by law. In contrast, the Government's proffered language would allow Ms. Maxwell to publicly reference individuals who have spoken by name on the record in this case. It also allows the Defense to \"reference[e] the identities of individuals they believe may be relevant . . . to Potential Defense Witnesses and their counsel during the course of the investigation and preparation of the defense case at trial.\" Dkt. No. 33-1, ¶ 5. This proposal adequately balances the interests at\n\n2\n\nDOJ-OGR-00001703",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-0030-AJN Document 37 Filed 07/30/20 Page 2 of 3",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "First, the Court finds that the Government has met its burden of showing good cause with regard to restricting the ability of Ms. Maxwell to publicly reference alleged victims and witnesses other than those who have publicly identified themselves in this litigation. As a general matter, it is undisputed that there is a strong and specific interest in protecting the privacy of alleged victims and witnesses in this case that supports restricting the disclosure of their identities. Dkt. No. 29 at 3 (acknowledging that as a baseline the protective order should \"prohibit[] Ms. Maxwell, defense counsel, and others on the defense team from disclosing or disseminating the identity of any alleged victim or potential witness referenced in the discovery materials\"); see also United States v. Corley, No. 13-cr-48, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 194426, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2016). The Defense argues this interest is significantly diminished for individuals who have spoken on the public record about Ms. Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein, because they have voluntarily chosen to identify themselves. But not all accusations or public statements are equal. Deciding to participate in or contribute to a criminal investigation or prosecution is a far different matter than simply making a public statement \"relating to\" Ms. Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein, particularly since such a statement might have occurred decades ago and have no relevance to the charges in this case. These individuals still maintain a significant privacy interest that must be safeguarded. The exception the Defense seeks is too broad and risks undermining the protections of the privacy of witnesses and alleged victims that is required by law. In contrast, the Government's proffered language would allow Ms. Maxwell to publicly reference individuals who have spoken by name on the record in this case. It also allows the Defense to \"reference[e] the identities of individuals they believe may be relevant . . . to Potential Defense Witnesses and their counsel during the course of the investigation and preparation of the defense case at trial.\" Dkt. No. 33-1, ¶ 5. This proposal adequately balances the interests at",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00001703",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Jeffrey Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government",
      "Defense"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "07/30/20",
      "Jan. 15, 2016"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-0030-AJN",
      "Document 37",
      "Dkt. No. 29",
      "No. 13-cr-48",
      "Dkt. No. 33-1"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ms. Maxwell. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 2 of 3."
}