{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "4",
    "document_number": "202",
    "date": "04/15/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 202 Filed 04/15/21 Page 4 of 8\nLAW OFFICES OF BOBBI C. STERNHEIM\n\nThe defense has tried to streamline its review of the discovery even before the filing of superseding indictment by using term searches and key word searches. But given the nature of the discovery, there are meaningful limits to what the defense can do to limit the number of documents it must re-review in light of the new charges. For example, the discovery contains approximately 214,000 photographs, hundreds of hours of audio-visual files, and over 250,000 documents where the text is too poor to be OCR-searchable. Those materials are not susceptible to text searching and must be reviewed individually. Moreover, they must be reviewed with Ms. Maxwell to see if she recognizes the people in the photographs and videos. In light of the new charges and the addition of Accuser-4, these must be re-reviewed, which will take weeks.\n\nWe have already experienced the difficulties of reviewing photographs with Ms. Maxwell. Over the past three days, defense counsel have been conducting an evidence view with Ms. Maxwell. As part of that review, we have tried to use an FBI-supplied laptop and hard drive to review approximately 2,100 “Highly Confidential” photographs that were not produced to us in discovery. Because of technical issues with the laptop, we still have not completed the review.\n\nThe re-review of the discovery will not be limited to the materials on the seized devices. The discovery also includes numerous bank records and phone records that date from the 2000s and later. None of these records were from the 1990s and were therefore largely irrelevant to the charged crimes. However, with the expansion of the charges to include the time period of the 2000s, the defense will need to carefully analyze these records for relevant payments and phone calls, which will, again, take a significant amount of time.\n\nThe government also attempts to justify its delay in seeking the superseding indictment due to the investigative challenges posed by COVID. The government has been investigating for\n\nThe forensic images contain thousands of individual documents.\n4\nDOJ-OGR-00002928",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 202 Filed 04/15/21 Page 4 of 8",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "LAW OFFICES OF BOBBI C. STERNHEIM",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The defense has tried to streamline its review of the discovery even before the filing of superseding indictment by using term searches and key word searches. But given the nature of the discovery, there are meaningful limits to what the defense can do to limit the number of documents it must re-review in light of the new charges. For example, the discovery contains approximately 214,000 photographs, hundreds of hours of audio-visual files, and over 250,000 documents where the text is too poor to be OCR-searchable. Those materials are not susceptible to text searching and must be reviewed individually. Moreover, they must be reviewed with Ms. Maxwell to see if she recognizes the people in the photographs and videos. In light of the new charges and the addition of Accuser-4, these must be re-reviewed, which will take weeks.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "We have already experienced the difficulties of reviewing photographs with Ms. Maxwell. Over the past three days, defense counsel have been conducting an evidence view with Ms. Maxwell. As part of that review, we have tried to use an FBI-supplied laptop and hard drive to review approximately 2,100 “Highly Confidential” photographs that were not produced to us in discovery. Because of technical issues with the laptop, we still have not completed the review.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The re-review of the discovery will not be limited to the materials on the seized devices. The discovery also includes numerous bank records and phone records that date from the 2000s and later. None of these records were from the 1990s and were therefore largely irrelevant to the charged crimes. However, with the expansion of the charges to include the time period of the 2000s, the defense will need to carefully analyze these records for relevant payments and phone calls, which will, again, take a significant amount of time.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The government also attempts to justify its delay in seeking the superseding indictment due to the investigative challenges posed by COVID. The government has been investigating for",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The forensic images contain thousands of individual documents.",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "4",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00002928",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Accuser-4",
      "BOBBI C. STERNHEIM"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "FBI",
      "LAW OFFICES OF BOBBI C. STERNHEIM",
      "DOJ"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "04/15/21",
      "1990s",
      "2000s"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "Document 202",
      "DOJ-OGR-00002928"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is mostly printed, with no handwritten content. There are no visible stamps or signatures. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}