33%, more processing, more data, dedupe etc

.eleventy.js

@@ -5,6 +5,26 @@ module.exports = function(eleventyConfig) {
   // Copy results directory to output
   eleventyConfig.addPassthroughCopy({ "./results": "documents" });
 
+  // Load deduplication mappings if available
+  let dedupeMappings = { people: {}, organizations: {}, locations: {} };
+  const dedupeFile = path.join(__dirname, 'dedupe.json');
+  if (fs.existsSync(dedupeFile)) {
+    try {
+      dedupeMappings = JSON.parse(fs.readFileSync(dedupeFile, 'utf8'));
+      console.log('✅ Loaded deduplication mappings from dedupe.json');
+    } catch (e) {
+      console.warn('⚠️  Could not load dedupe.json:', e.message);
+    }
+  } else {
+    console.log('ℹ️  No dedupe.json found - entities will not be deduplicated');
+  }
+
+  // Helper function to apply deduplication mapping
+  function applyDedupe(entityType, entityName) {
+    if (!entityName) return entityName;
+    return dedupeMappings[entityType]?.[entityName] || entityName;
+  }
+
   // Cache the documents data - only compute once
   let cachedDocuments = null;
 
@@ -118,6 +138,15 @@ module.exports = function(eleventyConfig) {
       // Get all unique raw document numbers (for display)
       const rawDocNums = [...new Set(docPages.map(p => p.document_metadata?.document_number).filter(Boolean))];
 
+      // Apply deduplication to document entities
+      const deduplicatedEntities = {
+        people: [...new Set(Array.from(allEntities.people).map(p => applyDedupe('people', p)))],
+        organizations: [...new Set(Array.from(allEntities.organizations).map(o => applyDedupe('organizations', o)))],
+        locations: [...new Set(Array.from(allEntities.locations).map(l => applyDedupe('locations', l)))],
+        dates: Array.from(allEntities.dates),
+        reference_numbers: Array.from(allEntities.reference_numbers)
+      };
+
       return {
         unique_id: normalizedDocNum,  // Normalized version for unique URLs
         document_number: rawDocNums.length === 1 ? rawDocNums[0] : normalizedDocNum, // Show original if consistent, else normalized
@@ -125,13 +154,7 @@ module.exports = function(eleventyConfig) {
         pages: docPages,
         page_count: docPages.length,
         document_metadata: firstPage.document_metadata,
-        entities: {
-          people: Array.from(allEntities.people),
-          organizations: Array.from(allEntities.organizations),
-          locations: Array.from(allEntities.locations),
-          dates: Array.from(allEntities.dates),
-          reference_numbers: Array.from(allEntities.reference_numbers)
-        },
+        entities: deduplicatedEntities,
         full_text: docPages.map(p => p.full_text).join('\n\n--- PAGE BREAK ---\n\n'),
         folder: folders.join(', '),  // Show all folders if document spans multiple
         folders: folders  // Keep array for reference
@@ -142,6 +165,23 @@ module.exports = function(eleventyConfig) {
     return documents;
   }
 
+  // Load document analyses if available
+  eleventyConfig.addGlobalData("analyses", () => {
+    const analysesFile = path.join(__dirname, 'analyses.json');
+    if (fs.existsSync(analysesFile)) {
+      try {
+        const data = JSON.parse(fs.readFileSync(analysesFile, 'utf8'));
+        console.log(`✅ Loaded ${data.analyses?.length || 0} document analyses`);
+        return data.analyses || [];
+      } catch (e) {
+        console.warn('⚠️  Could not load analyses.json:', e.message);
+        return [];
+      }
+    }
+    console.log('ℹ️  No analyses.json found - run analyze_documents.py to generate');
+    return [];
+  });
+
   // Add global data - load all pages and group into documents
   eleventyConfig.addGlobalData("documents", getDocuments);
 
@@ -156,27 +196,30 @@ module.exports = function(eleventyConfig) {
     const documentTypes = new Map();
 
     documentsData.forEach(doc => {
-      // People
+      // People (with deduplication)
       if (doc.entities?.people) {
         doc.entities.people.forEach(person => {
-          if (!people.has(person)) people.set(person, []);
-          people.get(person).push(doc);
+          const canonicalName = applyDedupe('people', person);
+          if (!people.has(canonicalName)) people.set(canonicalName, []);
+          people.get(canonicalName).push(doc);
         });
       }
 
-      // Organizations
+      // Organizations (with deduplication)
       if (doc.entities?.organizations) {
         doc.entities.organizations.forEach(org => {
-          if (!organizations.has(org)) organizations.set(org, []);
-          organizations.get(org).push(doc);
+          const canonicalName = applyDedupe('organizations', org);
+          if (!organizations.has(canonicalName)) organizations.set(canonicalName, []);
+          organizations.get(canonicalName).push(doc);
         });
       }
 
-      // Locations
+      // Locations (with deduplication)
       if (doc.entities?.locations) {
         doc.entities.locations.forEach(loc => {
-          if (!locations.has(loc)) locations.set(loc, []);
-          locations.get(loc).push(doc);
+          const canonicalName = applyDedupe('locations', loc);
+          if (!locations.has(canonicalName)) locations.set(canonicalName, []);
+          locations.get(canonicalName).push(doc);
         });
       }
 
@@ -196,12 +239,42 @@ module.exports = function(eleventyConfig) {
       }
     });
 
+    // Deduplicate document arrays (remove duplicate document references)
+    const dedupeDocArray = (docs) => {
+      const seen = new Set();
+      return docs.filter(doc => {
+        if (seen.has(doc.unique_id)) return false;
+        seen.add(doc.unique_id);
+        return true;
+      });
+    };
+
     return {
-      people: Array.from(people.entries()).map(([name, docs]) => ({ name, docs, count: docs.length })).sort((a, b) => b.count - a.count),
-      organizations: Array.from(organizations.entries()).map(([name, docs]) => ({ name, docs, count: docs.length })).sort((a, b) => b.count - a.count),
-      locations: Array.from(locations.entries()).map(([name, docs]) => ({ name, docs, count: docs.length })).sort((a, b) => b.count - a.count),
-      dates: Array.from(dates.entries()).map(([name, docs]) => ({ name, docs, count: docs.length })).sort((a, b) => b.count - a.count),
-      documentTypes: Array.from(documentTypes.entries()).map(([name, docs]) => ({ name, docs, count: docs.length })).sort((a, b) => b.count - a.count)
+      people: Array.from(people.entries()).map(([name, docs]) => ({
+        name,
+        docs: dedupeDocArray(docs),
+        count: dedupeDocArray(docs).length
+      })).sort((a, b) => b.count - a.count),
+      organizations: Array.from(organizations.entries()).map(([name, docs]) => ({
+        name,
+        docs: dedupeDocArray(docs),
+        count: dedupeDocArray(docs).length
+      })).sort((a, b) => b.count - a.count),
+      locations: Array.from(locations.entries()).map(([name, docs]) => ({
+        name,
+        docs: dedupeDocArray(docs),
+        count: dedupeDocArray(docs).length
+      })).sort((a, b) => b.count - a.count),
+      dates: Array.from(dates.entries()).map(([name, docs]) => ({
+        name,
+        docs: dedupeDocArray(docs),
+        count: dedupeDocArray(docs).length
+      })).sort((a, b) => b.count - a.count),
+      documentTypes: Array.from(documentTypes.entries()).map(([name, docs]) => ({
+        name,
+        docs: dedupeDocArray(docs),
+        count: dedupeDocArray(docs).length
+      })).sort((a, b) => b.count - a.count)
     };
   });
 

README.md

@@ -21,6 +21,8 @@ This project automatically processes thousands of scanned document pages using A
   - Locations
   - Dates
   - Reference numbers
+- **Entity Deduplication**: AI-powered merging of duplicate entities (e.g., "Epstein" → "Jeffrey Epstein")
+- **AI Document Analysis**: Generates summaries, key topics, key people, and significance for each document
 - **Document Reconstruction**: Groups scanned pages back into complete documents
 - **Searchable Interface**: Browse by person, organization, location, date, or document type
 - **Static Site**: Fast, lightweight, works anywhere
@@ -30,10 +32,14 @@ This project automatically processes thousands of scanned document pages using A
 ```
 .
 ├── process_images.py       # Python script to OCR images using AI
+├── deduplicate.py          # Python script to deduplicate entities
+├── analyze_documents.py    # Python script to generate AI summaries
 ├── requirements.txt         # Python dependencies
 ├── .env.example            # Example environment configuration
 ├── downloads/              # Place document images here
 ├── results/                # Extracted JSON data per document
+├── dedupe.json             # Entity deduplication mappings (generated)
+├── analyses.json           # AI document analyses (generated)
 ├── src/                    # 11ty source files for website
 ├── .eleventy.js            # Static site generator configuration
 └── _site/                  # Generated static website (after build)
@@ -80,8 +86,84 @@ The script will:
 - Extract text, entities, and metadata
 - Save results to `./results/{folder}/{imagename}.json`
 - Track progress in `processing_index.json` (resume-friendly)
+- Log failed files for later cleanup
 
-### 4. Generate Website
+**If processing fails or you need to retry failed files:**
+```bash
+# Check for failures (dry run)
+python cleanup_failed.py
+
+# Remove failed files from processed list (so they can be retried)
+python cleanup_failed.py --doit
+
+# Also delete corrupt JSON files
+python cleanup_failed.py --doit --delete-invalid-json
+```
+
+### 4. Deduplicate Entities (Optional but Recommended)
+
+The LLM may extract the same entity with different spellings (e.g., "Epstein", "Jeffrey Epstein", "J. Epstein"). Run the deduplication script to merge these:
+
+```bash
+python deduplicate.py
+
+# Options:
+# --batch-size N     # Process N entities per batch (default: 50)
+# --show-stats       # Show deduplication stats without processing
+```
+
+This will:
+- Scan all JSON files in `./results/`
+- Use AI to identify duplicate entities across people, organizations, and locations
+- Create a `dedupe.json` mapping file
+- The website build will automatically use this mapping
+
+**Example dedupe.json:**
+```json
+{
+  "people": {
+    "Epstein": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+    "J. Epstein": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+    "Jeffrey Epstein": "Jeffrey Epstein"
+  },
+  "organizations": {...},
+  "locations": {...}
+}
+```
+
+### 5. Analyze Documents (Optional but Recommended)
+
+Generate AI summaries and insights for each document:
+
+```bash
+python analyze_documents.py
+
+# Options:
+# --limit N          # Analyze only N documents (for testing)
+# --force            # Re-analyze all documents (ignore existing)
+```
+
+This will:
+- Group pages into documents (matching the website logic)
+- Send each document's full text to the AI
+- Generate summaries, key topics, key people, and significance analysis
+- Save results to `analyses.json`
+- Resume-friendly (skips already-analyzed documents)
+
+**Example analysis output:**
+```json
+{
+  "document_type": "deposition",
+  "key_topics": ["Flight logs", "Private aircraft", "Passenger manifests"],
+  "key_people": [
+    {"name": "Jeffrey Epstein", "role": "Aircraft owner"}
+  ],
+  "significance": "Documents flight records showing passenger lists...",
+  "summary": "This deposition contains testimony regarding..."
+}
+```
+
+### 6. Generate Website
 
 Build the static site from the processed data:
 
@@ -90,6 +172,11 @@ npm run build    # Build static site to _site/
 npm start        # Development server with live reload
 ```
 
+The build process will automatically:
+- Apply deduplication if `dedupe.json` exists
+- Load document analyses if `analyses.json` exists
+- Generate a searchable analyses page
+
 ## How It Works
 
 1. **Document Processing**: Images are sent to an AI vision model that extracts:
@@ -147,6 +234,45 @@ The code in this repository is open source and free to use. The documents themse
 
 **Repository**: https://github.com/epstein-docs/epstein-docs
 
+## Future: Relationship Graphs
+
+Once entities are deduplicated, the next step is to visualize relationships between people, organizations, and locations. Potential approaches:
+
+### Static Graph Generation
+
+1. **Pre-generate graph data** during the build process:
+   - Build a relationships JSON file showing connections (e.g., which people appear in the same documents)
+   - Generate D3.js/vis.js compatible graph data
+   - Include in static site for client-side rendering
+
+2. **Graph types to consider**:
+   - **Co-occurrence network**: People who appear together in documents
+   - **Document timeline**: Documents plotted by date with entity connections
+   - **Organization membership**: People connected to organizations
+   - **Location network**: People and organizations connected by locations
+
+3. **Implementation ideas**:
+   - Use D3.js force-directed graph for interactive visualization
+   - Use Cytoscape.js for more complex network analysis
+   - Generate static SVG graphs for each major entity
+   - Add graph pages to the 11ty build (e.g., `/graphs/people/`, `/graphs/timeline/`)
+
+### Data Structure for Graphs
+
+```json
+{
+  "nodes": [
+    {"id": "Jeffrey Epstein", "type": "person", "doc_count": 250},
+    {"id": "Ghislaine Maxwell", "type": "person", "doc_count": 180}
+  ],
+  "edges": [
+    {"source": "Jeffrey Epstein", "target": "Ghislaine Maxwell", "weight": 85, "shared_docs": 85}
+  ]
+}
+```
+
+The deduplication step is essential for accurate relationship mapping - without it, "Epstein" and "Jeffrey Epstein" would appear as separate nodes.
+
 ## Disclaimer
 
 This is an independent archival project. Documents are sourced from public releases. The maintainers make no representations about completeness or accuracy of the archive.

analyses.json

@@ -0,0 +1,21954 @@
+{
+  "total": 761,
+  "analyses": [
+    {
+      "document_id": "0063",
+      "document_number": "0063",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "bail conditions",
+          "defendant's financial resources",
+          "risk of flight"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "the defendant",
+            "role": "the individual being prosecuted in the case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it reveals the government's opposition to the defendant's bail request and highlights concerns about the defendant's risk of flight and the inadequacy of her proposed bail package.",
+        "summary": "The government opposes the defendant's bail request, arguing that she has not provided sufficient financial information and that her proposed bail package, secured by a foreign property, offers little to no security. The defendant is charged with serious crimes involving the sexual exploitation of minors and has extensive foreign ties, increasing her risk of flight."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "00631302",
+      "document_number": "00631302",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "temporary release of defendant",
+          "access to counsel",
+          "preparation for trial"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Gonzalez",
+            "role": "defendant in a referenced case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Eley",
+            "role": "defendant in a referenced case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "defendant",
+            "role": "the defendant in the current case, whose identity is not specified"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it discusses the defendant's request for temporary release and the court's consideration of the defendant's access to counsel while in detention.",
+        "summary": "The document argues against the defendant's temporary release, citing cases where release was denied due to the trial not being imminent. It also notes that the detention center (MDC) has been responsive to defense counsel's concerns, providing access to the defendant."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1",
+      "document_number": "1",
+      "page_count": 15,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing (Indictment)",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's alleged involvement in sex trafficking and abuse of minors with Jeffrey Epstein",
+          "Methods used by Maxwell and Epstein to groom and abuse minor victims",
+          "Locations where the alleged abuse took place"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant accused of sex trafficking and abuse of minors"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Co-conspirator and accomplice of Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Minor Victim-1",
+            "role": "One of the alleged victims of Maxwell and Epstein's abuse"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Minor Victim-2",
+            "role": "Another alleged victim of Maxwell and Epstein's abuse"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This indictment provides detailed allegations of Ghislaine Maxwell's involvement in sex trafficking and abuse of minors with Jeffrey Epstein, revealing the methods they used to groom and abuse their victims. It is significant because it sheds light on the extent of Maxwell's alleged involvement in Epstein's crimes.",
+        "summary": "The indictment charges Ghislaine Maxwell with sex trafficking and abuse of minors, alleging that she worked with Jeffrey Epstein to groom and abuse multiple minor victims between 1994 and 1997. Maxwell is accused of befriending victims, normalizing sexual abuse, and facilitating Epstein's access to minors. The alleged abuse took place at multiple locations, including Epstein's residences in New York, Florida, and New Mexico."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1-1",
+      "document_number": "1-1",
+      "page_count": 3,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Docketing Notice",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Appeal docketing procedures",
+          "Court filing requirements",
+          "Appellate counsel information"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Debra Ann Livingston",
+            "role": "Chief Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe",
+            "role": "Clerk of Court"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is a routine docketing notice from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, informing parties of the docketing of an appeal and providing instructions for further proceedings.",
+        "summary": "The document is a docketing notice for the appeal case United States of America v. Maxwell (Docket #: 21-770), providing instructions to counsel on filing requirements, updating contact information, and reviewing the case caption. It outlines the necessary steps for appellate counsel to take following the docketing of the appeal."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1-2",
+      "document_number": "1-2",
+      "page_count": 27,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Criminal Docket",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "USA v. Epstein",
+          "USA v. Maxwell",
+          "Criminal charges and proceedings"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Richard M. Berman",
+            "role": "Judge presiding over USA v. Epstein"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "Judge presiding over USA v. Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alex Rossmiller",
+            "role": "Assistant US Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison Gainfort Moe",
+            "role": "Assistant US Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Maurene Ryan Comey",
+            "role": "Assistant US Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document provides a detailed record of the criminal dockets for high-profile cases involving Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, including charges, attorneys involved, and key proceedings.",
+        "summary": "The document contains excerpts from the criminal dockets of USA v. Epstein and USA v. Maxwell, detailing the charges brought against the defendants, the attorneys representing them, and significant events in the proceedings."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "10",
+      "document_number": "10",
+      "page_count": 6,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Remote court proceedings due to COVID-19",
+          "Bail hearing and pretrial release",
+          "Court protocols for COVID-19 safety"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Defendant in related case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Richard M. Berman",
+            "role": "District Judge in related case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Reid Weingarten",
+            "role": "Counsel for Jeffrey Epstein"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant as it reveals court procedures and protocols during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly for high-profile cases like Ghislaine Maxwell's. It also highlights the logistical challenges faced by courts in conducting remote proceedings.",
+        "summary": "The document is a court filing related to Ghislaine Maxwell's arraignment and bail hearing, scheduled as a remote video conference due to COVID-19. It outlines the court's protocols for the proceeding, including COVID-19 safety measures and logistical arrangements. The filing also references related cases involving Jeffrey Epstein."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "100",
+      "document_number": "100",
+      "page_count": 36,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Bail hearing",
+          "Flight risk assessment",
+          "Criminal charges against Ghislaine Maxwell"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Audrey Strauss",
+            "role": "Acting United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Maurene Comey",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison Moe",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Lara Pomerantz",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is a government memorandum opposing Ghislaine Maxwell's renewed motion for release on bail, arguing that she poses a serious flight risk and that no conditions can ensure her appearance in court.",
+        "summary": "The government opposes Ghislaine Maxwell's renewed bail motion, arguing that she remains a flight risk due to the seriousness of the charges, strong evidence against her, and her financial resources and foreign ties. The court had previously denied bail after a thorough hearing, and the government contends that Maxwell's new bail package does not alter the court's prior finding."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "100-1",
+      "document_number": "100-1",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's bail request",
+          "Allegations of child sexual abuse",
+          "Risk of flight and danger to the community"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant accused of child sexual abuse"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Annie Farmer",
+            "role": "Victim of Ghislaine Maxwell's alleged abuse"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Sigrid S. McCawley",
+            "role": "Attorney representing Annie Farmer"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge presiding over the case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is a statement from a victim, Annie Farmer, opposing Ghislaine Maxwell's bail request, providing insight into Maxwell's alleged character and behavior, and arguing that she poses a flight risk and danger to the community if released.",
+        "summary": "Annie Farmer, a victim of Ghislaine Maxwell's alleged child sexual abuse, submits a statement opposing Maxwell's bail request, citing concerns that she will flee or harm others if released. Farmer describes Maxwell's alleged abuse and manipulation, characterizing her as a psychopath with no remorse. The statement urges the court to keep Maxwell incarcerated until trial to ensure justice and prevent further harm."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "100-2",
+      "document_number": "100-2",
+      "page_count": 4,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Letter",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Extradition law between France and the United States",
+          "Non-extradition of nationals principle in French law",
+          "Differences in extradition policies between France and the U.S."
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Philippe JAILLET",
+            "role": "Head of the Office for International Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Andrew FLINKELMAN",
+            "role": "Liaison Magistrate at the Embassy of the United States of America in Paris"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it clarifies France's stance on extraditing its nationals to the United States, citing the principle of non-extradition of nationals and explaining the legal basis for this principle in French law and international treaties.",
+        "summary": "The document is a letter from the French Ministry of Justice to the U.S. Department of Justice, explaining that France cannot extradite individuals who were French nationals at the time of the alleged crime, based on Article 696-2 of the French Code of Criminal Procedure. It highlights the difference in extradition policies between France and the U.S., with France adhering to the 'aut tradere, aut judicare' principle for its nationals."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "101",
+      "document_number": "101",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Order",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's bail application",
+          "Redactions to court documents",
+          "Presumption of access to judicial documents"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it reveals the court's decision regarding the redactions to Ghislaine Maxwell's bail application documents, balancing the presumption of access against privacy interests.",
+        "summary": "The court order, issued by Judge Alison J. Nathan, approves Ghislaine Maxwell's proposed redactions to her bail application reply, finding them narrowly tailored to protect third-party privacy interests. The court applied the three-part Lugosch test to determine the appropriateness of the redactions. Maxwell is ordered to docket the redacted documents by December 23, 2020."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "102",
+      "document_number": "102",
+      "page_count": 3,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's renewed motion for bail",
+          "Request for extension of time to file a notice of appeal",
+          "Proposed redactions to court documents"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Christian R. Everdell",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Mark S. Cohen",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document reveals the legal proceedings against Ghislaine Maxwell, including her bail application and appeal process. It highlights the defense's strategy and the court's decisions regarding her case.",
+        "summary": "The document contains court filings related to Ghislaine Maxwell's case, including a letter submitting a reply memorandum for her renewed motion for bail under seal and a request for a 30-day extension to file a notice of appeal, which was denied by Judge Alison J. Nathan."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "103",
+      "document_number": "103",
+      "page_count": 14,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Reply Memorandum",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's renewed motion for bail",
+          "The government's case against Ghislaine Maxwell and its reliance on witness testimony",
+          "The proposed bail package and conditions for Ghislaine Maxwell's release"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Associated individual, not a defendant in this case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Mark S. Cohen",
+            "role": "Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Christian R. Everdell",
+            "role": "Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca",
+            "role": "Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Laura A. Menninger",
+            "role": "Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Bobbi C. Sternheim",
+            "role": "Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant as it reveals the defense's argument for Ghislaine Maxwell's bail, challenging the government's case and highlighting the proposed bail conditions. It provides insight into the legal strategy and the strengths and weaknesses of the case against Maxwell.",
+        "summary": "This reply memorandum supports Ghislaine Maxwell's renewed motion for bail, arguing that the government's case relies heavily on the testimony of three witnesses without significant contemporaneous documentary evidence. Maxwell's defense presents a substantial bail package, including a bond secured by her and her spouse's assets and additional sureties, arguing that these conditions reasonably assure her appearance in court."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "103-1",
+      "document_number": "103-1",
+      "page_count": 4,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Expert Opinion/Declaration",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Extradition law between the US and France",
+          "Interpretation of the Extradition Treaty between the US and France",
+          "Relevance of French law to extradition decisions"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "William Julié",
+            "role": "French lawyer providing expert opinion on extradition law"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant in the referenced court case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Hans Peterson",
+            "role": "Individual whose extradition to the US was denied by France in 2007"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document provides an expert opinion on the extradition laws between the US and France, arguing that France has discretion to extradite its nationals to the US under the Extradition Treaty between the two countries.",
+        "summary": "The document is an expert opinion by French lawyer William Julié on the extradition laws between the US and France. Julié argues that the French Minister of Justice's letter, which stated that France does not extradite its citizens outside the EU, is misleading and that the Extradition Treaty between the US and France gives France discretion to extradite its nationals. Julié also critiques the government's reliance on the Peterson case as a precedent."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "103-2",
+      "document_number": "103-2",
+      "page_count": 4,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Expert Opinion",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Extradition law of England and Wales",
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's extradition case",
+          "Bars to extradition and human rights considerations"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant in extradition proceedings"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "David Perry QC",
+            "role": "Author of the expert opinion on extradition law"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document provides expert opinion on the likelihood of Ghislaine Maxwell's extradition to the United States, concluding that it is highly unlikely she would successfully resist extradition.",
+        "summary": "The document is an addendum opinion by David Perry QC on the extradition law of England and Wales, specifically addressing Ghislaine Maxwell's case. It concludes that Maxwell's extradition to the US is highly likely due to her breach of bail and the unlikelihood of successfully resisting extradition. The opinion also clarifies the limited grounds on which the Secretary of State can refuse extradition."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "104",
+      "document_number": "104",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Order",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's bail motion",
+          "Pre-trial detention",
+          "Redactions to court opinion"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it reveals the court's decision to deny Ghislaine Maxwell's bail motion and provides insight into the court's reasoning regarding her flight risk.",
+        "summary": "The court denies Ghislaine Maxwell's renewed motion for release on bail, concluding that she poses a flight risk and that no conditions of release can reasonably assure her appearance at future proceedings. The court allows the parties 48 hours to propose redactions to the Opinion and Order. The decision is based on factors including the nature of the offenses, evidence against Maxwell, and her history and characteristics."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "105",
+      "document_number": "105",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell bail motion",
+          "Redactions to court opinion",
+          "Public filing of court order"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant in the case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Audrey Strauss",
+            "role": "Acting United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Maurene Comey",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison Moe",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Lara Pomerantz",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it reveals that the parties in the Ghislaine Maxwell case agree that the court's opinion denying her bail motion can be made public without redactions.",
+        "summary": "The document is a joint letter from the prosecution and defense in the Ghislaine Maxwell case, informing the court that they agree the court's December 28, 2020 Opinion and Order denying Maxwell's bail motion can be publicly filed without redactions. The letter is in response to the court's request for the parties to propose any necessary redactions. The parties have no objections to the public filing of the complete opinion."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "106",
+      "document_number": "106",
+      "page_count": 22,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Opinion and Order",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's renewed motion for bail pending trial",
+          "Risk of flight and detention under the Bail Reform Act",
+          "Charges against Ghislaine Maxwell and evidence proffered by the Government"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Individual associated with the charges against Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it reveals the court's reasoning for denying Ghislaine Maxwell's renewed motion for bail, highlighting the serious charges against her, the strength of the government's evidence, and her risk of flight.",
+        "summary": "The court denies Ghislaine Maxwell's renewed motion for bail, concluding that she poses a risk of flight and that no combination of conditions can ensure her appearance. The decision is based on the serious charges against her, the strength of the government's evidence, and her substantial resources and foreign ties. The court had previously denied bail on July 14, 2020, and Maxwell did not appeal that decision."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "107",
+      "document_number": "107",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Request for extension of time to file pretrial motions",
+          "Modification of briefing schedule",
+          "Impact of COVID-19 on legal proceedings"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Christian R. Everdell",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it reveals the challenges faced by the defense team in preparing pretrial motions due to COVID-19 restrictions and the large volume of discovery produced by the government.",
+        "summary": "The defense team for Ghislaine Maxwell requests a two-week extension to file pretrial motions and modify the briefing schedule due to COVID-19 restrictions and the large volume of discovery. The government consents to the requested extension. The proposed new deadlines are January 25, 2021, for the defendant's motions, February 26, 2021, for the government's response, and March 5, 2021, for the defendant's reply."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "108",
+      "document_number": "108",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's pretrial motions",
+          "Extension of time to file motions",
+          "COVID-19 quarantine impact on legal proceedings"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Christian R. Everdell",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant as it reveals the challenges faced by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team due to COVID-19 quarantine and their request for an extension to file pretrial motions, which was granted by the court.",
+        "summary": "The defense team for Ghislaine Maxwell requested a two-week extension to file pretrial motions due to the large volume of discovery and COVID-19 related quarantine constraints. The government consented, and the court granted the request, adjusting the briefing schedule accordingly."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "109",
+      "document_number": "109",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Request for extension of time to file notice of appeal",
+          "Bail application and potential third bail application",
+          "Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on legal proceedings"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Christian R. Everdell",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it reveals the defense's strategy regarding Ghislaine Maxwell's bail application and appeal, and highlights the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic on legal proceedings.",
+        "summary": "The defense attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell requests a 30-day extension to file a notice of appeal for the court's order denying her renewed motion for bail, citing good cause due to potential new bail conditions and logistical pandemic-related challenges. The government objects to the requested extension. The extension is sought to allow Maxwell to consider a third bail application and to avoid unnecessary parallel proceedings."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "109-1",
+      "document_number": "109-1",
+      "page_count": 26,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal of her conviction",
+          "Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement",
+          "Statute of limitations for sex trafficking charges"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant-Appellant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Co-conspirator"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "José A. Cabranes",
+            "role": "Circuit Judge"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is a court ruling on Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal of her conviction, addressing key issues such as the impact of Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement on her prosecution and the statute of limitations for sex trafficking charges.",
+        "summary": "The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed Ghislaine Maxwell's conviction for sex trafficking and related charges, rejecting her arguments that her prosecution was barred by Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement and that the statute of limitations had expired. The court also found that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Maxwell's motion for a new trial and that her sentence was procedurally reasonable."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "11",
+      "document_number": "11",
+      "page_count": 18,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "bail and detention",
+          "sex trafficking and abuse",
+          "legal proceedings against Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "defendant in a sex trafficking case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "defendant in a related sex trafficking case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Richard M. Berman",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "These documents reveal the government's opposition to bail for Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, highlighting the severity of the charges and the risk of flight or reoffending.",
+        "summary": "The documents are court filings related to the cases against Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, detailing the government's arguments against their release on bail due to the serious nature of the charges and the risk of reoffending or flight."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "11-1",
+      "document_number": "11-1",
+      "page_count": 10,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Bail hearing for Jeffrey Epstein",
+          "Sex trafficking charges against Jeffrey Epstein",
+          "Risk of flight and witness intimidation concerns"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Defendant accused of sex trafficking minors"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Henry Pitman",
+            "role": "United States Magistrate Judge presiding over the bail hearing"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant as it outlines the government's argument for detaining Jeffrey Epstein pending trial due to concerns about his risk of flight and potential to intimidate witnesses.",
+        "summary": "The document is a court filing submitted by the U.S. Department of Justice in advance of a bail hearing for Jeffrey Epstein, arguing that he should be detained pending trial due to the seriousness of the charges and concerns about his risk of flight and potential to intimidate witnesses. Epstein is accused of sex trafficking dozens of minor girls over several years. The government highlights Epstein's wealth, international connections, and history of alleged misconduct as reasons to deny bail."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "11-2",
+      "document_number": "11-2",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Police Incident Report",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Surveillance and intimidation of a victim",
+          "Phone calls and communication between individuals involved",
+          "Investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's activities"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Individual under investigation"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine",
+            "role": "Associated with Jeffrey Epstein's corporations"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document provides evidence of potential witness intimidation and surveillance related to Jeffrey Epstein, and reveals communication between individuals involved in the case.",
+        "summary": "The document is a Palm Beach Police Department incident report detailing phone calls and surveillance activities related to a victim and Jeffrey Epstein in 2006. It describes aggressive following by a private investigator and phone records showing communication between the victim and individuals associated with Epstein. The report highlights a sequence of calls between the victim and others, potentially indicating intimidation or surveillance."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "11-205-cv-00743bflap document 110847-103 filed 10/21/201 page 5 of 654",
+      "document_number": "11-205-cv-00743BFLAP Document 110847-103 Filed 10/21/201 Page 5 of 654",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Deposition transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Deposition procedures",
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's testimony",
+          "Rules for deposition"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Witness being deposed"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ms. McCawley",
+            "role": "Examining attorney representing Ms. Giuffre"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeff Pagliuca",
+            "role": "Attorney representing Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Laura Menninger",
+            "role": "Attorney representing Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it contains the sworn testimony of Ghislaine Maxwell, a key figure in a legal case involving Ms. Giuffre.",
+        "summary": "The document is a transcript of Ghislaine Maxwell's deposition, where she is being questioned by Ms. McCawley. The deposition begins with an explanation of the procedures and rules to be followed during the testimony. Maxwell confirms she has not been deposed before."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "11-205-cv-00743bflap document 121: filed 10/4/2018/201 page 3 of 654",
+      "document_number": "11-205-cv-00743BFLAP Document 121: Filed 10/4/2018/201 Page 3 of 654",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Deposition transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Deposition of Ghislaine Maxwell",
+          "Case details",
+          "Representation and appearances"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Deponent"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Sigrid McCawley",
+            "role": "Counsel for Virginia Giuffre"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Virginia Giuffre",
+            "role": "Plaintiff"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Brad Edwards",
+            "role": "Counsel for Virginia Giuffre"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Paul Cassell",
+            "role": "Counsel for Virginia Giuffre"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "James Christe",
+            "role": "Videographer"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Leslie Fagin",
+            "role": "Court reporter"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it is the transcript of Ghislaine Maxwell's deposition in a high-profile case involving Virginia Giuffre, providing insight into the case details and testimonies.",
+        "summary": "The document is the beginning of Ghislaine Maxwell's deposition transcript in the case of Virginia Giuffre vs. Ghislaine Maxwell. It details the appearances of counsel and the swearing-in process. The deposition was conducted on April 22, 2016, at 575 Lexington Avenue in New York."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "11-3",
+      "document_number": "11-3",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Police Incident Report",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Service of Grand Jury Subpoenas",
+          "Witness Intimidation",
+          "Jeffrey Epstein Investigation"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Joseph Recarey",
+            "role": "Officer who served subpoenas and investigated witness intimidation"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Nickie A. Altomaro",
+            "role": "Officer who entered the incident report"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Det Dawson",
+            "role": "Detective who assisted in the investigation"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Subject of the investigation (implied)"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "W/F",
+            "role": "Person who allegedly intimidated a witness"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it provides evidence of witness intimidation in a high-profile investigation involving Jeffrey Epstein, and reveals details about the service of Grand Jury Subpoenas and the involvement of various individuals.",
+        "summary": "The document is a Palm Beach Police Department Incident Report detailing the service of Grand Jury Subpoenas and an investigation into witness intimidation. Officer Joseph Recarey served subpoenas to individuals, including a victim who was allegedly intimidated by a person known to Jeffrey Epstein. The victim identified the person who approached her and offered her not to testify in exchange for monetary compensation."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "11-civ-00738-pla",
+      "document_number": "11-civ-00738-PLA",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "deposition",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Responsibilities of G Maxwell",
+          "Booking massages for Jeffrey Epstein",
+          "Sexual massage allegations"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "G Maxwell",
+            "role": "Deponent and associate of Jeffrey Epstein"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Employer of G Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "MR. PAGLIUCA",
+            "role": "Attorney representing G Maxwell"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This deposition transcript potentially reveals details about G Maxwell's role in Jeffrey Epstein's life and her involvement in arranging massages, which may be relevant to allegations of sex trafficking and other misconduct.",
+        "summary": "G Maxwell testifies about her responsibilities working for Jeffrey Epstein, including whether she booked massages for him. She states that booking massages was not typically her responsibility, but does not directly deny doing so. The questioning hints at potential sexual misconduct."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "11-cr-00383",
+      "document_number": "11-cr-00383",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Index of Trial Documents",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Trial transcripts",
+          "Jury charge discussions",
+          "Evidence and exhibits presented during the trial"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Stanley J. Okula, Jr.",
+            "role": "Attorney or representative submitting a letter to Judge Pauley"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Laurie Edelstein",
+            "role": "Attorney or representative submitting multiple letters to Judge Pauley"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Nicholas Cutaia",
+            "role": "Person sending an email with a revised draft jury charge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Catherine Conrad",
+            "role": "Person who authored a note that became Court Exhibit 3"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "David Parse",
+            "role": "Defendant who filed a Motion For Judgment Of Acquittal Pursuant To Rule 29"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Judge Pauley",
+            "role": "The judge presiding over the trial"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is an index of various trial documents, including transcripts, letters, emails, and exhibits, which suggests it is part of a larger court record. It provides insight into the proceedings and evidence presented during the trial.",
+        "summary": "This document is an index of trial documents from a criminal case (United States v. David Parse, et al.). It lists various documents, including trial transcripts, letters, emails, and exhibits. The documents are related to the trial proceedings, jury charge discussions, and evidence presented."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "11-cv-007438",
+      "document_number": "11-cv-007438",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Deposition Transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Case appearances",
+          "Attorney representation",
+          "Court proceedings"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Sigrid McCawley",
+            "role": "Esquire for Plaintiff"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Brad Edwards",
+            "role": "Esquire for Plaintiff"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca",
+            "role": "Esquire for Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "James Christe",
+            "role": "Videographer"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it provides a record of the appearances and representation in a court case, which can be crucial for understanding the case's progression and the roles of various individuals involved.",
+        "summary": "This document is a deposition transcript that lists the appearances of attorneys representing the plaintiff and defendant in a court case, along with other individuals present. The plaintiff is represented by multiple law firms and attorneys, while the defendant is represented by a single law firm with two attorneys. The document also notes the presence of a videographer."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "11032",
+      "document_number": "11032",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Reply Memorandum",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's renewed motion for bail",
+          "Legal arguments in support of bail",
+          "Procedural matters in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Mark S. Cohen",
+            "role": "Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Christian R. Everdell",
+            "role": "Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca",
+            "role": "Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Laura A. Menninger",
+            "role": "Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Bobbi C. Sternheim",
+            "role": "Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant as it presents the defendant's legal arguments in support of her renewed motion for bail, potentially impacting her pre-trial detention status.",
+        "summary": "This is a reply memorandum filed by Ghislaine Maxwell's attorneys in support of her renewed motion for bail in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The document is part of the legal proceedings against Maxwell. It outlines the legal arguments and reasoning in favor of granting Maxwell bail."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "11209cr00339",
+      "document_number": "11209cr00339",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Order",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Protected Witnesses",
+          "Courtroom Sketch Artists",
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell Trial"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it reveals the court's efforts to protect the identities of certain witnesses in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial by restricting courtroom sketch artists from drawing their exact likenesses.",
+        "summary": "The court orders that courtroom sketch artists are prohibited from drawing exact likenesses of protected witnesses in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. This order aims to maintain the anonymity of these witnesses. The order was issued by Judge Alison J. Nathan on November 18, 2021."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "11220cr00338",
+      "document_number": "11220cr00338",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Protective Order",
+          "Confidential Information",
+          "Court Discretion"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is a court order related to the handling of confidential information in a criminal case, establishing the protocol for treating certain materials as 'Confidential' or 'Highly Confidential'.",
+        "summary": "The court order, signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan, outlines the treatment of certain materials as 'Confidential Information' under the Protective Order and allows the court to designate materials as 'Highly Confidential' at its discretion."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "11220cr00339",
+      "document_number": "11220cr00339",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell trial",
+          "Protective order for sensitive materials",
+          "Mistrial motion"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "MS. PENZA",
+            "role": "Defense Counsel"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document reveals the court's handling of sensitive information related to the Epstein Victims' Compensation Fund and the defendant's motion for a mistrial, highlighting the challenges of managing sensitive information in a high-profile trial.",
+        "summary": "The document is a transcript of a court proceeding in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial, where the judge denies the defendant's motion for a mistrial and discusses the handling of sensitive information related to the Epstein Victims' Compensation Fund. The court orders a protective order to safeguard confidential information and provides guidance on how to protect the identities of certain individuals during testimony."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "11220ecr0033389pain",
+      "document_number": "11220ecr0033389PAIN",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "protecting alleged victims' privacy",
+          "procedural instructions for trial",
+          "handling sensitive information during testimony"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "THE COURT",
+            "role": "presiding judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "MS. PENZA",
+            "role": "Government attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "MR. AGNIFILO",
+            "role": "defense attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Denise Parisi",
+            "role": "Official Court Reporter"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document reveals the court's efforts to protect the privacy of alleged victims by withholding their identities from the public and press, and establishes procedures for handling sensitive information during the trial.",
+        "summary": "The court transcript shows the judge giving instructions to the parties on protecting alleged victims' privacy, handling sensitive information, and making objections during the trial. The Government and defense attorney discuss and agree on certain procedures, with the defense attorney noting an objection. The court then takes a five-minute break."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "113",
+      "document_number": "113",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Criminal Notice of Appeal",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal",
+          "Bail denial",
+          "United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "District Court Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Christian Everdell",
+            "role": "Defendant's Counsel"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Maurene Comey",
+            "role": "Assistant U.S. Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document signifies Ghislaine Maxwell's formal appeal against the denial of her renewed motion for release on bail, indicating a significant step in her legal proceedings.",
+        "summary": "Ghislaine Maxwell, through her counsel Christian Everdell, files a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit against the order denying her renewed motion for release on bail, entered on December 28, 2020."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1130",
+      "document_number": "1130",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Non-Prosecution Agreement",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Non-Prosecution Agreement terms",
+          "Jeffrey Epstein's compliance",
+          "Conditions of the agreement"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "R. Alexander Acosta",
+            "role": "United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "A. Marie Villafana",
+            "role": "Assistant U.S. Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Gerald Lefcourt",
+            "role": "Counsel to Jeffrey Epstein"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Lilly Ann Sangrez",
+            "role": "Attorney for Jeffrey Epstein"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it reveals the terms and conditions of Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement, which has been a subject of controversy and public interest.",
+        "summary": "This document is the signature page of a Non-Prosecution Agreement between Jeffrey Epstein and the United States Attorney's Office, where Epstein agrees to comply with the conditions outlined in the agreement. The agreement was signed in 2007 by Epstein, his attorneys, and the Assistant U.S. Attorney. The document signifies Epstein's understanding and acceptance of the agreement's terms."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "11309-cia-08-030",
+      "document_number": "11309-CIA-08-030",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Affirmation",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Non-Prosecution Agreement",
+          "Addendum",
+          "Jeffrey Epstein"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey E. Epstein",
+            "role": "The individual affirming the Non-Prosecution Agreement"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it confirms Jeffrey Epstein's affirmation of a Non-Prosecution Agreement, which may be relevant to understanding the terms and implications of the agreement.",
+        "summary": "The document is an affirmation by Jeffrey E. Epstein of a Non-Prosecution Agreement and its Addendum dated October 30, 2007. Epstein re-affirms the agreement on December 7, 2007. The document is part of a court filing in a 2010 civil case."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1138",
+      "document_number": "1138",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Affirmation",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Non-Prosecution Agreement",
+          "Addendum",
+          "Legal Affirmation"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey E. Epstein",
+            "role": "Individual affirming the Non-Prosecution Agreement"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it contains an affirmation of a Non-Prosecution Agreement by Jeffrey E. Epstein, which may be relevant to understanding the terms and conditions of the agreement and its implications.",
+        "summary": "The document is an affirmation by Jeffrey E. Epstein re-affirming the Non-Prosecution Agreement and its Addendum dated October 30, 2007. Epstein signed the affirmation on December 7, 2007. The document is part of a court filing in a 2009 civil case."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1138-cr-ja-02",
+      "document_number": "1138-CR-JA-02",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Addendum to Non-Prosecution Agreement",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Non-Prosecution Agreement",
+          "Jeffrey Epstein",
+          "Clarifications and Compliance"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "R. Alexander Acosta",
+            "role": "United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "A. Marie Villafana Fausa",
+            "role": "Assistant U.S. Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Gerald Lefcourt",
+            "role": "Counsel to Jeffrey Epstein"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Lilly Ann Sanchez",
+            "role": "Attorney for Jeffrey Epstein"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it reveals the terms and conditions of Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement and the clarifications made to it, which has been a subject of controversy and public interest.",
+        "summary": "This document is an Addendum to the Non-Prosecution Agreement between Jeffrey Epstein and the United States Attorney's Office, signed on October 30, 2007. Epstein certifies that he understands the clarifications to the agreement and agrees to comply with them. The document is signed by Epstein, his attorneys, and the Assistant U.S. Attorney."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "115",
+      "document_number": "115",
+      "page_count": 4,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's access to a laptop for reviewing discovery",
+          "Restrictions on laptop access on weekends and holidays",
+          "Request for court order to allow laptop access"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Christian R. Everdell",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it reveals a dispute between the defense and the Bureau of Prisons regarding Ghislaine Maxwell's access to a laptop for reviewing discovery, and the court's decision to grant the defense's request.",
+        "summary": "The defense requests that the court order the Bureau of Prisons to give Ghislaine Maxwell access to a laptop on weekends and holidays to review discovery. The government does not object, and the court grants the request."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "117",
+      "document_number": "117",
+      "page_count": 3,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Order and attached letter from the Bureau of Prisons",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Access to discovery materials for defendant Ghislaine Maxwell",
+          "Use of a government-provided laptop computer during confinement",
+          "Request to vacate a previous court order regarding laptop access"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant in the case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge presiding over the case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Sophia Papapetru",
+            "role": "Staff Attorney at MDC Brooklyn, Federal Bureau of Prisons"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it reveals a dispute between the defense, the government, and the Bureau of Prisons regarding the conditions of Ghislaine Maxwell's confinement, specifically her access to discovery materials.",
+        "summary": "The document is a court order from Judge Alison J. Nathan, responding to a letter from the Bureau of Prisons requesting that the court vacate its previous order allowing Ghislaine Maxwell access to her government-provided laptop on weekends and holidays. The Bureau of Prisons argues that Maxwell has sufficient time to review discovery materials during the week and that the previous order should be vacated."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "11702",
+      "document_number": "11702",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Bail motion for Ghislaine Maxwell",
+          "Jurisdiction during pending appeal",
+          "Pretrial services and supervision"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant in a criminal case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it reveals the ongoing legal battle surrounding Ghislaine Maxwell's bail request and the government's opposition to it, highlighting the complexities of her case and the legal arguments being made.",
+        "summary": "The document discusses Ghislaine Maxwell's bail motion, the government's opposition, and the issue of jurisdiction while an appeal is pending. Maxwell's legal team proposes a strict bail package with 24/7 private security and pretrial supervision. The government argues that the court should not consider the bail motion due to a pending appeal, a position Maxwell's team contests."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "117021",
+      "document_number": "117021",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "bail application",
+          "conditions of release",
+          "flight risk assessment"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ms. Maxwell",
+            "role": "defendant in the case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "the government",
+            "role": "prosecution in the case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it reveals the defense's argument for bail and responds to the government's objections, providing insight into the legal strategies and concerns of both parties.",
+        "summary": "The document is a court filing in the case against Ms. Maxwell, arguing for her release on bail with specific conditions. It counters the government's claims that she is a flight risk and disputes their assertion that freezing her assets is necessary to prevent her from fleeing. The defense argues that the proposed conditions of release are sufficient to ensure her presence at trial."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "118",
+      "document_number": "118",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Pretrial motions in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell",
+          "Motions to dismiss various counts of the superseding indictment",
+          "Requests for suppression of evidence and other relief"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Mark S. Cohen",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Christian R. Everdell",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it outlines the pretrial motions filed by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team, which may impact the course of the trial and potentially challenge the validity of the indictment.",
+        "summary": "The defense team for Ghislaine Maxwell filed a letter with the court on January 25, 2021, notifying the court of their intention to file 12 pretrial motions, including motions to dismiss various counts of the superseding indictment and requests for suppression of evidence. The motions will be filed with redactions to protect confidential information. The letter was submitted by Mark S. Cohen and Christian R. Everdell of COHEN & GRESSER LLP."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "119",
+      "document_number": "119",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Motion for Severance",
+          "Separate Trial on Specific Counts",
+          "Superseding Indictment"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Laura A. Menninger",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Mark S. Cohen",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Christian R. Everdell",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Bobbi C. Sternheim",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is a formal request by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team to sever and have a separate trial for Counts Five and Six of the Superseding Indictment, potentially impacting the trial strategy and proceedings.",
+        "summary": "Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team filed a motion requesting a severance and separate trial for Counts Five and Six of the Superseding Indictment. The motion was filed on January 25, 2021, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The defense team is led by attorneys from Haddon, Morgan & Foreman P.C., Cohen & Gresser LLP, and Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "12",
+      "document_number": "12",
+      "page_count": 4,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Mixed court filings and notices",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Admission pro hac vice for Jeffrey Epstein's counsel",
+          "Notice of appearance for Ghislaine Maxwell's counsel",
+          "Defective filing notice in United States v. Epstein appeal"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Martin G. Weinberg",
+            "role": "Counsel for Jeffrey Epstein"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Mark S. Cohen",
+            "role": "Counsel for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Defendant in a criminal case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant in a criminal case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "These documents reveal the involvement of specific attorneys in high-profile cases involving Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, and highlight procedural aspects of their legal proceedings.",
+        "summary": "The documents include a motion for admission pro hac vice for Jeffrey Epstein's counsel, a notice of appearance for Ghislaine Maxwell's counsel, and a notice of defective filing in the appeal of United States v. Epstein."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "12-1",
+      "document_number": "12-1",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Certificate of Good Standing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Martin G. Weinberg's admission to the Massachusetts Bar",
+          "Martin G. Weinberg's current status as a member of the Bar",
+          "Certification by the Supreme Judicial Court"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Martin G. Weinberg",
+            "role": "Attorney being certified as a member in good standing"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Maura S. Doyle",
+            "role": "Clerk of the Supreme Judicial Court"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document establishes Martin G. Weinberg's credentials as a lawyer in good standing in Massachusetts, which may be relevant to his ability to practice law in a federal case.",
+        "summary": "This document is a Certificate of Good Standing issued by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, confirming that Martin G. Weinberg was admitted to the Bar in 1972 and is currently a member in good standing. The certificate is dated July 11, 2019, and is signed by Maura S. Doyle, Clerk of the Court. It verifies Weinberg's status as an attorney and counsellor at law in Massachusetts."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "12-2",
+      "document_number": "12-2",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Order",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Admission Pro Hac Vice",
+          "Jeffrey Epstein Case",
+          "Attorney Admission"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Martin G. Weinberg",
+            "role": "Attorney seeking admission Pro Hac Vice for Jeffrey Epstein"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Defendant in the criminal case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Richard M. Berman",
+            "role": "United States District Court Judge"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant as it grants admission to an attorney to represent a high-profile defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, in a criminal case.",
+        "summary": "The document is a court order granting Martin G. Weinberg's motion for admission Pro Hac Vice to appear as co-counsel for Jeffrey Epstein in a criminal case in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "120",
+      "document_number": "120",
+      "page_count": 20,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Motion for Severance of Counts Five and Six",
+          "Joinder of Offenses under Rule 8(a)",
+          "Severance under Rule 14(a) due to potential prejudice"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Virginia Roberts Giuffre",
+            "role": "Plaintiff in a defamation action against Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it reveals Ghislaine Maxwell's legal strategy to separate the perjury counts from the other charges, arguing that they are improperly joined and could cause substantial prejudice at trial.",
+        "summary": "Ghislaine Maxwell's legal team filed a motion to sever Counts Five and Six (perjury charges) from Counts One through Four of the Superseding Indictment, arguing improper joinder under Rule 8(a) and potential prejudice under Rule 14(a). The perjury charges relate to Maxwell's statements in a 2016 civil deposition in a defamation case brought by Virginia Roberts Giuffre, which Maxwell's team argues are unrelated to the other charges and could prejudice her at trial."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "120-ec1-00330-pae",
+      "document_number": "120-ec1-00330-PAE",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Deposition Transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Juror misconduct",
+          "Criminal history concealment",
+          "Voir dire testimony"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Conrad",
+            "role": "Witness/Juror being questioned"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Paul M. Daugerdas",
+            "role": "Defendant in the case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "MR. OKULA",
+            "role": "Attorney/Representing the court"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "MR. GAIR",
+            "role": "Attorney/Prosecutor"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document reveals potential juror misconduct and concealment of relevant information during voir dire, which could impact the validity of the trial outcome.",
+        "summary": "The witness, Conrad, is being questioned about her husband's criminal history, which she allegedly concealed during voir dire. She is also questioned about her father's employment with the Justice Department and her own involvement in a disciplinary proceeding, which she failed to disclose."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "120-ec1-00380-pa",
+      "document_number": "120-ec1-00380-PA",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Tax Shelter",
+          "Fraudulent Scheme",
+          "Sentencing"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Paul M. Daugerdas",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "J.P. Morgan",
+            "role": "Bank involved in alleged tax shelter"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it relates to a significant court case involving alleged tax evasion and fraudulent schemes, providing insight into the legal proceedings and the roles of key individuals and institutions.",
+        "summary": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case against Paul M. Daugerdas and others, involving allegations of a fraudulent tax shelter scheme. The filing discusses various aspects of the case, including sentencing. The case involves multiple defendants and financial institutions."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "120-ec1-00380-pae",
+      "document_number": "120-ec1-00380-PAE",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Tax Evasion",
+          "Criminal Trial",
+          "Paul M. Daugerdas Case"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Paul M. Daugerdas",
+            "role": "Defendant in a criminal tax evasion case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it is part of a significant court case involving tax evasion allegations against Paul M. Daugerdas and others.",
+        "summary": "This is a court filing document from the case United States of America v. Paul M. Daugerdas, et al., dated February 24, 2012. The document appears to be a page from a larger filing, referencing a specific page number (268 of 671) and a date of February 15, 2012. It is related to a criminal trial involving allegations against Paul M. Daugerdas."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "120-ec1-006308-pa",
+      "document_number": "120-ec1-006308-PA",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "tax shelter fraud",
+          "testimony of Conrad",
+          "case against Paul M. Daugerdas"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Paul M. Daugerdas",
+            "role": "defendant in the case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Conrad",
+            "role": "witness testifying in the case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it contains testimony from a witness in a significant financial crime case, potentially shedding light on the details of the alleged tax shelter fraud.",
+        "summary": "This is a transcript of the direct testimony of Conrad in the case United States of America v. Paul M. Daugerdas, et al., on February 15, 2012. The case appears to involve allegations of tax shelter fraud. The testimony is part of the court record."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "120-ecf-00630",
+      "document_number": "120-ecf-00630",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Trial proceedings",
+          "Testimony of a witness",
+          "Discussion of evidence or specific terms like 'can' and 'communicating'"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Paul M. Daugerdas",
+            "role": "Defendant in the case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it provides a record of trial proceedings and may contain significant testimony or evidence discussed during the trial.",
+        "summary": "The document appears to be a transcript of a court proceeding in the case United States of America v. Paul M. Daugerdas, et al., dated February 15, 2012. It includes references to specific pages and lines where certain terms were used. The term 'can' is highlighted with numerous citations."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "120-ecf-006308",
+      "document_number": "120-ecf-006308",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Tax Shelter Case",
+          "Testimony of Conrad",
+          "Paul M. Daugerdas Case"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Paul M. Daugerdas",
+            "role": "Defendant in the case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Conrad",
+            "role": "Witness testifying in the case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is a transcript of a witness testimony in a significant tax shelter case involving Paul M. Daugerdas, potentially providing insight into the case's details and legal proceedings.",
+        "summary": "The document appears to be a page from a court transcript dated February 15, 2012, featuring the direct testimony of a witness named Conrad in the case United States of America v. Paul M. Daugerdas, et al."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "120-ecf-006380-pa",
+      "document_number": "120-ecf-006380-PA",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Tax Shelter Scheme",
+          "Sentencing",
+          "Restitution"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Paul M. Daugerdas",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Dennis J. Lerner",
+            "role": "Counsel for Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Preet Bharara",
+            "role": "United States Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it relates to the sentencing and restitution of Paul M. Daugerdas, a defendant in a tax shelter scheme case, and provides insight into the government's evidence and the court's rulings.",
+        "summary": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the sentencing of Paul M. Daugerdas, who was involved in a tax shelter scheme. The government, led by Preet Bharara, is seeking restitution and has submitted evidence to support their claims. The defendant's counsel, Dennis J. Lerner, has also submitted filings in response."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1204-10",
+      "document_number": "1204-10",
+      "page_count": 10,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Deposition Transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's involvement with Jeffrey Epstein",
+          "Allegations of sexual abuse and underage girls",
+          "Maxwell's knowledge of Epstein's activities"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Deponent"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Subject of allegations and Maxwell's associate"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Virginia Giuffre",
+            "role": "Alleged victim and witness"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This deposition transcript provides insight into Ghislaine Maxwell's knowledge and involvement with Jeffrey Epstein's activities, particularly regarding allegations of sexual abuse and underage girls. It is potentially important as evidence in a court case related to these allegations.",
+        "summary": "The deposition transcript reveals Ghislaine Maxwell's testimony regarding her relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, her knowledge of his activities, and allegations of sexual abuse. Maxwell denies any wrongdoing and disputes the allegations, labeling Virginia Giuffre a 'liar'. The transcript is a confidential part of a court filing in a civil case."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "120547-1103",
+      "document_number": "120547-1103",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Deposition Transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Witness testimony",
+          "Refusal to answer questions",
+          "Deposition procedures"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "G Maxwell",
+            "role": "Witness"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "MR. PAGLIUCA",
+            "role": "Witness's attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "MS. McCAWLEY",
+            "role": "Attorney conducting the deposition"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document reveals a dispute between the witness's attorney and the attorney conducting the deposition regarding the witness's refusal to answer certain questions, potentially related to the topic of adult consent.",
+        "summary": "The deposition transcript shows a tense exchange between the witness, G Maxwell, and the attorney conducting the deposition, with the witness refusing to answer certain questions and the attorney warning of potential consequences. The witness's attorney intervenes, objecting to the tone and potential threats made by the opposing attorney."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1207-10",
+      "document_number": "1207-10",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Deposition Transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Jeffrey Epstein's conviction and sentencing",
+          "G Maxwell's knowledge of Epstein's crimes",
+          "Allegations of sexual abuse of minors"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "G Maxwell",
+            "role": "Deponent"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Individual whose crimes are being discussed"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "MR. PAGLIUCA",
+            "role": "Counsel for G Maxwell"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This deposition transcript reveals G Maxwell's knowledge and beliefs about Jeffrey Epstein's crimes, which is potentially relevant to the case.",
+        "summary": "The deposition transcript shows G Maxwell being questioned about her knowledge of Jeffrey Epstein's conviction and sentencing for sexual abuse of minors. G Maxwell claims she doesn't know the exact details of Epstein's conviction, but acknowledges that he spent time in jail for having an underage prostitute. She is hesitant to testify to her personal beliefs about Epstein's actions."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "120847-103",
+      "document_number": "120847-103",
+      "page_count": 3,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Deposition transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's involvement in Jeffrey Epstein's sexual activities",
+          "Allegations of non-consensual sex acts involving Jeffrey Epstein and masseuses",
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's denial of recruiting girls for Jeffrey Epstein"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Deponent and associate of Jeffrey Epstein"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Individual accused of sexual misconduct"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This deposition transcript provides insight into Ghislaine Maxwell's testimony regarding her involvement with Jeffrey Epstein and potential evidence in a court case related to Epstein's alleged sexual misconduct.",
+        "summary": "Ghislaine Maxwell testifies that she is unaware of any non-consensual sex acts involving Jeffrey Epstein and masseuses. She denies recruiting girls for Epstein and becomes defensive when questioned about specific conversations or statements she may have made 17 years prior."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "12087-103",
+      "document_number": "12087-103",
+      "page_count": 5,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Deposition transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "G Maxwell's knowledge of Jeffrey Epstein's sexual activities",
+          "Massage therapists and their activities at Epstein's home",
+          "Allegations of underage girls being involved with Epstein"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "G Maxwell",
+            "role": "Deponent"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Subject of allegations"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Virginia Roberts",
+            "role": "Alleged victim and participant in a defamation suit"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "MR. PAGLIUCA",
+            "role": "G Maxwell's counsel"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This deposition transcript is potentially important as it provides insight into G Maxwell's knowledge and involvement with Jeffrey Epstein's activities, which is relevant to the defamation suit and allegations against Epstein.",
+        "summary": "The deposition transcript reveals G Maxwell's testimony regarding her knowledge of Jeffrey Epstein's activities, including her denial of witnessing or being involved in any inappropriate or underage activities. The transcript also highlights the objections raised by her counsel, MR. PAGLIUCA, regarding the form and foundation of the questions asked."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "12087-1103",
+      "document_number": "12087-1103",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Deposition Transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "G Maxwell's interactions with Ms. Roberts",
+          "G Maxwell's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein",
+          "G Maxwell's visits to Mar-a-Lago"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "G Maxwell",
+            "role": "Deponent"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Associate of G Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ms. Roberts",
+            "role": "Individual whose interactions with G Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein are being discussed"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ms. Roberts' mother",
+            "role": "Individual who accompanied Ms. Roberts to a meeting with G Maxwell"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This deposition transcript potentially reveals information about G Maxwell's interactions with Jeffrey Epstein and a minor, Ms. Roberts, which could be relevant to a court case involving allegations against G Maxwell and/or Jeffrey Epstein.",
+        "summary": "The document is a deposition transcript of G Maxwell, in which she discusses her interactions with Ms. Roberts and her mother, as well as her visits to Mar-a-Lago and her relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. G Maxwell claims not to recall certain details about her interactions with Ms. Roberts and how Ms. Roberts met Jeffrey Epstein. The transcript appears to be part of a larger court case."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "120ec1-003308",
+      "document_number": "120ec1-003308",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Exhibit List",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Catherine M. Conrad's attorney registration and disciplinary history",
+          "Catherine M. Conrad's marriage to Frank Rosa",
+          "Property records for 16 Parkview Drive, Eastchester/New York"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Catherine M. Conrad",
+            "role": "Attorney involved in the case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Frank Rosa",
+            "role": "Catherine M. Conrad's spouse"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Stanley J. Okula",
+            "role": "Recipient of a letter from Catherine Conrad"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it lists various exhibits related to Catherine M. Conrad, including her attorney registration, disciplinary history, and personal records, which may be relevant to the case.",
+        "summary": "This document is a list of exhibits attached to the Trzaskoma Declaration in a court case, including documents related to Catherine M. Conrad's attorney registration, disciplinary history, marriage, and property records."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "120ec1-006308-pa",
+      "document_number": "120ec1-006308-PA",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court transcript or deposition",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "tax evasion or fraud scheme",
+          "testimony of Conrad",
+          "case against Paul M. Daugerdas"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Paul M. Daugerdas",
+            "role": "defendant in the case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Conrad",
+            "role": "witness testifying in the case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it contains testimony from a witness in a significant court case involving alleged tax evasion or fraud, providing insight into the case against Paul M. Daugerdas.",
+        "summary": "The document appears to be a transcript of the direct testimony of Conrad in the case United States of America v. Paul M. Daugerdas, et al., on February 15, 2012. The testimony is part of a larger court proceeding. The specific details of Conrad's testimony are not clear from the provided snippet."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "120ec1-006308-pae",
+      "document_number": "120ec1-006308-PAE",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Deposition Transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Tax Shelter",
+          "Conrad's Testimony",
+          "Paul M. Daugerdas Case"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Conrad",
+            "role": "Witness being deposed"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Paul M. Daugerdas",
+            "role": "Defendant in the case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is a part of a deposition transcript in a significant legal case involving tax shelters and potentially fraudulent activities, providing insight into the testimony of a key witness.",
+        "summary": "This is a page from the deposition transcript of Conrad in the case against Paul M. Daugerdas, et al., in the Southern District court. The document is part of a larger legal proceeding and contains Conrad's direct testimony. The case appears to involve complex financial or tax-related issues."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "121",
+      "document_number": "121",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Motion to Dismiss",
+          "Multiplicity of Charges",
+          "Superseding Indictment"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Laura A. Menninger",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Mark S. Cohen",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Christian R. Everdell",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Bobbi C. Sternheim",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is a pretrial motion filed by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team, arguing that certain counts in the superseding indictment are multiplicitous and should be dismissed.",
+        "summary": "Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team filed a motion to dismiss either Count One or Count Three of the superseding indictment, arguing that they are multiplicitous. The motion was filed on January 25, 2021, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The defense team is represented by multiple attorneys from different law firms."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "121-3",
+      "document_number": "121-3",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Proposed Protective Order",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Confidentiality and protection of sensitive information",
+          "Discovery and dissemination of personal and proprietary information",
+          "Guidelines for designation and handling of protected materials"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Virginia L. Giuffre",
+            "role": "Plaintiff"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This proposed protective order is significant because it outlines the procedures for handling sensitive and confidential information in the case, including information related to victims of sexual abuse and proprietary information.",
+        "summary": "The document is a proposed protective order in the case of Virginia L. Giuffre v. Ghislaine Maxwell, outlining the guidelines for designating and handling confidential and sensitive information during discovery. The order aims to protect victims of sexual abuse and proprietary information while allowing for necessary disclosures. It requires designations to be made sparingly and with care."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "121-6",
+      "document_number": "121-6",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Protective Order",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Confidentiality of documents and information",
+          "Scope of Protective Order in a civil case",
+          "Disclosure and use of confidential information"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Virginia Roberts Giuffre",
+            "role": "Plaintiff"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This Protective Order establishes the handling of sensitive information in a high-profile civil case involving allegations of sexual abuse, ensuring confidentiality of documents and testimony.",
+        "summary": "The court issues a Protective Order governing the handling of confidential information in the case of Virginia Roberts Giuffre vs. Ghislaine Maxwell, defining what constitutes 'CONFIDENTIAL' information and outlining permissible disclosures."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "121047-103",
+      "document_number": "121047-103",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Deposition transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Sale of a property",
+          "Recruitment of females to work for Jeffrey Epstein",
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's testimony"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant and deponent"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Virginia L. Giuffre",
+            "role": "Plaintiff"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Associated individual mentioned in the deposition"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This deposition transcript is potentially important as it contains Ghislaine Maxwell's testimony regarding her involvement with Jeffrey Epstein and the recruitment of females to work for him, which is relevant to the case.",
+        "summary": "The document is a transcript of Ghislaine Maxwell's deposition, where she discusses the sale of a property and is questioned about recruiting females to work for Jeffrey Epstein. Maxwell's testimony is given under oath and is potentially significant to the case between Virginia L. Giuffre and Ghislaine Maxwell."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "12107-000",
+      "document_number": "12107-000",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "bail conditions",
+          "flight risk assessment",
+          "pretrial detention"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "the defendant",
+            "role": "the individual requesting bail"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is a court filing that argues against granting bail to the defendant due to the risk of flight and the strength of the government's case. It provides insight into the legal arguments and evidence presented in a criminal case.",
+        "summary": "The document is a court filing opposing the defendant's request for bail, arguing that the defendant poses a significant flight risk and that the government's case remains strong despite the defendant's pretrial motions. The court should deny the defendant's motion for bail due to the risk of flight and lack of new information."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "12107-0000330-agnt 2document 2651",
+      "document_number": "12107-0000330-Agnt 2Document 2651",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Bail determination",
+          "Renunciation of foreign citizenship",
+          "Extradition proceedings"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "The Defendant",
+            "role": "The individual whose bail package is being discussed"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it reveals the government's opposition to the defendant's bail package and highlights the complexities of extradition proceedings.",
+        "summary": "The document is a court filing in a criminal case where the defendant is offering to renounce her foreign citizenship as part of her bail package. The government argues that this offer does not mitigate the risk of flight and is of unclear validity. The court is being asked to consider whether the defendant's offer is sufficient to alter its prior bail determinations."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "12107-000038",
+      "document_number": "12107-000038",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Letter",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's detention conditions",
+          "Impact on her health and well-being",
+          "Preparation for her defense"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "The detainee"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Bobbi C. Sternheim",
+            "role": "Maxwell's lawyer"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Reference to his death in custody"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document highlights the harsh conditions of Ghislaine Maxwell's detention and their impact on her ability to prepare for her defense, potentially raising concerns about the fairness of her trial.",
+        "summary": "The letter from Bobbi C. Sternheim describes the harsh conditions of Ghislaine Maxwell's detention, including being placed on suicide watch without justification and being held in de facto solitary confinement. Maxwell's health and well-being are suffering, affecting her ability to prepare for her defense. The letter criticizes the Bureau of Prisons' treatment of Maxwell as 'Pretrial Punishment'."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "12107-000830",
+      "document_number": "12107-000830",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Letter or Affidavit",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Grievances and mistreatment of Ms. Maxwell while in detention",
+          "Conditions of detention, including isolation cell and food quality",
+          "Allegations of physical abuse and retaliation by guards"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ms. Maxwell",
+            "role": "The detainee experiencing mistreatment and grievances"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Guards and security officers",
+            "role": "Personnel accused of mistreating Ms. Maxwell"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document highlights serious concerns regarding the treatment and conditions of detention for Ms. Maxwell, potentially indicating human rights or constitutional violations.",
+        "summary": "The document details the harsh conditions faced by Ms. Maxwell in detention, including sleep deprivation, physical abuse, restricted movement, poor food quality, and issues with access to clean water and legal mail. It highlights a pattern of mistreatment and retaliation by guards. The conditions have been detrimental to her health and well-being."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "121070006046a",
+      "document_number": "121070006046A",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "defendant's financial resources",
+          "bank accounts and transactions",
+          "flight risk assessment"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "the defendant",
+            "role": "accused individual"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "individual associated with the defendant through financial transactions"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it provides evidence of the defendant's substantial financial resources and complex financial transactions, which the Government uses to argue that she poses a flight risk.",
+        "summary": "The Government has identified numerous bank accounts associated with the defendant, with total balances ranging from hundreds of thousands to over $20 million between 2016 and the present. The defendant has engaged in significant financial transactions, including transfers of hundreds of thousands of dollars, and has reported holding foreign bank accounts containing over a million dollars. The Government notes a significant property sale in 2016 and past financial transactions with Jeffrey Epstein."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "12107006",
+      "document_number": "12107006",
+      "page_count": 3,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Bail and Detention",
+          "Risk of Flight",
+          "Seriousness of Allegations"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "The defendant",
+            "role": "The accused individual facing charges related to sexual offenses involving minors"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Epstein",
+            "role": "Individual associated with the defendant, previously indicted"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it presents the government's argument for detaining the defendant without bail due to the high risk of flight and the seriousness of the allegations.",
+        "summary": "The government argues that the defendant should be detained without bail due to the seriousness of the allegations, the strength of the evidence, and the defendant's significant international ties and financial means, which pose a high risk of flight. The defendant has taken steps to hide and avoid detection, and there are no conditions that could reasonably assure her continued appearance in court."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1210770060864",
+      "document_number": "1210770060864",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Bail conditions for Ghislaine Maxwell",
+          "Pretrial release terms",
+          "Flight risk mitigation measures"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "defendant"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document outlines the proposed bail conditions for Ghislaine Maxwell, arguing that they are sufficient to mitigate her flight risk and ensure her presence in court.",
+        "summary": "The document proposes strict bail conditions for Ghislaine Maxwell, including home confinement, electronic GPS monitoring, and 24/7 security guards, to mitigate her flight risk and ensure her presence in court. The conditions also include travel restrictions, surrender of travel documents, and supervision by Pretrial Services. The proposal argues that these measures are sufficient to reasonably assure Maxwell's presence in court."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "121077006088",
+      "document_number": "121077006088",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Table of Exhibits",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Extradition",
+          "Financial Condition",
+          "Media Analysis"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it lists exhibits related to a legal case, possibly involving extradition proceedings and financial matters. The presence of opinions on extradition from specific countries (UK and France) and a timeline of discussions with SDNY (Southern District of New York) suggests a complex international legal issue.",
+        "summary": "This document is a table of exhibits listing various letters, financial reports, media analysis, and legal opinions related to a case. The exhibits include documents on extradition, financial condition, and interactions with legal authorities. The specific details of the case are not provided in this table."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "12107700638",
+      "document_number": "12107700638",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Memorandum in Support of a Renewed Motion for Release on Bail",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's bail conditions",
+          "Risk of flight and assurance of presence in court",
+          "Evidence supporting Maxwell's release on bail"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant requesting release on bail"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it provides new evidence and arguments in support of Ghislaine Maxwell's release on bail, addressing concerns raised by the court during the initial bail hearing.",
+        "summary": "Ghislaine Maxwell submits a renewed motion for release on bail, proposing restrictive conditions and providing new evidence to address the court's concerns, including her family ties, financial condition, and the weakness of the government's case against her."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "121079006380",
+      "document_number": "121079006380",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Bail Memorandum",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Bail conditions for Ghislaine Maxwell",
+          "Arguments for reconsideration of bail decision under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)",
+          "Proposed strict bail conditions for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant in a criminal case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "[REDACTED] (Ghislaine Maxwell's spouse)",
+            "role": "Maxwell's spouse, whose name is redacted"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it provides insight into Ghislaine Maxwell's legal arguments for bail and the conditions proposed by her legal team, which could impact the court's decision on her bail.",
+        "summary": "This court filing is a bail memorandum arguing for Ghislaine Maxwell's release under strict bail conditions. It presents various arguments, including her family ties, financial transparency, and the lack of evidence corroborating the government's allegations. The document aims to demonstrate that Maxwell should be granted bail under the proposed conditions."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1217701022849",
+      "document_number": "1217701022849",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "COVID-19 pandemic impact on court proceedings",
+          "pretrial detention and bail reform",
+          "defendant's health risks and vulnerability to COVID-19"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Mr. Robertson",
+            "role": "defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Johnson, C.J.",
+            "role": "Chief Judge"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document highlights the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic on the court proceedings, particularly in cases involving defendants with compromised health. It reveals the complexities of ensuring a fair trial while managing the risks associated with the pandemic.",
+        "summary": "The document discusses the delayed trial of Mr. Robertson due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting changes in his defense team. It highlights the challenges faced by his new attorneys in preparing for trial and the defendant's concerns about his pretrial detention and health risks. The court is set to reset the trial date for April 5, 2021."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "122",
+      "document_number": "122",
+      "page_count": 8,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Multiplicity of charges",
+          "Double Jeopardy Clause",
+          "Conspiracy charges under 18 U.S.C. § 371"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ms. Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant in the case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is a court filing by the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, arguing that two counts in the superseding indictment are multiplicitous and violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment.",
+        "summary": "The defendant, Ms. Maxwell, requests that the court dismiss either Count One or Count Three of the superseding indictment as they charge the same offense twice, violating the Double Jeopardy Clause. The counts charge conspiracy to commit a crime against the United States under 18 U.S.C. § 371 with different underlying crimes. The filing applies a multifactor test to determine whether the conspiracies are the same offense."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "12207-000",
+      "document_number": "12207-000",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "bail motion",
+          "jurisdiction",
+          "appeal"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "the defendant",
+            "role": "the individual making the bail motions"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it discusses the jurisdictional implications of a pending appeal on a district court's ability to consider a subsequent bail motion.",
+        "summary": "The defendant filed a third bail motion with additional conditions after a previous denial and pending appeal. The court determined it lacked jurisdiction to grant the new motion due to the pending appeal, citing the 'divestiture of jurisdiction rule'."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "12207-000330",
+      "document_number": "12207-000330",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "extradition",
+          "bail conditions",
+          "citizenship renunciation"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "the defendant",
+            "role": "the individual whose bail conditions and extradition are being discussed"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it reveals the government's argument that the defendant's offer to renounce her citizenship is a hollow gesture and does not guarantee extradition.",
+        "summary": "The government argues that the defendant's offer to renounce her French and British citizenship is a strategic move that does not guarantee extradition, as France's extradition laws are based on nationality at the time of the alleged crime, and the UK's extradition process is complex and uncertain."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "122070000830",
+      "document_number": "122070000830",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Bail Motion",
+          "Jurisdiction",
+          "Conditions of Release"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "The Defendant",
+            "role": "The individual making the bail motion"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it reveals the court's reasoning for denying the defendant's third bail motion and highlights the defendant's history of lack of candor regarding her finances.",
+        "summary": "The court denies the defendant's third bail motion, citing lack of jurisdiction due to a pending appeal and reiterating previous findings that the defendant poses a flight risk. The court also rejects the defendant's proposed monitorship condition as insufficient to ensure her appearance in court."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "123",
+      "document_number": "123",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Motion to Dismiss",
+          "Lack of Specificity",
+          "Superseding Indictment"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Laura A. Menninger",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Mark S. Cohen",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Christian R. Everdell",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Bobbi C. Sternheim",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is a formal motion by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team to dismiss certain counts of the superseding indictment due to lack of specificity, which could potentially impact the trial's outcome.",
+        "summary": "Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team filed a motion to dismiss Counts One through Four of the superseding indictment for lack of specificity. The motion was filed on January 25, 2021, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The defense team is represented by multiple attorneys from different law firms."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "124",
+      "document_number": "124",
+      "page_count": 8,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Lack of specificity in the Superseding Indictment",
+          "Failure to provide essential facts constituting the offense charged",
+          "Request to dismiss Counts One through Four or provide a Bill of Particulars"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca",
+            "role": "Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Laura A. Menninger",
+            "role": "Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Mark S. Cohen",
+            "role": "Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Christian R. Everdell",
+            "role": "Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Bobbi C. Sternheim",
+            "role": "Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it reveals the defense's argument that the Superseding Indictment lacks specificity, violating Ghislaine Maxwell's Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights, and requests dismissal of certain counts or additional discovery.",
+        "summary": "Ghislaine Maxwell's attorneys argue that the Superseding Indictment is too vague, failing to identify specific dates, accusers, or details of alleged crimes, and thus violates her constitutional rights. They request that Counts One through Four be dismissed or that the court direct the government to provide a Bill of Particulars."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "124-3",
+      "document_number": "124-3",
+      "page_count": 4,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Protective Order",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Confidentiality and Handling of Protected Material",
+          "Disclosure and Use of Confidential Information",
+          "Procedures for Challenging Designations"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE",
+            "role": "Judge presiding over the case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is a Protective Order issued by the court, governing the handling and disclosure of confidential information in a legal case, and outlining the procedures for challenging designations and filing documents under seal.",
+        "summary": "The document is a Protective Order issued by the United States District Judge in a court case (1:19-cv-09233-AJN), outlining the rules for handling confidential information, including its disclosure, use, and challenging designations. The order also specifies procedures for filing documents under seal and the court's ability to modify the order."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "124-6",
+      "document_number": "124-6",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Protective Order",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Confidentiality",
+          "Disclosure of Protected Material",
+          "Court Procedures"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "attorneys actively working on this case",
+            "role": "handling confidential information"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "parties involved in the case",
+            "role": "recipients of protected material"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Court Personnel",
+            "role": "employees of the court handling the case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document outlines the terms under which confidential information can be shared among parties involved in a court case, ensuring that sensitive information is protected.",
+        "summary": "This is a Protective Order issued in a court case (1:20-cr-00330-AJN), defining who can access confidential information and under what conditions. It lists categories of individuals who can be privy to protected material and requires them to acknowledge the order before disclosure. The order aims to safeguard sensitive information throughout the legal proceedings."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "125",
+      "document_number": "125",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Notice of Motion",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Motion to dismiss superseding indictment",
+          "Alleged violation of the Sixth Amendment",
+          "Request for oral argument"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Mark S. Cohen",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Christian Everdell",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Laura A. Menninger",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Bobbi C. Sternheim",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant as it represents a key pretrial motion by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team, arguing that the superseding indictment should be dismissed due to a Sixth Amendment violation.",
+        "summary": "Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team filed a notice of motion to dismiss the superseding indictment, alleging it was obtained in violation of the Sixth Amendment. The motion is part of the pretrial proceedings in the case against Maxwell. Oral argument has been requested."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "126",
+      "document_number": "126",
+      "page_count": 13,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Violation of Sixth Amendment right to a grand jury representing a fair cross-section of the community",
+          "Use of White Plains Division grand jury to indict Ghislaine Maxwell instead of Manhattan Division",
+          "Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on grand jury proceedings"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Associated individual mentioned in the indictment"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it challenges the indictment of Ghislaine Maxwell on constitutional grounds, arguing that the use of a White Plains Division grand jury violated her Sixth Amendment rights.",
+        "summary": "The memorandum argues that the government's use of a White Plains Division grand jury to indict Ghislaine Maxwell was unconstitutional because it did not represent a fair cross-section of the community where the alleged crimes took place. The document highlights that the Manhattan Division grand jury was available but not used, and that the White Plains Division jury pool underrepresented Black and Hispanic residents."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "126-3",
+      "document_number": "126-3",
+      "page_count": 10,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Proposed Protective Order",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Confidentiality and protection of sensitive information",
+          "Disclosure and discovery procedures in a civil case",
+          "Handling of confidential documents and materials"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Virginia L. Giuffre",
+            "role": "Plaintiff"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is a proposed protective order in a civil case involving sensitive information related to sexual abuse, and it outlines the procedures for handling confidential materials and information.",
+        "summary": "The proposed protective order governs the disclosure and use of confidential information in the case of Virginia L. Giuffre v. Ghislaine Maxwell, including documents, deposition testimony, and other materials. It establishes procedures for designating and handling confidential information, and outlines the persons to whom such information may be disclosed. The order aims to protect sensitive information related to the parties and non-parties involved in the case."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "127",
+      "document_number": "127",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Order",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Pre-trial motions",
+          "Redaction of sensitive information",
+          "Sealing of court documents"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislain Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant as it relates to the pre-trial proceedings in a high-profile criminal case against Ghislain Maxwell, and addresses the handling of sensitive or confidential information in the defendant's motions.",
+        "summary": "The court has received twelve pre-trial motions from the defendant, some of which have been filed under temporary seal due to sensitive information. The government is given two days to respond to the proposed redactions. The order is issued by Judge Alison J. Nathan."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "128",
+      "document_number": "128",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Proposed redactions to pre-trial motions",
+          "Protective Order and confidentiality",
+          "Privacy interests of victim-witnesses"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Audrey Strauss",
+            "role": "United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Maurene Comey",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison Moe",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Lara Pomerantz",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Andrew Rohrbach",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant as it reveals the government's position on the defendant's proposed redactions to pre-trial motions and highlights the balance between transparency and protecting sensitive information in a high-profile case.",
+        "summary": "The government responds to the court's order regarding the defendant's proposed redactions to pre-trial motions, agreeing with most redactions while suggesting additional ones to protect ongoing investigations and victim-witnesses' privacy. The letter is part of the United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell case."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "128202",
+      "document_number": "128202",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Order",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghulam J. Khan Maxwell's detention conditions",
+          "Safety and security protocols at MDC",
+          "Pre-trial detainee treatment"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghulam J. Khan Maxwell",
+            "role": "Pre-trial detainee"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant as it addresses the detention conditions of Ghulam J. Khan Maxwell, specifically the safety and security protocols at the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC), and the court's oversight of these protocols.",
+        "summary": "The court denies Maxwell's request to override the BOP's safety and security check procedures, but urges the MDC to consider reducing sleep disruption for pre-trial detainees and to ensure Maxwell is treated similarly to other pre-trial detainees."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "129",
+      "document_number": "129",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's access to discovery materials",
+          "Use of laptop for reviewing discovery on weekends and holidays",
+          "Management of inmates at the Metropolitan Detention Center"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Audrey Strauss",
+            "role": "United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, Lara Pomerantz",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorneys"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it reveals the government's position on Ghislaine Maxwell's access to discovery materials and the management of her detention at the MDC, highlighting the extensive efforts made to ensure her access to over two million pages of discovery.",
+        "summary": "The government responds to a court order regarding Ghislaine Maxwell's access to a laptop for reviewing discovery on weekends and holidays, deferring to the MDC's judgment while noting the defendant's extensive access to discovery materials. The government has provided a laptop and reformatted discovery materials to facilitate her review. Maxwell has been allowed 13 hours a day, 7 days a week access to review discovery."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "13",
+      "document_number": "13",
+      "page_count": 6,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court filings and notices",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Admission pro hac vice",
+          "Notice of appearance",
+          "Defective filing"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Martin G. Weinberg",
+            "role": "Attorney for Jeffrey Epstein"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Christian R. Everdell",
+            "role": "Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "These documents reveal the involvement of various attorneys in high-profile cases involving Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, and highlight procedural aspects of court filings and notices.",
+        "summary": "The documents include a motion for admission pro hac vice for Martin G. Weinberg to represent Jeffrey Epstein, a notice of appearance for Christian R. Everdell on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell, and a notice of defective filing regarding a submission in the Ghislaine Maxwell case."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "13-1",
+      "document_number": "13-1",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Certificate of Good Standing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Admission to practice law",
+          "Good standing verification",
+          "Attorney credentials"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Martin G. Weinberg",
+            "role": "Attorney being verified for good standing"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Maura S. Doyle",
+            "role": "Clerk of the Supreme Judicial Court"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document verifies Martin G. Weinberg's admission to practice law in Massachusetts in 1972 and confirms his good standing as of 2019, which may be relevant for his practice or involvement in a legal case.",
+        "summary": "The document is a certificate issued by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, confirming Martin G. Weinberg's admission to the bar in 1972 and his good standing as of 2019. It is signed by Maura S. Doyle, Clerk of the Court. The certificate also notes that it does not cover records of private discipline."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "13-1388-cr",
+      "document_number": "13-1388-cr",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Appendix",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Tax case appeal",
+          "United States vs. David Parse",
+          "Legal proceedings"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "David Parse",
+            "role": "Defendant-Appellant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "United States of America",
+            "role": "Appellee"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is part of an appeal case in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, indicating ongoing legal proceedings against David Parse.",
+        "summary": "This is Volume XVI of XVII of an appendix filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, related to the case United States of America vs. David Parse. The document includes details about the case and the attorneys involved. It is part of a larger legal proceeding."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "13-2",
+      "document_number": "13-2",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Order",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Admission Pro Hac Vice",
+          "Jeffrey Epstein Case",
+          "Attorney Admission"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Martin G. Weinberg",
+            "role": "Attorney seeking admission Pro Hac Vice for Jeffrey Epstein"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Defendant in the criminal case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Richard M. Berman",
+            "role": "United States District Court Judge"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant as it grants admission Pro Hac Vice to Martin G. Weinberg to represent Jeffrey Epstein in a criminal case in the Southern District of New York.",
+        "summary": "The document is a court order granting Martin G. Weinberg's motion for admission Pro Hac Vice to appear as co-counsel for Jeffrey Epstein in a criminal case. Weinberg is a member in good standing of the Massachusetts bar. The order is signed by Judge Richard M. Berman."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "13-3",
+      "document_number": "13-3",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Affidavit",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice",
+          "Professional Conduct of Martin G. Weinberg",
+          "Jeffrey Epstein Case"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Martin G. Weinberg",
+            "role": "Attorney seeking admission pro hac vice"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Defendant in the case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This affidavit is significant as it provides a sworn statement by Martin G. Weinberg regarding his professional conduct, which is required for his admission to practice law pro hac vice in the case against Jeffrey Epstein.",
+        "summary": "The document is an affidavit signed by Martin G. Weinberg, affirming that he has never been convicted of a felony, censured, suspended, disbarred, or denied admission by any court, and that there are no pending disciplinary proceedings against him, in support of his motion for admission pro hac vice in the case United States v. Jeffrey Epstein."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "130",
+      "document_number": "130",
+      "page_count": 3,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Letter to Judge",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's access to a laptop computer for reviewing discovery materials while in detention",
+          "The Metropolitan Detention Center's (MDC) objection to the court's order allowing laptop use on weekends and holidays",
+          "The challenges faced by Ms. Maxwell in reviewing electronic discovery materials"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Bobbi C. Sternheim",
+            "role": "Defense attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge presiding over the case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Sophia Papapetru",
+            "role": "MDC counsel"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it highlights the challenges faced by pretrial detainees in accessing electronic discovery materials and the potential impact on their ability to prepare for trial. It also reveals the restrictive conditions faced by Ms. Maxwell while in detention.",
+        "summary": "The letter, written by Bobbi C. Sternheim, argues that the MDC's objection to the court's order allowing Ghislaine Maxwell to use a laptop computer on weekends and holidays is unfounded. It asserts that Ms. Maxwell needs access to the laptop to review the millions of pages of discovery materials produced by the government, and that the MDC's proposed solution of using the prison computer is inadequate due to its technical limitations."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "132",
+      "document_number": "132",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Order",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Pre-trial motions",
+          "Redactions",
+          "Confidentiality and privacy interests"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it reveals the court's decision regarding the redactions of sensitive information in the defendant's pre-trial motions, balancing the presumption of public access against privacy and law enforcement interests.",
+        "summary": "The court order addresses Ghislaine Maxwell's pre-trial motions, adopting her proposed redactions and some additional ones suggested by the government to protect sensitive information and third-party privacy. The court applies the Lugosch test to justify the redactions, and orders the defendant to file the redacted documents by February 5, 2021."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "133",
+      "document_number": "133",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Motion to Suppress Evidence",
+          "Dismissal of Counts Five and Six",
+          "Due Process Clause"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Laura A. Menninger",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Mark S. Cohen",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Christian R. Everdell",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Bobbi C. Sternheim",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is a significant court filing in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, as it presents a motion to suppress evidence and dismiss certain counts, potentially impacting the trial's outcome.",
+        "summary": "Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team files a motion to suppress evidence obtained from a government subpoena and to dismiss Counts Five and Six of the indictment, citing the Due Process Clause. The motion is supported by a memorandum of law and exhibits. The defense attorneys representing Maxwell are listed, along with their contact information."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "134",
+      "document_number": "134",
+      "page_count": 23,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Memorandum in Support of Motion",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's motion to suppress evidence obtained from a government subpoena",
+          "Alleged government misconduct in circumventing a protective order in a civil case",
+          "Request to dismiss Counts Five and Six of the indictment"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant in the criminal case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca",
+            "role": "Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Laura A. Menninger",
+            "role": "Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Mark S. Cohen",
+            "role": "Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it alleges government misconduct in obtaining evidence and requests the suppression of that evidence and dismissal of certain counts, which could significantly impact the criminal trial of Ghislaine Maxwell.",
+        "summary": "Ghislaine Maxwell's attorneys argue that the government circumvented a protective order in a civil case, Giuffre v. Maxwell, to obtain evidence used in her criminal prosecution. They request that the court suppress this evidence and dismiss Counts Five and Six of the indictment due to the government's alleged misconduct."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "134-1",
+      "document_number": "134-1",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing Exhibit",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Criminal Case",
+          "Evidence",
+          "DOJ Investigation"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Unknown",
+            "role": "Defendant or subject of the investigation"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it is an exhibit in a federal criminal case, possibly containing evidence or supporting documentation relevant to the investigation or prosecution.",
+        "summary": "This document is labeled as Exhibit A in a federal criminal case (1:20-cr-00330-AJN) and appears to be a supporting document filed by the Department of Justice (DOJ), with a specific identifier (DOJ-OGR-00002371)."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "134-2",
+      "document_number": "134-2",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing Exhibit",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Criminal Case",
+          "DOJ Investigation",
+          "Evidence"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Unknown",
+            "role": "Defendant or subject of the investigation"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it is an exhibit in a federal criminal case, possibly containing evidence or supporting documentation relevant to the investigation or prosecution.",
+        "summary": "This document is an exhibit filed in a federal criminal case (1:20-cr-00330-AJN), labeled as 'EXHIBIT B DOJ-OGR-00002378', and appears to be part of a larger filing or evidence submission."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "134-3",
+      "document_number": "134-3",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing Exhibit",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Criminal Case",
+          "Sealed Document",
+          "DOJ Investigation"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it is a sealed exhibit in a criminal case, suggesting it contains sensitive information relevant to the investigation or proceedings.",
+        "summary": "This document is labeled as 'EXHIBIT C' and was filed under seal in a criminal case (1:20-cr-00330-AJN) involving the Department of Justice (DOJ). The document has a reference number 'DOJ-OGR-00002401'. It is part of the court filings in this case."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "134-4",
+      "document_number": "134-4",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing Exhibit",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Criminal Case",
+          "Sealed Document",
+          "DOJ Investigation"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it is a sealed exhibit in a criminal case, suggesting it may contain sensitive information relevant to the trial or investigation.",
+        "summary": "This document is labeled as 'EXHIBIT D' and was filed under seal in a criminal case (1:20-cr-00330-AJN) with the identifier 'DOJ-OGR-00002402'."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "134-5",
+      "document_number": "134-5",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing Exhibit",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Criminal Case",
+          "Sealed Document",
+          "DOJ Investigation"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it is a sealed exhibit in a criminal case, suggesting it contains sensitive information relevant to the investigation or proceedings.",
+        "summary": "This document is labeled as Exhibit E and was filed under seal in a criminal case (1:20-cr-00330-AJN) involving the Department of Justice (DOJ). The document has a reference number DOJ-OGR-00002403. It is part of a larger court filing."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "134-6",
+      "document_number": "134-6",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing Exhibit",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Criminal Case",
+          "Sealed Document",
+          "DOJ Investigation"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it is a sealed exhibit in a criminal case, suggesting it may contain sensitive information relevant to the trial or investigation.",
+        "summary": "This document is labeled as 'EXHIBIT F' and was filed under seal in a criminal case (1:20-cr-00330-AJN). It has a reference number 'DOJ-OGR-00002404', indicating its origin from a Department of Justice investigation or file."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "134-7",
+      "document_number": "134-7",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Exhibit",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Criminal Case",
+          "Sealed Document",
+          "DOJ Investigation"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it is a sealed exhibit in a criminal case, suggesting it contains sensitive information relevant to the investigation or proceedings.",
+        "summary": "This document is marked as Exhibit G and filed under seal in a criminal case (1:20-cr-00330-AJN). It bears a DOJ reference number (DOJ-OGR-00002405) and is part of the court record."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "134-8",
+      "document_number": "134-8",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Exhibit",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Criminal Case",
+          "Sealed Document",
+          "DOJ Investigation"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it is a sealed exhibit in a criminal case, suggesting it contains sensitive information relevant to the investigation or trial.",
+        "summary": "This document is labeled as Exhibit H and was filed under seal in a criminal case (1:20-cr-00330-AJN). It bears a DOJ reference number (DOJ-OGR-00002406) and is part of the court record."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "134-9",
+      "document_number": "134-9",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing Exhibit",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Criminal Case",
+          "Sealed Document",
+          "DOJ Investigation"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it is a sealed exhibit in a criminal case, suggesting it may contain sensitive information relevant to the trial or investigation.",
+        "summary": "This document is an exhibit filed under seal in a criminal case (1:20-cr-00330-AJN) and is labeled as 'DOJ-OGR-00002407', indicating it is part of a larger collection of documents related to a Department of Justice investigation."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1342",
+      "document_number": "1342",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Certificate of Service",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Electronic filing",
+          "Service of process",
+          "Court filing"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Sigrid S. McCawley",
+            "role": "Filer/Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Laura A. Menninger",
+            "role": "Recipient/Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document confirms that a court filing was properly served on the relevant parties via electronic filing.",
+        "summary": "This Certificate of Service confirms that a document was electronically filed with the court on March 4, 2016, and served on Laura A. Menninger via the CM/ECF system. Sigrid S. McCawley certified the filing and service. The document is related to case 1:29-cv-00383-RWS."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "135",
+      "document_number": "135",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Motion to Dismiss Counts Five and Six of the Superseding Indictment",
+          "Perjury Allegations",
+          "Legal Arguments"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Laura A. Menninger",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Mark S. Cohen",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Christian R. Everdell",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Bobbi C. Sternheim",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is a significant court filing in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, as it presents a motion to dismiss specific counts of the indictment based on legal arguments regarding perjury allegations.",
+        "summary": "The document is a Notice of Motion filed by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team, requesting the court to dismiss Counts Five and Six of the Superseding Indictment. The motion argues that the alleged misstatements are not perjurious as a matter of law. The filing includes the signatures of multiple defense attorneys representing Maxwell."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "136",
+      "document_number": "136",
+      "page_count": 26,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Memorandum of Law",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Motion to dismiss Counts Five and Six of the superseding indictment",
+          "Perjury charges against Ghislaine Maxwell",
+          "Materiality of alleged misstatements in a civil deposition"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Associated individual mentioned throughout the document"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Virginia Giuffre",
+            "role": "Plaintiff in the underlying civil defamation action"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it presents a legal argument for dismissing two counts of perjury against Ghislaine Maxwell, arguing that her statements were not perjurious as a matter of law.",
+        "summary": "The memorandum of law supports Ghislaine Maxwell's motion to dismiss Counts Five and Six of the superseding indictment, arguing that her alleged misstatements in a civil deposition were not perjurious and lacked materiality. The document provides a detailed analysis of the legal authority and factual background related to the case. It contends that the questions asked in the deposition were poorly worded and Maxwell's responses were literally truthful."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "136-1",
+      "document_number": "136-1",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing Exhibit",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Sealed Document",
+          "Criminal Case",
+          "DOJ Investigation"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it is a sealed exhibit in a criminal case, suggesting it contains sensitive information relevant to the investigation or proceedings.",
+        "summary": "This document is labeled as 'EXHIBIT A' and 'FILED UNDER SEAL' in a criminal case (1:20-cr-00330-AJN), indicating it contains confidential or sensitive information. The document has a DOJ reference number (DOJ-OGR-00002437). The content of the document is not visible in the provided snippet."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "136-10",
+      "document_number": "136-10",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing Exhibit",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Criminal Case",
+          "Sealed Document",
+          "DOJ Investigation"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it is a sealed exhibit in a criminal case, suggesting it contains sensitive information relevant to the investigation or proceedings.",
+        "summary": "This document is marked as 'EXHIBIT J' and filed under seal in a criminal case (1:20-cr-00330-AJN), indicating it contains confidential or sensitive information. The document is labeled 'DOJ-OGR-00002500', suggesting it is part of a larger collection of documents from a Department of Justice investigation. The content of the document is not visible in the provided information."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "136-11",
+      "document_number": "136-11",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing Exhibit",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Criminal Case",
+          "Sealed Document",
+          "DOJ Investigation"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it is a sealed exhibit in a criminal case, suggesting it may contain sensitive information relevant to the trial.",
+        "summary": "This document is labeled as 'EXHIBIT K' and was filed under seal in a criminal case (1:20-cr-00330-AJN). It has a specific identifier 'DOJ-OGR-00002501', indicating it may be part of a larger investigation or evidence collection."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "136-2",
+      "document_number": "136-2",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing Exhibit",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Criminal Case",
+          "Sealed Document",
+          "DOJ Investigation"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it is a sealed exhibit in a criminal case, suggesting it may contain sensitive information relevant to the investigation or proceedings.",
+        "summary": "This document is labeled as 'EXHIBIT B' and was filed under seal in a criminal case (1:20-cr-00330-AJN). It bears a DOJ reference number (DOJ-OGR-00002438), indicating its potential relevance to a Department of Justice investigation."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "136-3",
+      "document_number": "136-3",
+      "page_count": 3,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Proposed Protective Order court filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Confidentiality and protection of sensitive information",
+          "Discovery and disclosure in a civil case",
+          "Privacy interests of parties and non-parties involved"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Virginia L. Giuffre",
+            "role": "Plaintiff in the civil case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant in the civil case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it outlines the terms under which confidential information will be handled in a civil case involving sensitive topics such as sexual abuse, and may have implications for related law enforcement investigations.",
+        "summary": "This is a proposed protective order in the civil case Virginia L. Giuffre v. Ghislaine Maxwell, outlining the procedures for handling confidential information and limiting its disclosure to certain individuals involved in the case."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "136-4",
+      "document_number": "136-4",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing Exhibit",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Criminal Case",
+          "Sealed Document",
+          "DOJ Investigation"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it is a sealed exhibit in a criminal case, suggesting it may contain sensitive information relevant to the trial or investigation.",
+        "summary": "This document is labeled as 'EXHIBIT D' and was filed under seal in a criminal case (1:20-cr-00330-AJN) with the identifier 'DOJ-OGR-00002440'."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "136-5",
+      "document_number": "136-5",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing Exhibit",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Criminal Case",
+          "Sealed Document",
+          "DOJ Investigation"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it is a sealed exhibit in a criminal case, suggesting it contains sensitive information relevant to the investigation or proceedings.",
+        "summary": "This document is an exhibit filed under seal in a criminal case (1:20-cr-00330-AJN) and is labeled as 'DOJ-OGR-00002441', indicating it is part of a larger collection of documents related to a Department of Justice investigation."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "136-6",
+      "document_number": "136-6",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing Exhibit",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Criminal Case",
+          "Sealed Document",
+          "DOJ Investigation"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it is a sealed exhibit in a criminal case, suggesting it contains sensitive information relevant to the investigation or proceedings.",
+        "summary": "This document is an exhibit filed under seal in a criminal case (1:20-cr-00330-AJN) and is labeled as 'DOJ-OGR-00002442', indicating it is part of a larger collection of documents related to a Department of Justice investigation."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "136-7",
+      "document_number": "136-7",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing Exhibit",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Criminal Case Proceedings",
+          "Evidence Submission",
+          "DOJ Investigation"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "None explicitly mentioned",
+            "role": "N/A"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it is an exhibit in a federal criminal case, possibly containing evidence or supporting documentation relevant to the case.",
+        "summary": "This document is labeled as Exhibit G in a federal criminal case (1:20-cr-00330-AJN) and appears to be a submission by the Department of Justice (DOJ), with a specific reference number (DOJ-OGR-00002443)."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "136-8",
+      "document_number": "136-8",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing Exhibit",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Criminal Case",
+          "Sealed Document",
+          "DOJ Investigation"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it is a sealed exhibit in a criminal case, suggesting it may contain sensitive information relevant to the trial or investigation.",
+        "summary": "This document is labeled as 'EXHIBIT H' and was filed under seal in a criminal case (1:20-cr-00330-AJN) with a reference number 'DOJ-OGR-00002466'."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "136-9",
+      "document_number": "136-9",
+      "page_count": 33,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Unsealing of court documents related to Ghislaine Maxwell",
+          "Presumption of public access to judicial documents",
+          "Countervailing interests in unsealing documents, including privacy and fair trial concerns"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Loretta A. Preska",
+            "role": "District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Sigrid McCawley",
+            "role": "Attorney for Virginia Giuffre"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Laura Menninger",
+            "role": "Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant in civil case and subject of criminal prosecution"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Virginia Giuffre",
+            "role": "Plaintiff in civil case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This transcript reveals the court's reasoning and rulings on the unsealing of documents related to Ghislaine Maxwell, which may have implications for her criminal trial and the public's understanding of the case.",
+        "summary": "The transcript is of a court hearing where Judge Loretta A. Preska discusses the unsealing of documents related to Ghislaine Maxwell. The court considers the presumption of public access to judicial documents and countervailing interests, ultimately rejecting Maxwell's arguments that unsealing certain documents would jeopardize her right to a fair trial."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1367",
+      "document_number": "1367",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Certificate of Service",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Electronic filing",
+          "Service of document",
+          "CM/ECF system"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Sigrid S. McCawley",
+            "role": "Filer/Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Laura A. Menninger",
+            "role": "Recipient/Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document confirms that a court filing was properly served on the relevant parties via the CM/ECF system.",
+        "summary": "This Certificate of Service verifies that a document was electronically filed with the court on March 4, 2016, and served on Laura A. Menninger via the CM/ECF system. Sigrid S. McCawley signed the certificate. The document is related to case 1:29-cr-00383-PW."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "137",
+      "document_number": "137",
+      "page_count": 4,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Motion to Dismiss Counts One through Six of the Superseding Indictment for pre-indictment delay",
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's access to discovery materials while in confinement",
+          "Request to vacate the Court's Order regarding Maxwell's access to discovery"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca",
+            "role": "Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Sophia Papapetru",
+            "role": "Staff Attorney, MDC Brooklyn"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant as it reveals the ongoing legal proceedings against Ghislaine Maxwell, including her motion to dismiss certain counts of the indictment and issues related to her access to discovery materials while in confinement.",
+        "summary": "The document is a court filing in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. It includes a notice of motion to dismiss counts one through six of the superseding indictment for pre-indictment delay, as well as correspondence regarding Maxwell's access to discovery materials while in confinement at the Metropolitan Detention Center."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "138",
+      "document_number": "138",
+      "page_count": 26,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Pre-indictment delay",
+          "Prejudice to the defendant Ghislaine Maxwell",
+          "Tactical delay by the government"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Deceased individual whose testimony is relevant to the case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Laura A. Menninger",
+            "role": "Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it presents Ghislaine Maxwell's argument for dismissing counts one through six of the superseding indictment due to pre-indictment delay, which she claims has caused her prejudice.",
+        "summary": "The memorandum of law argues that the pre-indictment delay has prejudiced Ghislaine Maxwell's ability to defend herself, citing lost witnesses, corrupted memories, and tactical delay by the government. The document presents a detailed analysis of the applicable law and the specific circumstances of the case. It contends that the government's delay was reckless and in bad faith, further supporting Maxwell's motion to dismiss the indictment."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "138-1",
+      "document_number": "138-1",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing Exhibit",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Criminal Case",
+          "Sealed Document",
+          "DOJ Investigation"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it is a sealed exhibit in a criminal case, suggesting it contains sensitive information relevant to the investigation or proceedings.",
+        "summary": "This document is labeled as 'EXHIBIT A' and was filed under seal in a criminal case (1:20-cr-00330-AJN) with a reference number 'DOJ-OGR-00002530'."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "138-2",
+      "document_number": "138-2",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing Exhibit",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Criminal Case",
+          "Sealed Document",
+          "DOJ Investigation"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it is a sealed exhibit in a criminal case, suggesting it contains sensitive information relevant to the investigation or proceedings.",
+        "summary": "This document is labeled as 'EXHIBIT B' and was filed under seal in a criminal case (1:20-cr-00330-AJN). It bears a DOJ reference number (DOJ-OGR-00002531), indicating its relevance to a Department of Justice investigation or filing."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "138-3",
+      "document_number": "138-3",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing Exhibit",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Criminal Case",
+          "Sealed Document",
+          "DOJ Investigation"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it is a sealed exhibit in a criminal case, suggesting it may contain sensitive information relevant to the trial or investigation.",
+        "summary": "This document is labeled as Exhibit C and was filed under seal in a criminal case (1:20-cr-00330-AJN) with the identifier DOJ-OGR-00002532."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "138-4",
+      "document_number": "138-4",
+      "page_count": 14,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Executive Summary of Report by Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's criminal conduct and the U.S. Attorney's Office handling of the case",
+          "Negotiation and execution of a federal non-prosecution agreement (NPA) with Epstein",
+          "Allegations of professional misconduct by USAO prosecutors regarding victim consultation and notification"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Subject of the federal investigation"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "R. Alexander Acosta",
+            "role": "U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida at the time of the investigation"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jane Doe",
+            "role": "Victim who filed an emergency petition alleging CVRA violations"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it provides insight into the Department of Justice's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case and the controversy surrounding the non-prosecution agreement. It may be relevant to ongoing or future litigation related to Epstein's crimes and the government's actions.",
+        "summary": "The document is an executive summary of a report by the Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility investigating the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. It details the investigation, negotiation of a non-prosecution agreement, and allegations of misconduct by prosecutors. The report highlights the controversy surrounding the agreement and the government's interactions with Epstein's victims."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "139",
+      "document_number": "139",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Notice of Motion",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Motion to suppress evidence obtained from a government subpoena",
+          "Request to dismiss Counts Five and Six of the indictment",
+          "Alleged violations of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Laura A. Menninger",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Mark S. Cohen",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Christian R. Everdell",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Bobbi C. Sternheim",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it reveals the defense's strategy to challenge the government's evidence and certain counts of the indictment, citing constitutional grounds.",
+        "summary": "Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team files a motion to suppress evidence obtained from a government subpoena and to dismiss Counts Five and Six of the indictment, citing Fourth and Fifth Amendment violations. The motion is filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The defense requests oral argument."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "13cr383",
+      "document_number": "13cr383",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Indictment",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Sex Trafficking of a Minor",
+          "Recruitment and Enticement of a Minor for Commercial Sex Acts",
+          "Violation of Interstate and Foreign Commerce Laws"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Claudius English",
+            "role": "Defendant accused of sex trafficking a minor"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Minor Victim-1",
+            "role": "The alleged victim, a 17-year-old girl trafficked by the defendant"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it outlines serious charges against Claudius English for sex trafficking a minor, detailing the actions taken by the defendant and the laws violated.",
+        "summary": "The document charges Claudius English with sex trafficking a minor between March and April 2013. English allegedly recruited a 17-year-old girl, took explicit photographs, and facilitated her engagement in commercial sex acts. The charges are based on violations of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1591(a)(1) and (b)(2), and 2."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "14",
+      "document_number": "14",
+      "page_count": 19,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court documents and transcripts",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Bail hearing for Jeffrey Epstein",
+          "Notice of appearance for Ghislaine Maxwell's counsel",
+          "SORA (Sex Offender Registration Act) hearing transcript for Jeffrey Epstein"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Defendant in a criminal case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant in a related criminal case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Richard M. Berman",
+            "role": "U.S. District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Laura A. Menninger",
+            "role": "Counsel for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "David Oscar Markus",
+            "role": "Additional counsel for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ruth Pickholz",
+            "role": "Justice of the Supreme Court at Jeffrey Epstein's SORA hearing"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jennifer Gaffney",
+            "role": "Assistant District Attorney at Jeffrey Epstein's SORA hearing"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jay Lefkowitz",
+            "role": "Counsel for Jeffrey Epstein at his SORA hearing"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "These documents provide insight into the legal proceedings against Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, including a SORA hearing transcript that discusses the nuances of sex offender registration and the prosecution's unusual decision to challenge the Sex Offender Registration Board's recommendation.",
+        "summary": "The provided document contains a collection of court documents and transcripts related to the cases of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. It includes a SORA hearing transcript where the prosecution challenges the Sex Offender Registration Board's recommendation for Jeffrey Epstein, citing concerns about the reliability of certain evidence. The documents also include notices of appearance for Ghislaine Maxwell's counsel."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "140",
+      "document_number": "140",
+      "page_count": 21,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Memorandum in Support of Motion to Suppress Evidence",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Fourth Amendment violation due to overbroad subpoena",
+          "Martindell violation for lack of notice and opportunity to be heard",
+          "Fifth Amendment violation for self-incrimination"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca",
+            "role": "Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Laura A. Menninger",
+            "role": "Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Mark S. Cohen",
+            "role": "Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it presents legal arguments for suppressing evidence obtained through a grand jury subpoena, which could significantly impact the case against Ghislaine Maxwell.",
+        "summary": "Ghislaine Maxwell's attorneys argue that the government's subpoena to a third party was unconstitutional and violated her rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, as well as the Martindell principle. They seek to suppress evidence obtained from this subpoena and dismiss certain counts."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "141",
+      "document_number": "141",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Notice of Motion",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Motion to dismiss superseding indictment",
+          "Breach of non-prosecution agreement",
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's defense"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Mark S. Cohen",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Christian Everdell",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Laura A. Menninger",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Bobbi C. Sternheim",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant as it reveals Ghislaine Maxwell's defense strategy, specifically her claim that the superseding indictment breaches a non-prosecution agreement.",
+        "summary": "Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team files a notice of motion to dismiss the superseding indictment, arguing it breaches a non-prosecution agreement. The motion is supported by a memorandum of law and exhibits. The defense team is led by attorneys Mark S. Cohen, Christian Everdell, Jeffrey S. Pagliuca, Laura A. Menninger, and Bobbi C. Sternheim."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "142",
+      "document_number": "142",
+      "page_count": 42,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) between Ghislaine Maxwell and the DOJ",
+          "Breach of NPA and its implications on the superseding indictment",
+          "Interpretation of the NPA's co-conspirator immunity provision"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Co-conspirator mentioned in the NPA and indictment"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it presents Ghislaine Maxwell's argument that the superseding indictment should be dismissed due to the government's breach of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA).",
+        "summary": "The memorandum argues that the NPA between Ghislaine Maxwell and the DOJ prohibits the prosecution of potential co-conspirators, including Maxwell, and that the superseding indictment breaches this agreement. It also requests discovery and an evidentiary hearing if the court does not dismiss the indictment."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "142-1",
+      "document_number": "142-1",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing Exhibit",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Criminal Case Proceedings",
+          "Evidence Submission",
+          "DOJ Investigation"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Unknown",
+            "role": "Defendant(s) or Subject(s) of the DOJ Investigation"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it is an exhibit in a federal criminal case, possibly containing evidence or supporting documentation relevant to the prosecution or defense.",
+        "summary": "This document is labeled as Exhibit A in a federal criminal case (1:20-cr-00330-AJN) and appears to be a submission by the Department of Justice (DOJ), with the specific content or nature of the exhibit not immediately clear from the title alone."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "142-2",
+      "document_number": "142-2",
+      "page_count": 14,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Executive Summary of Report by Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's criminal conduct and the U.S. Attorney's Office handling of the case",
+          "Negotiation and execution of a federal non-prosecution agreement (NPA) with Epstein",
+          "Allegations of professional misconduct by USAO prosecutors regarding victim consultation and notification"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Subject of the federal investigation"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "R. Alexander Acosta",
+            "role": "U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida at the time of the investigation"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jane Doe",
+            "role": "Victim who filed an emergency petition alleging CVRA violations"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it provides insight into the Department of Justice's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case and the negotiation of the non-prosecution agreement, which has been a subject of controversy. It may establish whether the prosecutors committed professional misconduct.",
+        "summary": "The document is an executive summary of a report by the Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility investigating the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. It details the investigation, the negotiation of a non-prosecution agreement, and allegations of misconduct regarding victim consultation. The report covers the events surrounding Epstein's plea and sentencing in state court."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "142-3",
+      "document_number": "142-3",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Exhibit",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Criminal Case",
+          "Sealed Filing",
+          "DOJ Investigation"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Unknown",
+            "role": "Defendant(s) or subject(s) of the DOJ investigation"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This sealed exhibit is part of a criminal case and may contain sensitive information relevant to the investigation or prosecution.",
+        "summary": "This document is an exhibit filed under seal in a criminal case (1:20-cr-00330-AJN) and is labeled as 'DOJ-OGR-00002641'. The content is not directly available due to the sealed nature of the filing."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "142-4",
+      "document_number": "142-4",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Exhibit",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Criminal Case",
+          "Sealed Filing",
+          "DOJ Investigation"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Unknown",
+            "role": "Defendant(s) or subject(s) of the DOJ investigation"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This sealed exhibit is part of a criminal case and may contain sensitive information relevant to the investigation or prosecution.",
+        "summary": "This document is an exhibit filed under seal in a criminal case (1:20-cr-00330-AJN) and is labeled as 'DOJ-OGR-00002642'. The content is not visible, but it is part of the court record. The case is being handled by the U.S. Department of Justice."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "142-5",
+      "document_number": "142-5",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Exhibit",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Criminal Case",
+          "Sealed Filing",
+          "DOJ Investigation"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Unknown",
+            "role": "Defendant(s) or subject(s) of the DOJ investigation"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it is a sealed exhibit in a criminal case, suggesting it contains sensitive information relevant to the investigation or proceedings.",
+        "summary": "This is a court filing labeled as Exhibit E, filed under seal in a criminal case (1:20-cr-00330-AJN), indicating it contains confidential or sensitive information related to the DOJ's investigation."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "142-6",
+      "document_number": "142-6",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Exhibit",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Criminal Case",
+          "Sealed Filing",
+          "DOJ Investigation"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Unknown",
+            "role": "Defendant(s) or subject(s) of the DOJ investigation"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it is a sealed exhibit in a federal criminal case, possibly containing sensitive information related to the investigation or evidence.",
+        "summary": "This is a court filing labeled as Exhibit F, filed under seal in a federal criminal case (1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The document is identified as DOJ-OGR-00002644 and was filed on February 4, 2021."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "142-7",
+      "document_number": "142-7",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Exhibit",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Criminal Case",
+          "Sealed Filing",
+          "DOJ Investigation"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Unknown",
+            "role": "The defendant or subject of the investigation"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it is a sealed exhibit in a federal criminal case, possibly containing sensitive information related to the investigation or evidence.",
+        "summary": "This is a court filing labeled as Exhibit G, filed under seal in a federal criminal case (1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The document is identified as DOJ-OGR-00002645 and was filed on February 4, 2021."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "142-8",
+      "document_number": "142-8",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Exhibit",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Criminal Case",
+          "Sealed Filing",
+          "DOJ Investigation"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Unknown",
+            "role": "Defendant(s) or subject(s) of the DOJ investigation"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This sealed exhibit is part of a criminal case and may contain sensitive information relevant to the investigation or prosecution.",
+        "summary": "This document is an exhibit filed under seal in a criminal case (1:20-cr-00330-AJN) and is labeled as 'Exhibit H' with a specific DOJ document number (DOJ-OGR-00002646)."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "143",
+      "document_number": "143",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Notice of Motion",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Motion to dismiss counts one through four of the superseding indictment",
+          "Statute of limitations issue",
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's defense strategy"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Mark S. Cohen",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Christian Everdell",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Laura A. Menninger",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Bobbi C. Sternheim",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it reveals Ghislaine Maxwell's defense strategy, specifically her argument that counts one through four of the superseding indictment are time-barred.",
+        "summary": "Ghislaine Maxwell, through her attorneys, has filed a motion to dismiss counts one through four of the superseding indictment, arguing that they are time-barred. The motion requests oral argument and is supported by a memorandum of law. The filing is part of the ongoing criminal case against Maxwell in the Southern District of New York."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "144",
+      "document_number": "144",
+      "page_count": 25,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Statute of Limitations",
+          "Retroactivity of the 2003 Amendment to 18 U.S.C. § 3283",
+          "Application of 18 U.S.C. § 3283 to the charges against Ghislaine Maxwell"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Mark S. Cohen",
+            "role": "Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Christian R. Everdell",
+            "role": "Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca",
+            "role": "Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Laura A. Menninger",
+            "role": "Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Bobbi C. Sternheim",
+            "role": "Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it presents Ghislaine Maxwell's legal argument for dismissing counts one through four of the superseding indictment based on statute of limitations grounds, potentially impacting the outcome of the criminal case against her.",
+        "summary": "The memorandum argues that counts one through four of the superseding indictment should be dismissed as time-barred, asserting that the 2003 amendment to 18 U.S.C. § 3283 does not apply retroactively and that the statute does not cover the offenses charged in those counts."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "144-3",
+      "document_number": "144-3",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Protective Order",
+          "Confidential Information",
+          "Disclosure Guidelines"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "attorneys actively working on this case",
+            "role": "handling confidential information"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "parties involved in the case",
+            "role": "subject to the protective order"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "expert witnesses and consultants",
+            "role": "retained in connection with the proceeding"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document outlines the guidelines for handling confidential information in a court case, establishing who can access protected material and under what conditions.",
+        "summary": "This court filing details a protective order governing the disclosure of confidential information in a specific case, listing the individuals and groups authorized to access such information and the procedures for doing so."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "144-8",
+      "document_number": "144-8",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Proposed Protective Order",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Confidentiality of discovery materials",
+          "Protection of sensitive personal information",
+          "Guidelines for disclosure and use of confidential information"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Virginia L. Giuffre",
+            "role": "Plaintiff"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it outlines the terms under which confidential information will be protected during the discovery process in a high-profile case involving allegations of sexual abuse.",
+        "summary": "The proposed protective order aims to safeguard sensitive personal information related to the plaintiff, defendant, and non-parties subject to sexual abuse, by limiting the disclosure and use of confidential information in the case."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "145",
+      "document_number": "145",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Notice of Motion",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Motion to strike surplusage from superseding indictment",
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's pretrial motion",
+          "Criminal proceedings against Ghislaine Maxwell"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Mark S. Cohen",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Christian Everdell",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Laura A. Menninger",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Bobbi C. Sternheim",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is a formal motion by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team to strike surplusage from the superseding indictment, potentially impacting the trial's proceedings and highlighting the defense's strategy.",
+        "summary": "Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team filed a notice of motion to strike surplusage from the superseding indictment in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The motion was filed on January 25, 2021, and is part of the pretrial motions in the case. The defense team is represented by multiple attorneys from different law firms."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "146",
+      "document_number": "146",
+      "page_count": 15,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Memorandum in Support of Motion to Strike Surplusage",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Motion to strike surplusage from superseding indictment",
+          "Allegations regarding Accuser-3 and their relevance to the charges",
+          "Application of Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) to 'other acts' evidence"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Co-conspirator/alleged accomplice"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Mark S. Cohen",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Christian R. Everdell",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Laura A. Menninger",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Bobbi C. Sternheim",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it reveals the defense's strategy to exclude potentially prejudicial evidence from the indictment and highlights the legal arguments surrounding the admissibility of 'other acts' evidence under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b).",
+        "summary": "Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team files a motion to strike surplusage from the superseding indictment, arguing that allegations regarding Accuser-3 are irrelevant, prejudicial, and should be stricken or subject to the admissibility requirements of Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). The memorandum contests the government's inclusion of Accuser-3's allegations, claiming they do not support the charges against Maxwell."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "147",
+      "document_number": "147",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Notice of Motion",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Request for a Bill of Particulars",
+          "Pretrial Disclosures",
+          "Criminal Proceedings against Ghislaine Maxwell"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Mark S. Cohen",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Christian Everdell",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Laura A. Menninger",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Bobbi C. Sternheim",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant as it represents a formal request by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team for more specific information about the charges against her and for pretrial disclosures, which could potentially impact the trial's proceedings.",
+        "summary": "Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team filed a notice of motion requesting a bill of particulars and pretrial disclosures in the ongoing criminal case against her. The motion was filed on January 25, 2021, and is part of the pretrial proceedings. The defense team is represented by multiple attorneys from different law firms."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "148",
+      "document_number": "148",
+      "page_count": 23,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Memorandum of Law",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Motion for a Bill of Particulars",
+          "Disclosure of Evidence and Exculpatory Material",
+          "Pretrial Disclosures and Evidentiary Proffer"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Mark S. Cohen",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Christian R. Everdell",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Laura A. Menninger",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Bobbi C. Sternheim",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant as it outlines Ghislaine Maxwell's legal arguments and requests for pretrial disclosures, a bill of particulars, and other evidentiary materials in her criminal case.",
+        "summary": "This memorandum of law supports Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for a bill of particulars and pretrial disclosures, requesting the court to order the government to provide specific information and evidence. The motion includes requests for disclosure of exculpatory and impeachment material under Brady and Giglio, as well as other evidentiary materials. The document is a key part of Maxwell's defense strategy in her criminal trial."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "148-1",
+      "document_number": "148-1",
+      "page_count": 4,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - List of Particulars",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Details about Minor Victims-1-3 and their interactions with Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein",
+          "Alleged crimes and conspiracies involving Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein",
+          "Specific actions and events related to the charges against Ghislaine Maxwell"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant in the criminal case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Co-conspirator and alleged perpetrator of sexual abuse"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Minor Victim-1",
+            "role": "Alleged victim of sexual abuse"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Minor Victim-2",
+            "role": "Alleged victim of sexual abuse"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Minor Victim-3",
+            "role": "Alleged victim of sexual abuse"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it provides detailed information requested by the defense regarding the allegations against Ghislaine Maxwell, which could be crucial for her defense in the criminal case.",
+        "summary": "This document is a list of particulars requested by the defense in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, seeking detailed information about the allegations involving Minor Victims-1-3 and their interactions with Maxwell and Epstein. The list includes specific dates, locations, and actions related to the charges. The document is a court filing in the case United States v. Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-AJN)."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "148-2",
+      "document_number": "148-2",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing Exhibit",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Criminal Case",
+          "Sealed Document",
+          "DOJ Investigation"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Unknown",
+            "role": "Defendant(s) or subject(s) of the DOJ investigation"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it is a sealed exhibit in a criminal case, suggesting it may contain sensitive information relevant to the investigation or prosecution.",
+        "summary": "This is a court filing exhibit marked as 'Filed Under Seal' in a criminal case (1:20-cr-00330-AJN), indicating it contains potentially sensitive information. The document is labeled as 'DOJ-OGR-00002721', suggesting it is part of a larger DOJ investigation or production. The specific content is not discernible from the provided information."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "148-3",
+      "document_number": "148-3",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Exhibit",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Criminal Case",
+          "Sealed Filing",
+          "DOJ Investigation"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Unknown",
+            "role": "Defendant(s) or subject(s) of the DOJ investigation"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This sealed exhibit is part of a criminal case and may contain sensitive information relevant to the investigation or prosecution.",
+        "summary": "This document is an exhibit filed under seal in a criminal case (1:20-cr-00330-AJN) and is labeled as 'DOJ-OGR-00002722'. The content is not visible, but it is part of the court record."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "148-4",
+      "document_number": "148-4",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Exhibit",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Criminal Case",
+          "Sealed Filing",
+          "DOJ Investigation"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Unknown",
+            "role": "The defendant or subject of the investigation is not specified in the provided snippet"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it is a sealed exhibit in a criminal case, suggesting it contains sensitive information relevant to the investigation or prosecution.",
+        "summary": "This is a court filing labeled as Exhibit D, filed under seal in a criminal case (1:20-cr-00330-AJN), indicating it contains confidential or sensitive information. The document is associated with the Department of Justice (DOJ) and has a specific identifier (DOJ-OGR-00002723). The content of the document is not specified in the provided information."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "148-5",
+      "document_number": "148-5",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Exhibit",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) negotiations between the government and Jeffrey Epstein",
+          "Communications between government agencies and attorneys for accusing witnesses",
+          "Meetings between SDNY prosecutors and attorneys for accusing witnesses regarding Epstein and Maxwell"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Subject of the Non-Prosecution Agreement and criminal investigation"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Associate of Epstein and subject of the SDNY investigation"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Bradley Edwards",
+            "role": "Attorney for accusing witnesses"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "David Boies",
+            "role": "Attorney for accusing witnesses"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it reveals the scope of the defense's requests for documents related to the NPA negotiations and meetings between SDNY prosecutors and attorneys for accusing witnesses, which may be relevant to the case against Ghislaine Maxwell.",
+        "summary": "This document is an exhibit filed in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, listing the defense's requests for documents related to the Non-Prosecution Agreement negotiations between the government and Jeffrey Epstein, as well as communications between government agencies and attorneys for accusing witnesses. The requests cover a range of topics, including meetings between SDNY prosecutors and attorneys for accusing witnesses in 2016 and 2018."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "149",
+      "document_number": "149",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Affidavit",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Criminal proceedings",
+          "Bill of Particulars",
+          "Pretrial Disclosures"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Bobbi C. Sternheim, Esq.",
+            "role": "Defense counsel for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This affidavit certifies that the defense counsel conferred with government counsel regarding a Motion for a Bill of Particulars and Pretrial Disclosures, which was not resolved by agreement.",
+        "summary": "The affidavit, filed by Bobbi C. Sternheim, Esq., confirms that defense counsel for Ghislaine Maxwell attempted to resolve issues related to a Motion for a Bill of Particulars and Pretrial Disclosures with government counsel, but were unable to reach an agreement. The affidavit is a required step under Local Criminal Rule 16.1."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "15",
+      "document_number": "15",
+      "page_count": 3,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court filings",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Speedy trial time exclusion",
+          "Pro hac vice admission",
+          "Counsel representation"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Defendant in a 2019 criminal case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant in a 2020 criminal case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Richard M. Berman",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Geoffrey S. Berman",
+            "role": "United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alex Rossmiller",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison Moe",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Maurene Comey",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Martin Weinberg",
+            "role": "Counsel for Jeffrey Epstein"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Reid Weingarten",
+            "role": "Counsel for Jeffrey Epstein"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca",
+            "role": "Counsel for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "These documents reveal procedural steps in two related high-profile cases involving Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, including requests for speedy trial time exclusion and admission of counsel pro hac vice.",
+        "summary": "The documents include a 2019 letter from the US Attorney's Office requesting exclusion of speedy trial time in the Jeffrey Epstein case and a 2020 motion for admission pro hac vice for counsel representing Ghislaine Maxwell."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "15-1",
+      "document_number": "15-1",
+      "page_count": 4,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Declaration",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice",
+          "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca's professional conduct",
+          "Service of the declaration"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca",
+            "role": "Attorney seeking admission Pro Hac Vice"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant in the case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alex Rossmiller",
+            "role": "Assistant U.S. Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison Moe",
+            "role": "Assistant U.S. Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Maurene Comey",
+            "role": "Assistant U.S. Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Nicole Simmons",
+            "role": "Person who served the declaration"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant as it provides information about Jeffrey S. Pagliuca's professional conduct and his eligibility for admission Pro Hac Vice in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell.",
+        "summary": "The document is a declaration by Jeffrey S. Pagliuca in support of his motion for admission Pro Hac Vice in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. Pagliuca attests to his good standing as an attorney and lack of disciplinary actions against him. The declaration was served electronically on the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "15-2",
+      "document_number": "15-2",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Certification of Attorney Status",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca's admission to the Colorado Bar",
+          "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca's good standing with the Colorado Bar",
+          "Certification by the Colorado Supreme Court"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca",
+            "role": "Attorney whose status is being certified"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Cheryl Stevens",
+            "role": "Clerk of the Supreme Court of Colorado"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document certifies that Jeffrey S. Pagliuca is a licensed attorney in good standing in Colorado, which may be relevant to his ability to practice law in a federal case.",
+        "summary": "The document is a certification from the Colorado Supreme Court that Jeffrey S. Pagliuca was admitted to the Colorado Bar on October 19, 1982, and is in good standing. The certification is dated July 7, 2020, and is signed by Cheryl Stevens, Clerk of the Supreme Court. The document appears to be filed in a federal criminal case."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "15-3",
+      "document_number": "15-3",
+      "page_count": 4,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Order",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Admission pro hac vice",
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell case",
+          "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca's admission"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca",
+            "role": "Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant in the case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant as it grants Jeffrey S. Pagliuca admission to practice pro hac vice in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, allowing him to represent Ghislaine Maxwell in her criminal case.",
+        "summary": "The document is a court order granting Jeffrey S. Pagliuca's motion for admission pro hac vice to appear and practice in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York as counsel for Ghislaine Maxwell. The order was issued by Judge Alison J. Nathan. Pagliuca is a member in good standing of the Colorado bar."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "15-cv-07433-rws",
+      "document_number": "15-cv-07433-RWS",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Declaration",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Deposition notices for Ghislaine Maxwell",
+          "Email correspondence between lawyers",
+          "Motion for Protective Order"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Sigrid S. McCawley",
+            "role": "Partner at Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP and lawyer for Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Virginia Giuffre",
+            "role": "Plaintiff"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Laura Menninger",
+            "role": "Counsel for Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document provides evidence of the deposition notices and email correspondence between lawyers in the case Virginia L. Giuffre v. Ghislaine Maxwell, which may be relevant to understanding the legal proceedings and interactions between the parties involved.",
+        "summary": "The Declaration of Sigrid S. McCawley is submitted in support of Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's Response to Defendant's Motion for Protective Order, attaching exhibits related to the deposition notices of Ghislaine Maxwell and email correspondence between lawyers."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "158",
+      "document_number": "158",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Letter to Judge",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's conditions of confinement at MDC",
+          "Access to discovery materials and communication with attorneys",
+          "Search procedures and protocols at MDC"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Audrey Strauss",
+            "role": "United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Maurene Comey",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison Moe",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Lara Pomerantz",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document provides an update on Ghislaine Maxwell's conditions of confinement at the Metropolitan Detention Center, addressing concerns about her access to discovery materials, communication with attorneys, and search procedures.",
+        "summary": "The Government submits a letter to Judge Alison J. Nathan updating the court on Ghislaine Maxwell's conditions of confinement at MDC, detailing her access to discovery materials, communication with attorneys, and search procedures. The letter assures the court that Maxwell has extensive access to discovery materials and regular communication with her attorneys, and that search procedures are in place for institutional safety."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1589",
+      "document_number": "1589",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Plea Agreement",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Jeffrey Epstein's plea agreement",
+          "Terms of Epstein's guilty plea and sentencing",
+          "Waiver of rights to appeal"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document outlines the terms of Jeffrey Epstein's plea agreement, revealing the negotiated sentence and charges he faced in a Florida court, and is potentially important due to Epstein's high-profile status and later legal issues.",
+        "summary": "The document details the plea agreement between Jeffrey Epstein and the State Attorney's Office, where Epstein agrees to plead guilty to solicitation of prostitution and solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution, with a recommended sentence of 30 months. Epstein waives his right to appeal the conviction and sentence, except if it exceeds the agreed-upon terms. The agreement is contingent on a judge accepting the specified sentence."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "159",
+      "document_number": "159",
+      "page_count": 3,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Letter to Judge",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's conditions of confinement at MDC",
+          "Excessive searches and surveillance",
+          "Inadequate food and water quality"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Bobbi C. Sternheim",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document highlights the harsh conditions under which Ghislaine Maxwell is being detained, potentially impacting her ability to prepare for trial and her overall well-being.",
+        "summary": "The letter to Judge Nathan details the restrictive and allegedly abusive conditions faced by Ghislaine Maxwell during her detention at MDC, including excessive searches, inadequate food and water, and sleep deprivation. Maxwell's defense team argues these conditions are detrimental to her health and ability to prepare for trial. The letter disputes the government's representation of Maxwell's conditions and highlights the need for improved treatment."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "16",
+      "document_number": "16",
+      "page_count": 16,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Mixed court documents",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "United States v. Jeffrey Epstein",
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell case",
+          "Court proceedings and filings"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Alex Rossmiller",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Defendant in related case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Richard M. Berman",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "These documents reveal details about the court proceedings involving Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein, including filings, court orders, and correspondence between the court and parties involved.",
+        "summary": "The documents include a notice of appearance for Alex Rossmiller as additional counsel for the United States, a court order for a remote arraignment and bail hearing in the Ghislaine Maxwell case, and correspondence regarding the exclusion of speedy trial time in the United States v. Jeffrey Epstein case."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "160",
+      "document_number": "160",
+      "page_count": 9,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Memorandum in Support of Bail Motion",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's third motion for release on bail",
+          "Proposed additional bail conditions to ensure her appearance in court",
+          "Renunciation of foreign citizenship and restraint of assets"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Bobbi C. Sternheim",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Christian R. Everdell",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Laura A. Menninger",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant as it reveals Ghislaine Maxwell's efforts to secure bail by proposing additional restrictive conditions, including renouncing her foreign citizenship and restraining her assets, to alleviate the court's concerns about her potential flight risk.",
+        "summary": "Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team submits a memorandum in support of her third motion for release on bail, proposing additional conditions to ensure her appearance in court, including renouncing her French and British citizenship and restraining her assets. The document highlights Maxwell's commitment to defending herself against the charges and her desire to remain in the United States to prepare for trial."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "161",
+      "document_number": "161",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Order",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Bail motion",
+          "Court scheduling",
+          "Criminal proceedings"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislain Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is a court order related to Ghislain Maxwell's third motion for release on bail, indicating ongoing legal proceedings against her.",
+        "summary": "The document is a court order from Judge Alison J. Nathan, scheduling the response and reply deadlines for Ghislain Maxwell's third bail motion. The government's response is due on March 9, 2021, and Maxwell's reply is due on March 16, 2021. The order was filed on February 24, 2021."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1616220",
+      "document_number": "1616220",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Testimony of witnesses Sternheim and Brune",
+          "Juror misconduct and ethical obligations",
+          "Trial proceedings and disclosure of information"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Sternheim",
+            "role": "Witness who testified"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Brune",
+            "role": "Witness under direct examination"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Theresa Trzaskoma",
+            "role": "Person who had a discussion with Brune about Juror No. 1"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it reveals testimony related to juror misconduct and the ethical obligations of court officers during a trial.",
+        "summary": "The document contains excerpts from a court transcript, featuring testimony from witnesses Sternheim and Brune. Brune's testimony focuses on her ethical obligations as an officer of the court and her actions regarding potential juror misconduct."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "16163201",
+      "document_number": "16163201",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court transcript/deposition",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "attorney discipline and suspension",
+          "tax law and charitable donations",
+          "stock transactions and brokerage errors"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Catherine M. Conrad",
+            "role": "suspended attorney in disciplinary proceedings"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Mr. Parse",
+            "role": "individual involved in tax transactions"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document appears to be a collection of court transcripts or depositions related to two separate cases, one involving attorney discipline and another involving tax law and financial transactions. The significance lies in understanding the context of the cases and the discussions around legal and financial matters.",
+        "summary": "The document contains excerpts from court proceedings, including a discussion on the suspension of an attorney due to alcohol dependence and a separate discussion on tax implications of a brokerage error involving stock transactions."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1616620",
+      "document_number": "1616620",
+      "page_count": 10,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "deposition transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Discussion about the role of jury consultants in a specific case",
+          "Conversation among team members about a juror's identity and potential connection to a suspended lawyer",
+          "Investigation into a juror's background and the team's response to new information"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ms. Brune",
+            "role": "witness being deposed"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Dennis Donahue",
+            "role": "jury consultant hired for the case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ms. Trzaskoma",
+            "role": "team member involved in discussions about the juror"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Laurie Edelstein",
+            "role": "team member involved in discussions about the juror"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Catherine Conrad",
+            "role": "suspended attorney potentially connected to a juror"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This deposition transcript reveals details about the team's actions and discussions during a trial, particularly regarding a juror's identity and potential misconduct. It highlights potential inconsistencies in the team's statements and actions.",
+        "summary": "The document is a deposition transcript of Ms. Brune, discussing the team's use of a jury consultant, conversations about a juror's identity, and the team's response to new information about the juror. The testimony reveals details about the team's actions and potential inconsistencies in their statements."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "16166201",
+      "document_number": "16166201",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "deposition transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "jury selection process",
+          "responsibilities of team members in a trial",
+          "observations of juror behavior during the trial"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Brune",
+            "role": "witness being deposed"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Trzaskoma",
+            "role": "partner at Brune's firm, responsible for jury selection details"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Conrad",
+            "role": "juror observed by Brune during the trial"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This deposition transcript provides insight into the jury selection process and the roles of team members during the trial, potentially relevant to understanding the case's proceedings and outcomes.",
+        "summary": "The deposition transcript details Brune's testimony about their firm's handling of jury selection, their team's responsibilities, and observations of juror behavior during the trial, particularly noting juror Conrad's attentiveness and note-taking."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1616630",
+      "document_number": "1616630",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "deposition transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Representation of Craig Brubaker",
+          "Juror note regarding respondeat superior",
+          "Conversation between witness and Susan Brune about Juror No. 1"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Craig Brubaker",
+            "role": "client represented by witness and their firm"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Catherine Conrad",
+            "role": "Juror No. 1 who sent a note to the court"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Susan Brune",
+            "role": "counsel for David Farse and conversed with witness about Juror No. 1"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "David Farse",
+            "role": "client represented by Susan Brune"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This deposition transcript potentially reveals information about the interactions between lawyers and jurors during a trial, specifically regarding a juror's inquiry about a legal concept.",
+        "summary": "The witness testifies about representing Craig Brubaker, recalls a juror's note asking about respondeat superior, and discusses a conversation with Susan Brune about the juror."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "162",
+      "document_number": "162",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Sealing of court documents",
+          "Redactions to court filings",
+          "Protective Order and Confidential Material"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Audrey Strauss",
+            "role": "United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Maurene Comey",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison Moe",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Lara Pomerantz",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Andrew Rohrbach",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it reveals the government's efforts to balance the need for transparency in court proceedings with the need to protect sensitive information, including the privacy interests of third parties and the integrity of their ongoing investigation.",
+        "summary": "The document is a letter from the US Attorney's Office to Judge Alison J. Nathan, requesting to file certain court documents under seal or with redactions to protect sensitive information. The government is submitting an unredacted version of their memorandum of law and exhibits in opposition to the defendant's pre-trial motions, while proposing redactions to certain documents to protect third-party privacy and the integrity of their investigation."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1620ser1003309",
+      "document_number": "1620ser1003309",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Deposition Transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Jury tampering or misconduct",
+          "Juror's unusual behavior or letter",
+          "Investigation or discussion about a trial"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Susan Brune",
+            "role": "Person being questioned or discussed"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Theresa Trzaskoma",
+            "role": "Person who related information to the witness"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Randy Kim",
+            "role": "Partner of the witness in the San Francisco office"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it reveals a discussion about a juror's unusual behavior or letter, which may indicate jury tampering or misconduct, and could be relevant to the trial's outcome or appeal.",
+        "summary": "The witness discusses their reaction to receiving a letter from a juror, which they found disturbing due to its tone and content. They mention discussing the letter with their partner Randy Kim and connecting it to information previously shared by Theresa Trzaskoma."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "163",
+      "document_number": "163",
+      "page_count": 4,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Request for extension of time to file reply to government's opposition to pre-trial motions",
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's pre-trial motions",
+          "Trial scheduling"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Christian R. Everdell",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant as it reveals the procedural history of Ghislaine Maxwell's case and the court's decision to grant an extension for filing a reply to the government's opposition to her pre-trial motions.",
+        "summary": "The defense attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell requests a 10-day extension to file a reply to the government's opposition to her pre-trial motions, citing the need for additional time to review the government's lengthy response and new discovery materials. The court grants the request, extending the deadline to March 15, 2021. The trial is scheduled to begin on July 12, 2021."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "165",
+      "document_number": "165",
+      "page_count": 9,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's third bail motion",
+          "Jurisdiction to grant bail during pending appeal",
+          "Risk of flight assessment"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it reveals the government's opposition to Ghislaine Maxwell's third bail motion and argues that the court lacks jurisdiction to grant bail due to a pending appeal.",
+        "summary": "The document is a letter from the U.S. Department of Justice to Judge Alison J. Nathan, opposing Ghislaine Maxwell's third bail motion. The government argues that the court lacks jurisdiction to grant bail due to Maxwell's pending appeal and, alternatively, that Maxwell still poses a significant flight risk."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "165-1",
+      "document_number": "165-1",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Official Letter/Diplomatic Correspondence",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Extradition law in France",
+          "Conditions for extradition under French law",
+          "Impact of French nationality on extradition proceedings"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Philippe JAEGIÉ (also spelled JAEGLE)",
+            "role": "Head of the International Criminal Assistance Bureau, French Ministry of Justice"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Andrew FINKELMAN",
+            "role": "Liaison Magistrate, Embassy of the United States of America in Paris"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document clarifies French extradition law and its implications for individuals with French nationality, potentially impacting international cooperation in criminal cases.",
+        "summary": "The document is a letter from the French Ministry of Justice to the US Department of Justice, explaining that under French law, extradition is not granted if the individual claimed has French nationality at the time of the offense. It cites relevant articles of the French Code of Criminal Procedure."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "166",
+      "document_number": "166",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Letter to Judge",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's reply memoranda in support of various motions to dismiss or suppress evidence",
+          "Redactions and sealing of documents containing confidential information",
+          "Procedure for filing reply memoranda and exhibits"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Christian R. Everdell",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Mark S. Cohen",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant as it reveals the defense's strategy and motions in the Ghislaine Maxwell case, including multiple attempts to dismiss charges or suppress evidence. It also highlights the handling of confidential information and the protective order in place.",
+        "summary": "The letter, filed on March 15, 2021, informs Judge Alison J. Nathan that the defense team for Ghislaine Maxwell will be filing multiple reply memoranda in support of various motions. The letter discusses the procedure for filing these documents, including redactions and sealing due to confidential information. The defense team will submit the documents to the court and government via email, awaiting further instruction on public filing."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "167",
+      "document_number": "167",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Letter to the Court",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's Third Motion for Bail",
+          "Redactions to court filings",
+          "Submission of Reply Memorandum"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Bobbi C. Sternheim",
+            "role": "Ghislaine Maxwell's attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant as it reveals the submission of a key court filing in the Ghislaine Maxwell case and highlights the complexities of handling redactions in sensitive court documents.",
+        "summary": "The letter, written by Bobbi C. Sternheim, submits Ghislaine Maxwell's Reply Memorandum in support of her Third Motion for Bail and discusses the uncertainty regarding necessary redactions due to pending rulings on related court filings."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "168",
+      "document_number": "168",
+      "page_count": 4,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Redaction and sealing requests",
+          "Presumption of access to judicial documents",
+          "Protection of third-party privacy interests"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "The Defendant",
+            "role": "The accused in the criminal case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "The Government",
+            "role": "The prosecuting authority in the criminal case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is a court order addressing the government's requests to redact and seal certain information in a brief and exhibits related to a criminal case, and it establishes the legal standards and considerations for such requests.",
+        "summary": "The court partially approves and partially denies the government's redaction and sealing requests, citing the need to balance the presumption of access to judicial documents with the protection of third-party privacy interests and the integrity of the ongoing investigation. The court orders the government to either docket the brief and exhibits with approved redactions or to justify more tailored redaction and sealing requests by a specified deadline."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "169",
+      "document_number": "169",
+      "page_count": 12,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Order",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's bail motion",
+          "Risk of flight assessment",
+          "Pretrial detention under the Bail Reform Act"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "District Judge"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it reveals the court's reasoning for denying Ghislaine Maxwell's third bail motion, highlighting concerns about her risk of flight and the seriousness of the charges against her.",
+        "summary": "The court denies Ghislaine Maxwell's third motion for release on bail, concluding that she poses a risk of flight and that no combination of conditions can reasonably assure her appearance. The court cites the seriousness of the charges, the strength of the government's evidence, and Maxwell's substantial resources and foreign ties as factors in its decision."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "17",
+      "document_number": "17",
+      "page_count": 19,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Criminal indictment against Ghislaine Maxwell",
+          "Allegations of conspiracy to entice minors for sexual abuse",
+          "Involvement of Jeffrey Epstein in sexual exploitation"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant accused of conspiring to entice minors for sexual abuse"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Co-conspirator in the sexual exploitation and abuse of minor girls"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Martin G. Weinberg",
+            "role": "Attorney admitted Pro Hac Vice for Jeffrey Epstein in a related case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant as it details the indictment against Ghislaine Maxwell, alleging her involvement in the sexual exploitation and abuse of minor girls alongside Jeffrey Epstein. It provides insight into the charges and evidence against Maxwell.",
+        "summary": "The document is a court filing containing a superseding indictment against Ghislaine Maxwell, charging her with conspiracy to entice minors to travel for illegal sex acts. It outlines Maxwell's alleged role in assisting Jeffrey Epstein in the sexual abuse of multiple minor girls between 1994 and 1997. The indictment details the methods used by Maxwell and Epstein to groom and abuse their victims."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "17-cr-02949-mv-1",
+      "document_number": "17-CR-02949-MV-1",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Memorandum Opinion and Order",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Defendant Dashawn Robertson's Motion to Reconsider Motion for Review of Detention Order",
+          "Release conditions under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f) and § 3142(i)",
+          "Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on defendant's ability to prepare for trial"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Dashawn Robertson",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "United States of America",
+            "role": "Plaintiff"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it reveals the court's decision to release the defendant under strict conditions due to the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on his ability to prepare for trial.",
+        "summary": "The court granted Dashawn Robertson's motion for reconsideration of his detention order and ordered his release under strict conditions to La Pasada Halfway House, citing the COVID-19 pandemic's impact on his ability to prepare for trial and the potential for strict conditions to ensure his appearance in court and community safety."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "17-cr-548",
+      "document_number": "17-Cr-548",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Opinion & Order",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Fair cross-section challenge to grand jury venire",
+          "Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968",
+          "Constitutional rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Joshua Adam Schulte",
+            "role": "Defendant, former CIA employee accused of stealing national defense information"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it addresses the defendant's challenge to the grand jury venire and the constitutionality of the indictment, which could impact the defendant's right to a fair trial.",
+        "summary": "The defendant, Joshua Adam Schulte, a former CIA employee, moves to dismiss the third superseding indictment on the grounds that the grand jury venire did not reflect a fair cross-section of the community. The court denies the motion, rejecting Schulte's claims under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments and the Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968. The case involves charges related to stealing national defense information and transmitting it to Wikileaks."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "170",
+      "document_number": "170",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Proposed redactions to court documents",
+          "Sealed exhibits and public access",
+          "Compliance with court order regarding redactions"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Audrey Strauss",
+            "role": "United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Maurene Comey",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison Moe",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Lara Pomerantz",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Andrew Rohrbach",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it reveals the ongoing discussions and disputes between the prosecution and defense regarding the redaction of sensitive information in court filings, particularly in relation to the high-profile case against Ghislaine Maxwell.",
+        "summary": "The document is a letter from the United States Attorney's office to Judge Alison J. Nathan, discussing the proposed redactions to court documents in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The parties have reached an agreement on redactions to Exhibit 11 and the defendant's cover letter. The Government is submitting its omnibus memorandum of law with proposed redactions under seal for the Court's consideration."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "171",
+      "document_number": "171",
+      "page_count": 18,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Reply Memorandum",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's third motion for bail",
+          "Conditions of bail and extradition",
+          "Jurisdiction of the court to decide on bail while an appeal is pending"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Bobbi C. Sternheim",
+            "role": "Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Christian R. Everdell",
+            "role": "Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca",
+            "role": "Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Laura A. Menninger",
+            "role": "Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant as it presents Ghislaine Maxwell's third motion for bail, with a comprehensive bail package and arguments on the court's jurisdiction to decide on bail while an appeal is pending. It reveals the legal strategies and conditions proposed for her release.",
+        "summary": "This is a reply memorandum filed by Ghislaine Maxwell's attorneys in support of her third motion for bail. The memorandum argues that the court retains jurisdiction to decide on bail despite a pending appeal and presents a comprehensive bail package with strict conditions. It also disputes the government's opposition to bail, particularly regarding the renunciation of Maxwell's foreign citizenship as a condition of release."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "172",
+      "document_number": "172",
+      "page_count": 3,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Order",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's application for a subpoena under Rule 17(c)(3) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure",
+          "Notice to alleged victims and their right to object or request modifications",
+          "Objections by the law firm representing alleged victims and the process for resolving those objections"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it reveals the court's handling of a sensitive matter in a high-profile case, specifically the defendant's request for a subpoena that may disclose personal or confidential information about alleged victims.",
+        "summary": "The court ordered the law firm representing alleged victims to provide notice to its clients and to file its objections to the defendant's proposed subpoena on the public docket. The law firm is required to meet and confer with defense counsel to narrow issues and propose redactions before filing. The court will then receive adversarial briefing on the proposed subpoena."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "173",
+      "document_number": "173",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Criminal Notice of Appeal",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal",
+          "Bail release motion",
+          "United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant/Appellant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "District Court Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "David Oscar Markus",
+            "role": "Defendant's Counsel"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Maurene Comey, Alison Moe & Lara Pomerantz",
+            "role": "Assistant U.S. Attorneys"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document signifies Ghislaine Maxwell's formal appeal against the District Court's decision regarding her Third Motion for Release on Bail, indicating a continuation of her legal proceedings.",
+        "summary": "Ghislaine Maxwell, represented by David Oscar Markus, appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit against the judgment/order related to her Third Motion for Release on Bail, as decided by District Court Judge Alison J. Nathan on March 22, 2021."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "173-1",
+      "document_number": "173-1",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "FedEx shipping document with court filing reference",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Shipping details for a court document",
+          "Court filing in the case of Maxwell",
+          "US District Court of New York"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "David Markus",
+            "role": "Sender or representative of Markus/Moss PLLC"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it provides evidence of the shipping of a court document related to the case of Maxwell, which may be relevant to the case proceedings.",
+        "summary": "This document is a FedEx shipping record for a priority overnight package sent by David Markus of Markus/Moss PLLC to the US District Court of New York on March 24, 2021, with a reference to the Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE)."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "18",
+      "document_number": "18",
+      "page_count": 47,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Mixed court documents",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Jeffrey Epstein's appeal dismissal",
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's detention hearing and bail motion",
+          "Court proceedings and filings related to both cases"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Defendant-Appellant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Reid Weingarten",
+            "role": "Counsel to Jeffrey Epstein"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alex Rossmiller",
+            "role": "Counsel to the United States of America"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Mark S. Cohen",
+            "role": "Counsel to Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "These documents reveal key information about the court proceedings involving Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, including Epstein's dismissed appeal and Maxwell's detention hearing.",
+        "summary": "The provided documents include a stipulation to dismiss Jeffrey Epstein's appeal, a memorandum opposing the government's motion for detention for Ghislaine Maxwell, a court transcript from Epstein's case, and a notice of defective filing regarding Maxwell's bail motion."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "18 crim 492",
+      "document_number": "18 CRIM 492",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Indictment",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Conspiracy to Engage in Sex Trafficking of Minors",
+          "Sex Trafficking Charges",
+          "Federal Grand Jury Indictment"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Claudius English",
+            "role": "Defendant accused of conspiracy to engage in sex trafficking of minors"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is a formal indictment by a federal grand jury, charging Claudius English with serious crimes related to sex trafficking of minors, which could lead to severe penalties if convicted.",
+        "summary": "The document is an indictment filed by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, charging Claudius English with conspiracy to engage in sex trafficking of minors. The charge alleges that English and others conspired to recruit and solicit minors for commercial sex acts. The indictment cites specific federal statutes (18 U.S.C. §§ 1594(c), 1591(a)(1), (b)(1), and (b)(2)) as the basis for the charge."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "18 cr.",
+      "document_number": "18 Cr.",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Indictment",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Sex trafficking charges",
+          "Criminal indictment",
+          "Federal prosecution"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Claudius English",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Geoffrey S. Berman",
+            "role": "United States Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is a formal indictment charging Claudius English with sex trafficking crimes under Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1591(a)(1) and (b)(2). It marks the initiation of a federal prosecution.",
+        "summary": "The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York has indicted Claudius English on charges related to sex trafficking. The indictment was brought by United States Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman. The charges carry penalties under Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1591(a)(1) and (b)(2), and 2."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "18 cr. 492",
+      "document_number": "18 Cr. 492",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Indictment",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Conspiracy to Engage in Sex Trafficking of Minors",
+          "Sex trafficking charges against Claudius English",
+          "Federal grand jury charges in the Southern District of New York"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Claudius English",
+            "role": "Defendant, accused of conspiracy to engage in sex trafficking of minors"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This indictment is significant as it outlines serious federal charges against Claudius English for conspiracy to engage in sex trafficking of minors, carrying potential severe penalties under U.S. law.",
+        "summary": "The document is an indictment filed by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, charging Claudius English with conspiracy to engage in sex trafficking of minors. The charge alleges that English and others conspired to recruit and solicit minors for commercial sex acts. The indictment references specific U.S. Code sections related to sex trafficking."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "18-cr-00290",
+      "document_number": "18-cr-00290",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Bail and risk of flight assessment for Jeffrey Epstein",
+          "Epstein's financial resources and international connections",
+          "Government's argument against releasing Epstein on bail"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Mark Epstein",
+            "role": "Defendant's brother, potential guarantor"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it provides insight into the government's argument against releasing Jeffrey Epstein on bail, highlighting his significant financial resources, international connections, and potential risk of flight.",
+        "summary": "The document discusses Jeffrey Epstein's background, financial resources, and international connections, and the government's argument that he poses a significant risk of flight due to his wealth, private plane, and multiple residences abroad. Epstein is a registered sex offender with limited family ties in the US and has traveled extensively overseas. The government seized an expired Austrian passport with Epstein's photo but a different name during a search of his New York City home."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "18-cr-00490-rmb",
+      "document_number": "18-cr-00490-RMB",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Bail conditions for Mr. Epstein",
+          "Measures to ensure Mr. Epstein's appearance in court",
+          "Proposed restrictions on Mr. Epstein's movements and activities"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Mr. Epstein",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Mark Epstein",
+            "role": "Mr. Epstein's brother and co-surety"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "David Mitchell",
+            "role": "Mr. Epstein's friend and co-surety"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it reveals the defense's proposed bail conditions for Mr. Epstein, which could impact the court's decision on his pre-trial detention.",
+        "summary": "The defense proposes 14 stringent bail conditions for Mr. Epstein, including home detention, electronic monitoring, and a substantial personal recognizance bond secured by his Manhattan residence and other assets. The conditions aim to guarantee Mr. Epstein's appearance in court and mitigate potential risks. The proposal does not include private security guards 24/7."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "18-cr-00490-rmb-dcf",
+      "document_number": "18-cr-00490-RMB-DCF",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "pretrial release",
+          "bail hearing",
+          "sex trafficking charges"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Martir",
+            "role": "case law precedent"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Contreras",
+            "role": "case law precedent"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it discusses the pretrial release of Jeffrey Epstein, who is facing sex trafficking charges, and the application of the rebuttable presumption under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3)(E).",
+        "summary": "The document discusses the government's request to remand Jeffrey Epstein and the defense's counterarguments regarding his pretrial release. The government argues that Epstein poses a danger to the community and may intimidate witnesses, while the defense contends that Epstein's wealth and actions do not necessarily mean he is a flight risk."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "18-cr-00490-rmb-document 32",
+      "document_number": "18-cr-00490-RMB-Document 32",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Bail conditions for Jeffrey Epstein",
+          "Epstein's financial assets and potential flight risk",
+          "Government's opposition to Epstein's bail package"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Defendant in a criminal case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "The Government (US Attorney)",
+            "role": "Prosecutor in the case against Epstein"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it reveals details about Jeffrey Epstein's bail conditions, his significant financial assets, and the government's concerns about his potential flight risk and history of witness manipulation.",
+        "summary": "The document discusses the bail package proposed by Jeffrey Epstein's defense team, including round-the-clock security guards and a list of Epstein's assets totaling over $559 million. The government opposed the bail package, citing Epstein's history of witness manipulation and suspicious financial transactions. The court received additional information from the government, including details about Epstein's expired Austrian passport and large cash transactions."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "18-cr-0490",
+      "document_number": "18-cr-0490",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Pretrial detention",
+          "Bail hearing procedures",
+          "Presumption of remand in cases involving sexual victimization of a minor"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Mr. Epstein",
+            "role": "Defendant in the case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it discusses the legal standards and procedures for determining pretrial detention, particularly in cases involving serious crimes like sexual victimization of a minor. It highlights the presumption of remand in such cases and the burden on the defendant to rebut this presumption.",
+        "summary": "This court filing discusses the factors considered in determining a defendant's pretrial detention, the rules of evidence at bail hearings, and the presumption of remand in cases involving sexual victimization of a minor under 18 U.S.C. § 1591. It references relevant case law and statutory provisions, including 18 U.S.C. § 3142. The document is related to the case against Mr. Epstein."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "18-cr-390 (rmb)",
+      "document_number": "18-cr-390 (RMB)",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "bail conditions for defendant Jeffrey Epstein",
+          "use of private security guards as a bail condition",
+          "dangerousness and risk to the community"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "defendant in the case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it discusses the bail conditions for Jeffrey Epstein and the court's concerns regarding his potential danger to the community.",
+        "summary": "The court filing discusses the defendant's bail proposal and the government's objections, highlighting concerns about the defendant's alleged unlawful acts and the inadequacy of proposed bail conditions to ensure public safety."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "18-cr-610 (jmf)",
+      "document_number": "18-cr-610 (JMF)",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Detention",
+          "Pretrial Release",
+          "Remand"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Richard M. Berman",
+            "role": "U.S. District Judge"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is a court order granting the government's motion for remand and denying the defendant's pretrial release, indicating the judge's decision on the defendant's custody status.",
+        "summary": "The court grants the government's motion for remand and denies the defendant's motion for pretrial release. The decision was made by U.S. District Judge Richard M. Berman on July 18, 2019. The case is identified as 18-cr-610 (JMF)."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "180",
+      "document_number": "180",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Notice of Appearance",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell criminal case",
+          "Appearance of counsel",
+          "Representation of victims"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "David Boies",
+            "role": "Attorney for Intervenor Boies Schiller Flexner LLP and the victims it represents"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant in the criminal case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant as it formally notifies the court of David Boies' appearance as counsel for Boies Schiller Flexner LLP and the victims they represent in the Ghislaine Maxwell criminal case.",
+        "summary": "David Boies of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP files a Notice of Appearance as counsel for the law firm and the victims it represents in the United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell case. The filing is dated March 26, 2021. Boies is a member in good standing of the bar of the Southern District of New York."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "181",
+      "document_number": "181",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Notice of Appearance",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell criminal case",
+          "Appearance of counsel",
+          "Representation of victims"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Sigrid S. McCawley",
+            "role": "Attorney for Intervenor Boies Schiller Flexner LLP and the victims it represents"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant in the criminal case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document signifies the formal appearance of attorney Sigrid S. McCawley on behalf of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP and the victims they represent in the Ghislaine Maxwell criminal case.",
+        "summary": "Sigrid S. McCawley of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP files a Notice of Appearance as counsel for the law firm and the victims it represents in the United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell case. The filing is dated March 26, 2021. McCawley's Pro Hac Vice application is pending."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "182",
+      "document_number": "182",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice",
+          "Sigrid S. McCawley's admission to practice law",
+          "Representation of victims in the Ghislaine Maxwell case"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Sigrid S. McCawley",
+            "role": "Attorney for Boies Schiller Flexner LLP and the victims it represents"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant in the case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant as it allows Sigrid S. McCawley to represent victims in the Ghislaine Maxwell case, despite not being a regular member of the Southern District of New York bar.",
+        "summary": "Sigrid S. McCawley, an attorney with Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, files a motion for admission pro hac vice to represent victims in the Ghislaine Maxwell case. McCawley is in good standing in Florida and Washington, D.C. and has no pending disciplinary proceedings. The motion is filed with the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "182-1",
+      "document_number": "182-1",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Declaration in Support of Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Admission Pro Hac Vice",
+          "Attorney Sigrid S. McCawley",
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell Case"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Sigrid S. McCawley",
+            "role": "Attorney for Intervenor and victims represented by Boies Schiller Flexner LLP"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant in the case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant as it establishes Sigrid S. McCawley's eligibility to practice law in the Southern District of New York for the Ghislaine Maxwell case.",
+        "summary": "Sigrid S. McCawley declares under penalty of perjury that she has never been convicted of a felony, censured, suspended, disbarred, or denied admission by any court, and is a member in good standing of the Florida and Washington, D.C. bars, in support of her application for admission pro hac vice in the Ghislaine Maxwell case."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "182-2",
+      "document_number": "182-2",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Certificate of Good Standing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Attorney Admission",
+          "Good Standing Verification",
+          "Professional Character"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Sigrid Stone McCawley",
+            "role": "Attorney whose good standing is being certified"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "John A. Tomasino",
+            "role": "Clerk of the Supreme Court of Florida"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document verifies Sigrid Stone McCawley's admission to practice law in Florida and confirms her good standing, which is relevant to her credibility and qualifications as an attorney in a legal proceeding.",
+        "summary": "The Supreme Court of Florida certifies that Sigrid Stone McCawley was admitted to practice law on November 6, 1997, and is in good standing as of March 24, 2021. The certificate confirms her professional character appears to be good. This document was filed in a federal court case."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "182-3",
+      "document_number": "182-3",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Certification of Bar Membership",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ingrid S Mc Cawley's bar membership status",
+          "Admissions to the District of Columbia Bar",
+          "Verification of attorney credentials"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ingrid S Mc Cawley",
+            "role": "Attorney whose bar membership status is being certified"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "JULIO A. CASTILLO",
+            "role": "Clerk of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document verifies Ingrid S Mc Cawley's status as an active member in good standing of the District of Columbia Bar, which is relevant to her eligibility to practice law.",
+        "summary": "The document certifies that Ingrid S Mc Cawley was admitted to the District of Columbia Bar on June 2, 2000, and is currently an active member in good standing. It is issued by Julio A. Castillo, Clerk of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, on March 24, 2021."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "182-4",
+      "document_number": "182-4",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Order",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Pro Hac Vice Admission",
+          "Legal Representation",
+          "Court Procedure"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Sigrid S. McCawley",
+            "role": "Attorney seeking Pro Hac Vice admission for the victims represented by Boies Schiller Flexner LLP"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant in the case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge granting the Pro Hac Vice admission"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant as it grants Sigrid S. McCawley admission to practice Pro Hac Vice, allowing her to represent victims in a high-profile case involving Ghislaine Maxwell.",
+        "summary": "The document is a court order granting Sigrid S. McCawley's motion for Pro Hac Vice admission to represent victims in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The order confirms McCawley's good standing in Florida and Washington, D.C. bars and subjects her to the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "183",
+      "document_number": "183",
+      "page_count": 7,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for a Rule 17(c) subpoena on Boies Schiller Flexner LLP",
+          "Objections to the subpoena by Boies Schiller Flexner LLP",
+          "Relevance and admissibility of documents sought by the subpoena"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Sigrid S. McCawley",
+            "role": "Attorney for Boies Schiller Flexner LLP"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Virginia Giuffre",
+            "role": "Client of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP and alleged victim"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Annie Farmer",
+            "role": "Client of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP and alleged victim"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it reveals the objections of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP to a subpoena sought by Ghislaine Maxwell, which could potentially impact the trial and the rights of the alleged victims represented by the law firm.",
+        "summary": "Boies Schiller Flexner LLP objects to a Rule 17(c) subpoena sought by Ghislaine Maxwell, arguing that it is a 'fishing expedition' aimed at obtaining impeachment material and that the documents sought are not relevant or admissible. The law firm represents alleged victims of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, including Virginia Giuffre and Annie Farmer."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "184",
+      "document_number": "184",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell Case",
+          "Rule 17(c) Subpoena",
+          "Redactions"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Sigrid S. McCawley",
+            "role": "Attorney for victims represented by Boies Schiller Flexner LLP"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant as it relates to the Ghislaine Maxwell case and the handling of sensitive information in court filings.",
+        "summary": "Boies Schiller Flexner LLP submits a letter to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the filing of a previously submitted letter with proposed redactions as per the court's order. The letter discusses the agreement between BSF and the defendant's counsel on the redactions."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "185",
+      "document_number": "185",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Motion to dismiss indictment",
+          "Sixth Amendment claim",
+          "Grand jury representation"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Judge Crotty",
+            "role": "United States District Judge in United States v. Schulte"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Audrey Strauss",
+            "role": "United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Maurene Comey",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison Moe",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Lara Pomerantz",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Andrew Rohrbach",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it brings to the court's attention a relevant decision from another case (United States v. Schulte) that supports the government's position in the Ghislaine Maxwell case, specifically regarding the defendant's Sixth Amendment claim.",
+        "summary": "The Government submits a letter to Judge Alison J. Nathan, referencing a recent decision by Judge Crotty in United States v. Schulte, which rejected a similar Sixth Amendment claim. The Government argues that Judge Crotty's decision supports their position in the Ghislaine Maxwell case. The letter outlines the key findings from Judge Crotty's decision."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "186",
+      "document_number": "186",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Order",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Redactions",
+          "Court Filing",
+          "Letter by Boies Schiller Flexner LLP"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislain Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it reveals a court decision regarding the redactions on a letter filed by Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, which may contain sensitive information related to the case against Ghislain Maxwell.",
+        "summary": "The court orders the removal of redactions from a letter filed by Boies Schiller Flexner LLP unless the Government objects by March 29, 2021. The unredacted version is to be filed on March 30, 2021. The case is United States of America v. Ghislain Maxwell."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "187",
+      "document_number": "187",
+      "page_count": 24,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Superseding Indictment",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Conspiracy to entice minors to travel for illegal sex acts",
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's role in Jeffrey Epstein's abuse of minor girls",
+          "Methods used by Maxwell and Epstein to groom and abuse victims"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant, accused of conspiring with Jeffrey Epstein to abuse minor girls"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Co-conspirator, primary perpetrator of abuse"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is a superseding indictment that outlines the charges against Ghislaine Maxwell for her alleged role in Jeffrey Epstein's sexual exploitation and abuse of minor girls. It provides detailed information about Maxwell's involvement and the methods used to groom and abuse victims.",
+        "summary": "The superseding indictment charges Ghislaine Maxwell with conspiracy to entice minors to travel for illegal sex acts, alleging she assisted Jeffrey Epstein in abusing multiple minor girls between 1994 and 2004. Maxwell is accused of helping Epstein recruit, groom, and abuse victims, and of lying under oath about her conduct. The indictment details the methods used by Maxwell and Epstein to exploit their victims."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "188",
+      "document_number": "188",
+      "page_count": 5,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Superseding indictment in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell",
+          "Changes between the original and superseding indictments",
+          "Discovery and disclosure obligations in light of the superseding indictment"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Associate of Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it reveals the superseding indictment in a high-profile case and outlines the changes between the original and superseding indictments, which may impact the trial proceedings.",
+        "summary": "The document is a letter from the U.S. Department of Justice to Judge Alison J. Nathan, notifying her of a superseding indictment in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The superseding indictment adds new charges and alleges a conspiracy that continued until 2004, rather than 1997. The government has already produced relevant discovery materials and is providing additional guidance to the defense to aid in trial preparation."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "189",
+      "document_number": "189",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Order",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Redactions to court documents",
+          "Public record and confidentiality",
+          "Pretrial motions in Ghislaine Maxwell's case"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it reveals the court's decision regarding redactions to government documents in a high-profile case, and sets a precedent for handling sensitive information in court filings.",
+        "summary": "The court order addresses the government's and defendant's requests to redact certain information from court documents. The judge rules that information already in the public record should not be redacted, and requires the parties to justify other proposed redactions."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "19",
+      "document_number": "19",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court filings",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Filing of official transcript in United States v. Jeffrey Epstein",
+          "Notice of appearance by counsel for Ghislaine Maxwell in United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Defendant in a criminal case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant in a related criminal case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Mark S. Cohen",
+            "role": "Counsel for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Thomas Murray",
+            "role": "Court Reporter/Transcriber"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "These documents relate to high-profile criminal cases involving Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, potentially revealing procedural steps and representation details.",
+        "summary": "The documents include a notice of filing an official transcript in the case against Jeffrey Epstein and a notice of appearance by Mark S. Cohen as counsel for Ghislaine Maxwell in her criminal case."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "19-2221",
+      "document_number": "19-2221",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Docketing Notice",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Appeal docketing",
+          "Court procedures",
+          "Counsel registration"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Robert A. Katzmann",
+            "role": "Chief Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe",
+            "role": "Clerk of Court"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document marks the initiation of an appeal in the case United States v. Epstein (Docket #: 19-2221) at the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.",
+        "summary": "The document is a Docketing Notice issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, informing parties of the docketing of an appeal in the case United States v. Epstein. It provides instructions for counsel to register and update their contact information. The appeal is related to a case in the SDNY court, presided over by Judge Berman."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "19-cr-00490 (rmb)",
+      "document_number": "19-cr-00490 (RMB)",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Criminal Notice of Appeal",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Jeffrey Epstein's appeal",
+          "Decision & Order Remanding Defendant",
+          "United States v. Jeffrey Epstein case"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Richard M. Berman",
+            "role": "District Court Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Reid Weingarten",
+            "role": "Defendant's Counsel"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alex Rossmiller",
+            "role": "Assistant U.S. Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document signifies that Jeffrey Epstein is appealing the decision to remand him, indicating a significant development in the case against him.",
+        "summary": "Jeffrey Epstein, represented by Reid Weingarten, filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit against the decision to remand him, as decided by Judge Richard M. Berman on July 18, 2019."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "190",
+      "document_number": "190",
+      "page_count": 3,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell case",
+          "FBI investigation",
+          "Prosecution team's involvement"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Audrey Strauss",
+            "role": "United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Maurene Comey",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison Moe",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Lara Pomerantz",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it clarifies the government's previous statement regarding the prosecution team's involvement in a prior investigation, potentially impacting the Ghislaine Maxwell case.",
+        "summary": "The US Attorney's Office submits a letter to clarify a previous statement regarding the prosecution team's involvement in the Florida Investigation, revealing that the FBI New York Office assisted the FBI Florida Office in interviewing witnesses between 2007 and 2008. The government has produced additional materials to the defense as a courtesy, despite not believing they are discoverable under Rule 16. The government's Brady and Rule 16 obligations are also addressed."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "191",
+      "document_number": "191",
+      "page_count": 7,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Letter to Judge",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Rule 17(c) subpoena",
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's defense strategy",
+          "Boies Schiller Flexner LLP's representation of Epstein victims"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Sigrid S. McCawley",
+            "role": "Lawyer for Boies Schiller Flexner LLP"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Virginia Giuffre",
+            "role": "Epstein victim represented by Boies Schiller Flexner LLP"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Annie Farmer",
+            "role": "Epstein victim represented by Boies Schiller Flexner LLP"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it reveals the defense strategy of Ghislaine Maxwell and the objections of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP to a subpoena seeking confidential information about Epstein victims.",
+        "summary": "Boies Schiller Flexner LLP (BSF) responds to a court order regarding a Rule 17(c) subpoena issued by Ghislaine Maxwell, objecting to the subpoena and arguing it is an improper attempt to obtain impeachment material. BSF represents several Epstein victims and argues the subpoena is overly broad and not relevant to the case."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "19121 filed 08/07/21",
+      "document_number": "19121 Filed 08/07/21",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "HIPAA violation by MDC regarding Ms. Maxwell's medical information",
+          "Alleged physical abuse of Ms. Maxwell by a guard",
+          "Request for the Court to order the MDC to cease releasing Ms. Maxwell's health information"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ms. Maxwell",
+            "role": "The defendant whose medical information and treatment are at issue"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "MDC (Metropolitan Detention Center)",
+            "role": "The facility where Ms. Maxwell is being held"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it highlights alleged violations of Ms. Maxwell's rights, including HIPAA violations and physical abuse, and requests court intervention to protect her privacy and safety.",
+        "summary": "The document alleges that the MDC has violated HIPAA by releasing Ms. Maxwell's medical information and that she was physically abused by a guard. It requests the Court to order the MDC to stop releasing her health information and to direct the government to provide a video related to the alleged abuse."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "192",
+      "document_number": "192",
+      "page_count": 3,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Letter to Judge",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Objection to the second superseding indictment in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell",
+          "Request for a new briefing schedule and potential continuance due to the late filing of the superseding indictment",
+          "Concerns about the impact on Ghislaine Maxwell's constitutional rights and detention"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Bobbi C. Sternheim",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge presiding over the case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Associated individual mentioned in the context of the charges"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it highlights the defense's objections to the government's late filing of a superseding indictment, which they argue prejudices their ability to prepare for trial and affects Maxwell's constitutional rights.",
+        "summary": "The letter, written by defense attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim, objects to the government's filing of a second superseding indictment in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, arguing it is an example of 'tactical gamesmanship' that complicates the case and prejudices Maxwell's rights. The defense requests a new briefing schedule and considers seeking a continuance, citing concerns about Maxwell's detention and right to a fair trial."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "193",
+      "document_number": "193",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Order",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Arraignment and status conference scheduling",
+          "Response to Defendant's letter",
+          "Logistical arrangements for in-person proceeding"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislain Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant as it reveals the court's scheduling of an arraignment and status conference for Ghislain Maxwell and orders the Government to respond to the Defendant's letter by a specific date.",
+        "summary": "The court orders an arraignment and status conference for April 16, 2021, and directs the Government to respond to the Defendant's March 31, 2021 letter by April 9, 2021. The proceeding will be in-person as requested by the Defendant. The court is making logistical arrangements for the event."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "194",
+      "document_number": "194",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Request for Continuance of Arraignment",
+          "Scheduling Conflict",
+          "Logistical Arrangements"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Laura A. Menninger",
+            "role": "Counsel for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Court Judge"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is a formal request to postpone Ghislaine Maxwell's arraignment, providing insight into the scheduling conflicts and logistical considerations involved in the case.",
+        "summary": "Counsel for Ghislaine Maxwell requests a one-week continuance of the arraignment scheduled for April 16, 2021, to April 23, 2021, due to a scheduling conflict and to allow the defense team to review physical evidence. The government does not oppose this request."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "195",
+      "document_number": "195",
+      "page_count": 11,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Rule 17(c) subpoenas in criminal cases",
+          "Discovery obligations in criminal proceedings",
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell case proceedings"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Boies Schiller Flexner LLP",
+            "role": "Target of subpoena"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant as it discusses the government's request for the court to direct the defendant to provide notice of prior and future Rule 17(c) subpoenas and to require productions made in response to such subpoenas to be marked confidential.",
+        "summary": "The document is a letter from the U.S. Department of Justice to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the Ghislaine Maxwell case, discussing the government's concerns and requests related to the defendant's use of Rule 17(c) subpoenas. The government argues that Rule 17(c) is not a discovery device and requests the court to direct the defendant to provide notice of subpoenas and to mark productions as confidential. The letter provides an overview of the legal standards governing Rule 17(c) subpoenas."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "196",
+      "document_number": "196",
+      "page_count": 6,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's conditions of confinement at the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC)",
+          "Access to discovery materials and communication with attorneys",
+          "Search procedures and protocols at the MDC"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "MDC Legal Counsel",
+            "role": "Providing information about Maxwell's confinement conditions"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document provides insight into Ghislaine Maxwell's conditions of confinement and access to her attorneys while awaiting trial, potentially impacting her defense and the court's understanding of her situation.",
+        "summary": "The document is a letter from the US Government to Judge Alison J. Nathan updating the court on Ghislaine Maxwell's conditions of confinement at the MDC, detailing her access to discovery materials, communication with attorneys, and search procedures. The Government reports that Maxwell has extensive access to discovery materials and her attorneys, and that the MDC has taken steps to accommodate her needs while maintaining institutional security."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "197",
+      "document_number": "197",
+      "page_count": 5,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's conditions of confinement",
+          "Allegations of unsanitary conditions and mistreatment at the MDC",
+          "Concerns about Maxwell's health and access to medical information"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Bobbi C. Sternheim",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it highlights the harsh conditions faced by Ghislaine Maxwell in detention and raises concerns about her treatment and access to medical care, potentially impacting her ability to prepare for trial.",
+        "summary": "The letter, filed by defense attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim, responds to the government's claims about Ghislaine Maxwell's detention conditions, alleging unsanitary conditions, mistreatment, and inadequate access to medical care and legal resources. The defense requests that the court order the MDC to cease releasing Maxwell's health information and provide the defense with a video related to an incident of physical abuse. The letter details various issues with Maxwell's confinement, including lack of privacy, poor living conditions, and inadequate medical care."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "198",
+      "document_number": "198",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Order",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Adjournment of arraignment",
+          "COVID-19 protocols",
+          "S2 Superseding Indictment"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislain Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant as it reveals the court's decision to adjourn the arraignment and reschedule it, while also emphasizing the importance of complying with COVID-19 protocols.",
+        "summary": "The court grants Ghislain Maxwell's request to adjourn the arraignment on the S2 Superseding Indictment and reschedules it to April 23, 2021. The court also reminds parties to comply with COVID-19-related orders. The order is issued by Judge Alison J. Nathan on April 8, 2021."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "199",
+      "document_number": "199",
+      "page_count": 8,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's superseding indictment",
+          "Government's investigation and evidence",
+          "Trial preparation and scheduling"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Co-conspirator"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it provides insight into the government's investigation and evidence against Ghislaine Maxwell, and addresses the defense's allegations of prosecutorial misconduct.",
+        "summary": "The document is a letter from the US Department of Justice to Judge Alison J. Nathan, responding to Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team regarding the superseding indictment. The government explains the timing of the superseding indictment and argues that it was not delayed for strategic advantage. The government also addresses the potential impact on the trial length and proposes measures to mitigate any delays."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "19cr. 490 (rmb)",
+      "document_number": "19CR. 490 (RMB)",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Decision & Order",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Bail hearing for Jeffrey Epstein",
+          "Remand vs release pending trial",
+          "Application of federal statutes (18 U.S.C. § 1591, § 3142)"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Defendant in the case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "United States of America",
+            "role": "Plaintiff/Government"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant as it outlines the court's decision regarding Jeffrey Epstein's bail and remand, and provides insight into the legal framework applied in the case.",
+        "summary": "The court held a bail hearing for Jeffrey Epstein on July 15, 2019, and considered whether to remand or release him pending trial. The court noted that Epstein is presumed innocent until proven guilty and that a presumption in favor of remand applies under 18 U.S.C. § 3142. The decision is part of the proceedings in the case United States v. Jeffrey Epstein (19CR.490 (RMB))."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:08-cr-00330-baf document 332 filed 05/15/2019 page 8 of 15",
+      "document_number": "1:08-cr-00330-BAF Document 332 Filed 05/15/2019 Page 8 of 15",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Non-Prosecution Agreement",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Non-Prosecution Agreement terms",
+          "Jeffrey Epstein's compliance",
+          "Prosecutorial discretion"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "R. Alexander Acosta",
+            "role": "United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "A. Marie Villafana",
+            "role": "Assistant U.S. Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Gerald Lefcourt",
+            "role": "Counsel to Jeffrey Epstein"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Lilly Ann Sanchez",
+            "role": "Attorney for Jeffrey Epstein"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it reveals the terms of a Non-Prosecution Agreement between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office, which has been the subject of controversy and public scrutiny.",
+        "summary": "This document is a Non-Prosecution Agreement between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office, signed in 2007. Epstein agrees to comply with certain conditions in exchange for not being prosecuted. The agreement is signed by Epstein, his attorneys, and A. Marie Villafana, Assistant U.S. Attorney."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:08-cr-00330-baf document 438 filed 02/05/19 page 8 of 15",
+      "document_number": "1:08-cr-00330-BAF Document 438 Filed 02/05/19 Page 8 of 15",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Non-Prosecution Agreement",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Non-Prosecution Agreement terms",
+          "Jeffrey Epstein's compliance",
+          "Prosecutorial discretion"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "R. Alexander Acosta",
+            "role": "United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "A. Marie Villafana",
+            "role": "Assistant U.S. Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Gerald Lefcourt",
+            "role": "Counsel to Jeffrey Epstein"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Lilly Ann Sanchez",
+            "role": "Attorney for Jeffrey Epstein"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is a Non-Prosecution Agreement between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office, potentially revealing leniency granted to Epstein in a criminal case.",
+        "summary": "The document is a Non-Prosecution Agreement signed by Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office, led by R. Alexander Acosta, on September 24, 2007. Epstein certifies understanding of and compliance with the agreement's conditions. The agreement was signed by Epstein's attorneys, Gerald Lefcourt and Lilly Ann Sanchez."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:08-cr-00330-bbd",
+      "document_number": "1:08-cr-00330-BBD",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Addendum to Non-Prosecution Agreement",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Non-Prosecution Agreement",
+          "Jeffrey Epstein",
+          "Compliance"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "R. Alexander Acosta",
+            "role": "United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey T. Aloman",
+            "role": "FAUSA"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "A. Marie Villapaña",
+            "role": "Assistant U.S. Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Gerald Lefcourt",
+            "role": "Counsel to Jeffrey Epstein"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Lilly Ann Sanchez",
+            "role": "Attorney for Jeffrey Epstein"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it reveals the terms and conditions of Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement and the individuals involved in its negotiation.",
+        "summary": "This document is an Addendum to a Non-Prosecution Agreement between Jeffrey Epstein and the United States Attorney's Office, signed in 2007. Epstein certifies that he understands the clarifications to the agreement and agrees to comply with them. The document is signed by Epstein, his attorneys, and representatives of the U.S. Attorney's Office."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:08-cr-00603-akh document 322 filed 05/15/2019 page 7 of 15",
+      "document_number": "1:08-cr-00603-AKH Document 322 Filed 05/15/2019 Page 7 of 15",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Non-Prosecution Agreement",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Waiver of Right to Speedy Trial",
+          "Waiver of Right to Grand Jury Indictment",
+          "Terms of Non-Prosecution Agreement"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Defendant entering into the non-prosecution agreement"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it reveals the terms of a non-prosecution agreement between Jeffrey Epstein and the US government, including Epstein's waiver of certain constitutional rights.",
+        "summary": "The document outlines the terms of a non-prosecution agreement between Jeffrey Epstein and the US government, where Epstein waives his right to a speedy trial and grand jury indictment. Epstein certifies that he is aware of the relevant constitutional amendments and rules of criminal procedure and agrees to the terms of the agreement. The agreement allows the US to prosecute Epstein if he breaches the agreement."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:08-cr-00606-cap",
+      "document_number": "1:08-cr-00606-CAP",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Non-Prosecution Agreement",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Deferred prosecution in favor of state prosecution",
+          "Conditions for non-prosecution agreement",
+          "Terms for dismissal of federal charges"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "R. Alexander Acosta",
+            "role": "United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is a non-prosecution agreement between Jeffrey Epstein and the US Attorney's Office, detailing the conditions under which federal prosecution would be deferred in favor of state prosecution, potentially revealing leniency in Epstein's treatment.",
+        "summary": "The document outlines a non-prosecution agreement where Epstein agrees to comply with certain terms, including cooperation with state authorities, in exchange for deferred federal prosecution and potential dismissal of charges. The agreement specifies conditions for its validity and the process for addressing any violations. Upon fulfillment of the terms, Epstein would not face federal prosecution for the specified offenses."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:08-cr-00608-dab document 338 filed 05/17/2008 page 7 of 15",
+      "document_number": "1:08-cr-00608-DAB Document 338 Filed 05/17/2008 Page 7 of 15",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Legal Agreement",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Waiver of Right to Speedy Trial",
+          "Waiver of Right to Grand Jury Indictment",
+          "Terms and Conditions of Prosecution"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Epstein",
+            "role": "The individual signing the agreement and subject to the terms and conditions outlined"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida",
+            "role": "The prosecuting authority responsible for enforcing the agreement"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it reveals Epstein's agreement to waive certain constitutional rights, including the right to a speedy trial and the right to be indicted by a grand jury, as part of a non-prosecution agreement.",
+        "summary": "The document outlines the terms of an agreement between Epstein and the United States Attorney's Office, where Epstein waives certain rights, including the right to a speedy trial and grand jury indictment, in exchange for deferred prosecution. Epstein certifies that he is aware of the relevant constitutional and procedural rules and agrees to the terms. The agreement allows the United States to terminate the agreement and prosecute Epstein in case of a breach."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:08-cv-02358-jaos",
+      "document_number": "1:08-cv-02358-JAOS",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Addendum to Non-Prosecution Agreement",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Modification of Non-Prosecution Agreement terms",
+          "Role and selection of attorney representative for victims",
+          "Payment of attorney representative fees by Jeffrey Epstein"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "The individual subject to the Non-Prosecution Agreement"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document reveals modifications to the original Non-Prosecution Agreement with Jeffrey Epstein, specifically regarding the selection and payment of attorney representatives for victims, and has implications for understanding the terms of Epstein's agreement with the DOJ.",
+        "summary": "This document is an addendum to the Non-Prosecution Agreement between Jeffrey Epstein and the United States, clarifying the provisions related to the attorney representative for victims. It outlines the process for selecting the attorney representative and Epstein's obligations regarding their fees. The addendum modifies the original agreement to allow for an independent third-party to be involved in the selection process."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:08-cv-03306-dab",
+      "document_number": "1:08-cv-03306-DAB",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Affirmation",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Non-Prosecution Agreement",
+          "Addendum",
+          "Legal Affirmation"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey E. Epstein",
+            "role": "Individual affirming the Non-Prosecution Agreement"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it confirms Jeffrey E. Epstein's affirmation of a Non-Prosecution Agreement, which may have significant implications in the context of the case.",
+        "summary": "Jeffrey E. Epstein re-affirms the Non-Prosecution Agreement and its Addendum dated October 30, 2007, on December 7, 2007. This affirmation is part of a court filing in Case 1:08-cv-03306-DAB. The document is a simple affirmation statement signed by Epstein."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:0866-cj-00030-bbm document 438 filed 02/05/19 page 5 of 15",
+      "document_number": "1:0866-cj-00030-BBM Document 438 Filed 02/05/19 Page 5 of 15",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Plea agreement terms for Jeffrey Epstein",
+          "Charges and sentencing for solicitation of prostitution",
+          "Waiver of appeal rights by Epstein"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Defendant in the case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document outlines the terms of Jeffrey Epstein's plea agreement, including the charges he would plead guilty to and the recommended sentence, which is potentially significant in understanding the handling of his case.",
+        "summary": "The document details the terms of Jeffrey Epstein's plea agreement, including pleading guilty to solicitation of prostitution and solicitation of minors, with a recommended sentence of 30 months divided between jail time and community control. Epstein agreed to waive his right to appeal the conviction and sentence. The agreement was contingent on a judge accepting the specified sentence."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:09-cr-00383",
+      "document_number": "1:09-cr-00383",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Non-Prosecution Agreement",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's conduct",
+          "Alleged crimes including solicitation of prostitution and sex trafficking of minors",
+          "Federal and state investigations and charges"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Subject of the investigation and Non-Prosecution Agreement"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it reveals the terms and context of a Non-Prosecution Agreement involving Jeffrey Epstein, shedding light on the handling of serious allegations against him.",
+        "summary": "This document is a Non-Prosecution Agreement related to the investigation of Jeffrey Epstein, detailing the charges and allegations against him, including solicitation of prostitution and sex trafficking of minors. The agreement involves the State Attorney's Office and the United States Attorney's Office. It outlines the federal and state investigations into Epstein's conduct from 2001 through 2007."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:09-cr-00383-rmb-dcf document 438 filed 05/13/19 page 2 of 15",
+      "document_number": "1:09-cr-00383-RMB-DCF Document 438 Filed 05/13/19 Page 2 of 15",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Non-Prosecution Agreement",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's conduct",
+          "Charges against Epstein for soliciting prostitution and other sex-related crimes",
+          "Federal investigation into Epstein's potential crimes against the United States"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "The individual under investigation and subject of the Non-Prosecution Agreement"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it reveals the terms and context of a Non-Prosecution Agreement involving Jeffrey Epstein, which has been a subject of controversy and public interest.",
+        "summary": "This document is a Non-Prosecution Agreement related to the investigation of Jeffrey Epstein, detailing the charges brought against him by state and federal authorities for various sex-related crimes involving minors. The agreement appears to be between Epstein and the United States Attorney's Office. The document outlines the investigations conducted by various law enforcement agencies into Epstein's conduct."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:09-cr-00581-whp document 522",
+      "document_number": "1:09-cr-00581-WHP Document 522",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court filing or legal memorandum",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "alleged misrepresentation by lawyers",
+          "juror misconduct and investigation",
+          "ethical behavior under New York Rules"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Conrad",
+            "role": "Juror Number One in a trial"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Trzaskoma",
+            "role": "One of the defendants or their lawyer"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document provides insight into a court's analysis of alleged unethical behavior by lawyers and their statements regarding a juror's misconduct, potentially impacting the validity of a trial's outcome.",
+        "summary": "The document discusses the lawyers' statements about their reaction to a juror's letter and their investigation into the juror's background, concluding that the statements were true as reasonably read and did not constitute a knowing misrepresentation under Rule 3.3."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:09-cr-00581-whp document 605",
+      "document_number": "1:09-cr-00581-WHP Document 605",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Tax Fraud",
+          "Criminal Conspiracy",
+          "Sentencing"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Parse",
+            "role": "Defendant, investment representative at Deutsche Bank Alex Brown"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Donna Guerin",
+            "role": "Co-conspirator"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Denis Field",
+            "role": "Co-conspirator"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Craig Brubaker",
+            "role": "Co-conspirator"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Paul Daugerdas",
+            "role": "Co-conspirator"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is a government sentencing memorandum that outlines the defendant's role in a large-scale tax fraud scheme and argues for a significant prison sentence.",
+        "summary": "The document details Parse's involvement in a massive tax fraud scheme involving four fraudulent tax shelters, resulting in over $7 billion in fraudulent tax deductions and $230 million in actual loss to the US Treasury. Parse, an investment representative at Deutsche Bank Alex Brown, played a key role in the scheme, earning over $3 million in commission income. The government argues that Parse's conduct warrants a significant prison sentence."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:09-cr-2867-jof",
+      "document_number": "1:09-cr-2867-JOF",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Non-Prosecution Agreement",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Jeffrey Epstein's agreement with the US Attorney's Office",
+          "Terms and conditions of the Non-Prosecution Agreement",
+          "Signatures and dates of the parties involved"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "R. Alexander Acosta",
+            "role": "United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "A. Marie Villafana",
+            "role": "Assistant U.S. Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Gerald Lefcourt",
+            "role": "Counsel to Jeffrey Epstein"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Lilly Ann Sanchez",
+            "role": "Attorney for Jeffrey Epstein"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it reveals the terms of Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement with the US Attorney's Office in 2007, which has been a subject of controversy and public scrutiny.",
+        "summary": "The document is a Non-Prosecution Agreement between Jeffrey Epstein and the US Attorney's Office, signed in 2007. Epstein agrees to comply with the conditions outlined in the agreement. The document includes signatures from Epstein, his attorneys, and representatives from the US Attorney's Office."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:10-cr-00330-aj document 142-1 filed 02/06/13 page 12 of 15",
+      "document_number": "1:10-cr-00330-AJ Document 142-1 Filed 02/06/13 Page 12 of 15",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Addendum to Non-Prosecution Agreement",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Non-Prosecution Agreement",
+          "Jeffrey Epstein",
+          "Compliance"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "R. Alexander Acosta",
+            "role": "United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey J. Sloman",
+            "role": "Assistant U.S. Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "A. Marie VillapañA",
+            "role": "Assistant U.S. Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Gerald Lefcourt",
+            "role": "Counsel to Jeffrey Epstein"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Lilly Ann Sanchez",
+            "role": "Attorney for Jeffrey Epstein"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it reveals the terms and conditions of Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement and the individuals involved in its negotiation.",
+        "summary": "This document is an Addendum to a Non-Prosecution Agreement between Jeffrey Epstein and the United States Attorney's Office, signed by R. Alexander Acosta and others. Epstein certifies that he understands the clarifications to the agreement and agrees to comply. The document is signed by Epstein's attorneys and representatives from the U.S. Attorney's Office."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:10-cr-00330-akh document 143 filed 07/16/05 page 6 of 15",
+      "document_number": "1:10-cr-00330-AKH Document 143 Filed 07/16/05 Page 6 of 15",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Non-Prosecution Agreement",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Plea agreement terms",
+          "Immunity for co-conspirators",
+          "Handling of grand jury subpoenas and evidence"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Sarah Kellen",
+            "role": "Potential co-conspirator"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Adriana Ross",
+            "role": "Potential co-conspirator"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Lesley Groff",
+            "role": "Potential co-conspirator"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Nadia Marcinkova",
+            "role": "Potential co-conspirator"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document reveals a non-prosecution agreement between Jeffrey Epstein and the US government, granting immunity to Epstein and his co-conspirators in exchange for a guilty plea and cooperation. It highlights the leniency shown to Epstein and the potential cover-up of crimes committed by him and his associates.",
+        "summary": "The document outlines the terms of a non-prosecution agreement between Jeffrey Epstein and the US government, including Epstein's guilty plea, sentence, and immunity for his co-conspirators. The agreement also details the handling of grand jury subpoenas and evidence. In exchange for Epstein's cooperation, the US government agrees not to prosecute his associates."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:10-cr-00336",
+      "document_number": "1:10-cr-00336",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Non-Prosecution Agreement and Addendum",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Non-Prosecution Agreement conditions",
+          "Jeffrey Epstein's compliance",
+          "Clarifications to the agreement"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "R. Alexander Acosta",
+            "role": "United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "A. Marie Villafana",
+            "role": "Assistant U.S. Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Gerald Lefcourt",
+            "role": "Counsel to Jeffrey Epstein"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Lilly Ann Sanchez",
+            "role": "Attorney for Jeffrey Epstein"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it reveals the terms and conditions of Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement and the subsequent addendum, which may be relevant to understanding the handling of his case.",
+        "summary": "The document contains a Non-Prosecution Agreement and an Addendum signed by Jeffrey Epstein and representatives of the U.S. Attorney's Office, outlining the conditions and clarifications of the agreement. The agreement was signed in 2007 by Epstein and U.S. Attorney R. Alexander Acosta. The document provides insight into the terms of Epstein's agreement and the roles of key individuals involved."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:10-cr-00336-whp document 142 filed 09/24/13 page 5 of 15",
+      "document_number": "1:10-cr-00336-WHP Document 142 Filed 09/24/13 Page 5 of 15",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Plea Agreement",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Plea agreement terms",
+          "Victim compensation and liability waivers",
+          "Jurisdictional considerations"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Defendant in the criminal case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document outlines the terms of a plea agreement between Jeffrey Epstein and the United States government, including provisions related to victim compensation and liability waivers, which may have significant implications for Epstein's civil liability and the rights of his alleged victims.",
+        "summary": "This document is a plea agreement between Jeffrey Epstein and the US government, detailing the terms of his guilty plea, including provisions for victim compensation and liability waivers. The agreement specifies that Epstein will not contest jurisdiction or liability for certain identified victims and will waive his right to contest damages up to a certain amount. The agreement also clarifies that Epstein's signature is not an admission of civil or criminal liability for individuals not on the list provided by the US."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:10-cr-00338-at-1",
+      "document_number": "1:10-cr-00338-AT-1",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Non-Prosecution Agreement",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Deferred prosecution in favor of state prosecution",
+          "Conditions for non-prosecution under the agreement",
+          "Consequences of violating the agreement"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "R. Alexander Acosta",
+            "role": "United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it reveals a non-prosecution agreement between Jeffrey Epstein and the US Attorney's Office, which may have significant implications for understanding the handling of Epstein's case.",
+        "summary": "The document outlines a non-prosecution agreement between Jeffrey Epstein and the US Attorney's Office, where federal prosecution is deferred in favor of state prosecution, provided Epstein complies with certain conditions. If Epstein fulfills the terms, no federal prosecution will be instituted for the specified offenses. The agreement outlines the consequences of violating its terms."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:100-cr-00308",
+      "document_number": "1:100-cr-00308",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Plea Agreement",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Plea agreement terms for Jeffrey Epstein",
+          "Conditions for sentencing and incarceration",
+          "Non-prosecution of potential co-conspirators"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Sarah Kellen",
+            "role": "Potential co-conspirator"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Adriana Ross",
+            "role": "Potential co-conspirator"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Lesley Groff",
+            "role": "Potential co-conspirator"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Nadia Marcinkova",
+            "role": "Potential co-conspirator"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document reveals the terms of Jeffrey Epstein's plea agreement with the US government, including the conditions for his sentencing and the non-prosecution of his alleged co-conspirators. It provides insight into the negotiations and agreements made between Epstein and the US Attorney's Office.",
+        "summary": "The document outlines the plea agreement between Jeffrey Epstein and the US government, detailing the terms of his guilty plea, sentencing, and incarceration. Epstein agrees to plead guilty and provide compensation in exchange for the US not pursuing charges against his alleged co-conspirators. The agreement also stipulates that the US will suspend its Grand Jury investigation upon execution of the agreement."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:100-cr-00330-bah document 332 filed 06/25/19 page 3 of 15",
+      "document_number": "1:100-cr-00330-BAH Document 332 Filed 06/25/19 Page 3 of 15",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Non-Prosecution Agreement",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Jeffrey Epstein's criminal liability",
+          "Federal and state charges related to sex trafficking",
+          "Conditions for deferred prosecution"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "R. Alexander Acosta",
+            "role": "United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document reveals a non-prosecution agreement between Jeffrey Epstein and the US government, detailing the terms under which federal prosecution was deferred in favor of state prosecution.",
+        "summary": "The document outlines a non-prosecution agreement between Jeffrey Epstein and the US government, where Epstein agrees to comply with certain conditions to avoid federal prosecution for sex trafficking charges. The agreement allows for state prosecution instead, provided Epstein meets the specified terms. Upon fulfilling these terms, Epstein will not face federal prosecution for the specified offenses or related charges."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:100-cr-11286-akh document 232 filed 06/25/15 page 2 of 15",
+      "document_number": "1:100-cr-11286-AKH Document 232 Filed 06/25/15 Page 2 of 15",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's conduct",
+          "Charges against Jeffrey Epstein for solicitation of prostitution and other federal offenses",
+          "Non-prosecution agreement"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "The individual under investigation and charged with various crimes"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it relates to the investigation and charges brought against Jeffrey Epstein, a high-profile case involving allegations of sex trafficking and other serious crimes.",
+        "summary": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the investigation of Jeffrey Epstein, detailing the charges brought against him by the State Attorney's Office and the United States Attorney's Office, including solicitation of prostitution and conspiracy to commit offenses against the United States."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:100-cv-11286-ja document 238 filed 06/25/15 page 4 of 15",
+      "document_number": "1:100-cv-11286-JA Document 238 Filed 06/25/15 Page 4 of 15",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Plea Agreement",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Jeffrey Epstein's guilty plea",
+          "Sentence terms and conditions",
+          "Waiver of rights to appeal"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document outlines the terms of Jeffrey Epstein's plea agreement, revealing the negotiated sentence and conditions, including his waiver of certain rights.",
+        "summary": "The document details Epstein's agreement to plead guilty to solicitation of prostitution and solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution, with a recommended 30-month sentence including jail time and community control. Epstein waives his right to appeal the conviction and sentence, except if it exceeds the agreed terms."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:1088-cr-00003-jal document 322 filed 06/26/19 page 8 of 15",
+      "document_number": "1:1088-cr-00003-JAL Document 322 Filed 06/26/19 Page 8 of 15",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Non-Prosecution Agreement",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Non-Prosecution Agreement terms",
+          "Jeffrey Epstein's compliance",
+          "Prosecutorial discretion"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "R. Alexander Acosta",
+            "role": "United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "A. Marie Villafana",
+            "role": "Assistant U.S. Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Gerald Lefcourt",
+            "role": "Counsel to Jeffrey Epstein"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Lilly Ann Sanchez",
+            "role": "Attorney for Jeffrey Epstein"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it reveals the terms of a Non-Prosecution Agreement between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office, which has been the subject of controversy and public scrutiny.",
+        "summary": "This document is a Non-Prosecution Agreement between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office, signed in 2007. Epstein agrees to comply with certain conditions in exchange for not being prosecuted. The agreement is signed by Epstein, his attorneys, and the Assistant U.S. Attorney."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:1088-cr-00036-jal document 322 filed 06/25/2007 page 6 of 15",
+      "document_number": "1:1088-cr-00036-JAL Document 322 Filed 06/25/2007 Page 6 of 15",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Plea Agreement",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Jeffrey Epstein's plea agreement with the United States government",
+          "Terms of Epstein's sentence and incarceration",
+          "Non-prosecution of potential co-conspirators"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Sarah Kellen",
+            "role": "Potential co-conspirator"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Adriana Ross",
+            "role": "Potential co-conspirator"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Lesley Groff",
+            "role": "Potential co-conspirator"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Nadia Marcinkova",
+            "role": "Potential co-conspirator"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document reveals a non-prosecution agreement between Epstein and the US government, shielding potential co-conspirators from prosecution in exchange for Epstein's guilty plea and cooperation.",
+        "summary": "The document outlines the terms of Jeffrey Epstein's plea agreement with the US government, including his sentence, incarceration, and the non-prosecution of potential co-conspirators. Epstein agrees to plead guilty and provide compensation in exchange for the government's agreement not to pursue charges against others involved. The agreement also requires Epstein to cooperate with the State Attorney's Office and the court."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:1088-cr-00330-bah document 332 filed 06/28/19 page 4 of 15",
+      "document_number": "1:1088-cr-00330-BAH Document 332 Filed 06/28/19 Page 4 of 15",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Plea Agreement",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Jeffrey Epstein's plea agreement",
+          "Terms of the plea deal including sentence and charges",
+          "Waiver of rights to appeal"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Defendant in the case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document outlines the terms of Jeffrey Epstein's plea agreement, revealing the negotiated sentence and charges he agreed to plead guilty to, which is significant in understanding the handling of his case.",
+        "summary": "The document details the plea agreement between Jeffrey Epstein and the State Attorney's Office, where Epstein agrees to plead guilty to certain charges and receive a specified sentence. The agreement includes terms such as a 30-month sentence divided between jail time and community control, and Epstein's waiver of his right to appeal. The agreement is contingent on a judge accepting the specified sentence."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:10cv1580",
+      "document_number": "1:10cv1580",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Affirmation",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Non-Prosecution Agreement",
+          "Addendum",
+          "Jeffrey Epstein"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey E. Epstein",
+            "role": "The individual re-affirming the Non-Prosecution Agreement"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it re-affirms a Non-Prosecution Agreement related to Jeffrey Epstein, a figure associated with significant legal controversies.",
+        "summary": "The document is an affirmation by Jeffrey E. Epstein re-affirming a Non-Prosecution Agreement and its Addendum dated October 30, 2007, signed on December 1, 2010."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:13-cr-00308",
+      "document_number": "1:13-cr-00308",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Indictment",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Attempted Sex Trafficking of Minors",
+          "Interstate and Foreign Commerce",
+          "Criminal Charges against Claudius English"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Claudius English",
+            "role": "Defendant, accused of attempted sex trafficking of minors"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Minor Victim-5",
+            "role": "Alleged victim, an 8-year-old girl"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Minor Victim-6",
+            "role": "Alleged victim, another minor under 14 years old"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is a formal indictment charging Claudius English with serious crimes related to human trafficking and exploitation of minors, highlighting the severity of the alleged offenses and the involvement of interstate commerce.",
+        "summary": "The document is an indictment charging Claudius English with multiple counts of attempted sex trafficking of minors, specifically two girls under the age of 14, in violation of federal laws. The charges involve attempts to recruit and entice the minors into commercial sex acts. The indictment cites specific sections of the United States Code, establishing the legal basis for the charges."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:13-cr-00320-pgg",
+      "document_number": "1:13-cr-00320-PGG",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Indictment",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Kidnapping charges against Claudius English",
+          "Firearms offense related to kidnapping",
+          "Violations of Title 18, United States Code"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Claudius English",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Geoffrey S. Berman",
+            "role": "United States Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is a formal indictment charging Claudius English with serious federal crimes, including kidnapping and firearms offenses, which could result in significant penalties if convicted.",
+        "summary": "The indictment charges Claudius English with kidnapping a minor victim and using a firearm during the commission of the crime. The charges are based on events that occurred on or about November 16, 2013, in the Southern District of New York. The indictment was filed by United States Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:13-cr-00395-pgg document 85 filed 07/10/13 page 9 of 11",
+      "document_number": "1:13-cr-00395-PGG Document 85 Filed 07/10/13 Page 9 of 11",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing (Indictment)",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Kidnapping charges against Claudius English",
+          "Firearms offense related to kidnapping",
+          "Violations of Title 18, United States Code"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Claudius English",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Geoffrey S. Berman",
+            "role": "United States Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is a formal indictment charging Claudius English with serious federal crimes, including kidnapping and firearms offenses, which could result in significant penalties if convicted.",
+        "summary": "The indictment charges Claudius English with kidnapping a minor victim and using a firearm during the commission of the crime. The charges are based on events that occurred in November 2013 in the Southern District of New York. The indictment was filed by United States Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:13-cr-00492",
+      "document_number": "1:13-cr-00492",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing (Indictment)",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Sex Trafficking of Minors",
+          "Recruitment and Exploitation of Underage Victims",
+          "Commercial Sex Acts"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Claudius English",
+            "role": "Defendant accused of sex trafficking minor victims"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Minor Victim-1",
+            "role": "17-year-old victim of sex trafficking"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Minor Victim-3",
+            "role": "16-year-old victim of sex trafficking"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it outlines serious charges against Claudius English for sex trafficking minors, revealing a pattern of exploitation and providing evidence of the crimes alleged.",
+        "summary": "The document is an indictment charging Claudius English with sex trafficking two minor victims, aged 17 and 16, by recruiting, enticing, and harboring them for commercial sex acts in the Southern District of New York. English allegedly took photographs of the victims and posted or intended to post them on internet advertisement websites. The charges are based on violations of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1591(a)(1) and (b)(2), and 2."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:13-cr-00835",
+      "document_number": "1:13-cr-00835",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Indictment or Grand Jury Charging Document",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Attempted Sex Trafficking of a Minor",
+          "Recruitment and Enticement of Minors for Commercial Sex Acts",
+          "Violations of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1594(a), 1591(a)(1) and (b)(1), and 2"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Claudius English",
+            "role": "Defendant accused of attempted sex trafficking of minors"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Minor Victim-4",
+            "role": "Alleged victim, an eleven-year-old girl"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Minor Victim-5",
+            "role": "Alleged victim, identity not specified"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it outlines serious charges against Claudius English for attempted sex trafficking of minors, highlighting a significant criminal case involving exploitation and potential harm to children.",
+        "summary": "The document charges Claudius English with two counts of attempted sex trafficking of minors, specifically attempting to recruit and entice an eleven-year-old girl and another minor for commercial sex acts in 2013. The charges are based on violations of federal law, including Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1594(a), 1591(a)(1) and (b)(1), and 2. The alleged crimes took place in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:13-cr-00880",
+      "document_number": "1:13-cr-00880",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing (Indictment)",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Sex Trafficking of Minors",
+          "Recruitment and Enticement of Minors for Commercial Sex Acts",
+          "Violations of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1591 and 1594"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Claudius English",
+            "role": "Defendant accused of sex trafficking minors"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Minor Victim-3",
+            "role": "16-year-old victim of alleged sex trafficking"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Minor Victim-6",
+            "role": "13-year-old victim of alleged sex trafficking"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Minor Victim-7",
+            "role": "14-year-old victim of alleged sex trafficking"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is a court filing that outlines charges against Claudius English for sex trafficking multiple minors, revealing a pattern of alleged exploitation and trafficking of young girls.",
+        "summary": "The indictment charges Claudius English with multiple counts of sex trafficking minors, including recruiting and enticing girls aged 13, 14, and 16 to engage in commercial sex acts. The alleged crimes occurred in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere between 2013. English is accused of violating federal laws related to sex trafficking."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:13-cv-00830-jb-lf document 422-20",
+      "document_number": "1:13-cv-00830-JB-LF Document 422-20",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Motion to Compel Disclosure",
+          "Request to Stay Proceedings",
+          "Criminal Investigation"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Laura A. Menninger",
+            "role": "Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca",
+            "role": "Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it reveals Ghislaine Maxwell's request to the court to either compel the plaintiff to disclose information about a criminal investigation or to stay the proceedings until further order.",
+        "summary": "Ghislaine Maxwell's attorneys filed a motion requesting the court to compel the plaintiff to disclose knowledge of any criminal investigation or, alternatively, to stay the proceedings. The motion was filed on April 18, 2016. The attorneys for Maxwell are Laura A. Menninger and Jeffrey S. Pagliuca."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:14-cr-00830",
+      "document_number": "1:14-cr-00830",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "attempted sex trafficking of minors",
+          "interstate and foreign commerce involvement",
+          "charges against CLAUDIUS ENGLISH"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "CLAUDIUS ENGLISH",
+            "role": "defendant accused of attempted sex trafficking of minors"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is a crucial piece of evidence in a federal criminal case, detailing serious charges against the defendant for attempted sex trafficking of minors.",
+        "summary": "The document outlines charges against CLAUDIUS ENGLISH for attempting to recruit and entice minors into commercial sex acts. It specifies two counts (Counts Six and Seven) related to Minor Victim-5 and Minor Victim-6, both under the age of 14. The charges are based on violations of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1591 and 1594."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:15-cv-03342-akh document 285 filed 05/06/16 page 9 of 12",
+      "document_number": "1:15-cv-03342-AKH Document 285 Filed 05/06/16 Page 9 of 12",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Deposition attendance",
+          "Travel compensation",
+          "Local Civil Rule 30.1"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Laura A. Menninger",
+            "role": "Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca",
+            "role": "Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell (pro hac vice)"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant/Client"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it reveals the legal representation and strategy for Ghislaine Maxwell in a court case, and provides insight into the application of local civil rules regarding deposition attendance.",
+        "summary": "This court filing is a submission by Laura A. Menninger, attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell, regarding compensation for attending depositions outside 100 miles of the Courthouse for the Southern District of New York. The filing references Local Civil Rule 30.1 and is dated June 6, 2016. It is part of a larger court case (1:15-cv-03342-AKH)."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:15-cv-07433-rws document 39-1",
+      "document_number": "1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 39-1",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Protective Order",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Confidentiality",
+          "Protective Order terms",
+          "Handling of confidential documents"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "United States District Judge",
+            "role": "Judge presiding over the case and signing the Protective Order"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is a court-ordered Protective Order governing the handling of confidential information in a specific court case, outlining procedures for designation, disputes, and post-case handling.",
+        "summary": "This Protective Order outlines the terms for handling confidential information in a court case, including designation procedures, dispute resolution, and post-case handling. It was signed by a United States District Judge on March 17, 2016. The order allows for modification by the Court for good cause shown."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:16-cv-00839-aj-lm",
+      "document_number": "1:16-cv-00839-AJ-LM",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Certificate of Service",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Motion to Compel",
+          "Disclosure of Ongoing Criminal Investigations",
+          "Electronic Filing"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Sigrid S. McCawley",
+            "role": "Recipient of the motion via ECF"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Nicole Simmons",
+            "role": "Filer of the Certificate of Service"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document confirms the electronic service of a motion to compel or stay proceedings in a court case, potentially related to a high-profile or sensitive matter involving ongoing criminal investigations.",
+        "summary": "The Certificate of Service verifies that a motion was electronically filed and served on April 18, 2016, via ECF on Sigrid S. McCawley. The motion requested the plaintiff to disclose alleged ongoing criminal investigations or, alternatively, to stay proceedings. Nicole Simmons filed the certificate."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:17-cr-00330",
+      "document_number": "1:17-cr-00330",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court filing or legal memorandum",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Bail Reform Act",
+          "detention hearing",
+          "presumption against release for certain offenses involving minors"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it discusses the legal standards and precedents governing detention hearings, particularly in cases involving offenses against minors, and the conditions under which a detention hearing may be reopened.",
+        "summary": "The document analyzes the legal framework surrounding detention hearings under the Bail Reform Act, focusing on the presumption against releasing defendants charged with certain offenses involving minors and the conditions for rebutting this presumption and reopening a detention hearing."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:17-cr-00330-ajn",
+      "document_number": "1:17-cr-00330-AJN",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "bail motion",
+          "risk of flight",
+          "court proceedings"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Audrey Strauss",
+            "role": "Acting United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Maurene Comey",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison Moe",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Lara Pomerantz",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it reveals the government's opposition to the defendant's renewed bail motion and provides insight into the court's previous findings regarding the defendant's risk of flight.",
+        "summary": "The document is a court filing submitted by the Acting United States Attorney, Audrey Strauss, and Assistant United States Attorneys, arguing that the defendant's renewed bail motion should be denied due to the risk of flight. The court had previously found that the defendant poses a substantial actual risk of flight, and the government asserts that no conditions of bail can mitigate this risk. The motion is dated December 16, 2020."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:17-cr-00330-ajn document 1062 filed 12/28/20 page 22 of 22",
+      "document_number": "1:17-cr-00330-AJN Document 1062 Filed 12/28/20 Page 22 of 22",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's bail motion",
+          "denial of bail release",
+          "court order"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is a court order denying Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for release on bail, indicating the court's decision in her case.",
+        "summary": "The document is a court order from United States District Judge Alison J. Nathan denying Ghislaine Maxwell's renewed motion for release on bail on December 28, 2020. The court declined to hold a hearing to evaluate Maxwell's motion. The motion was docketed as Dkt. No. 97."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:17-cr-02949",
+      "document_number": "1:17-cr-02949",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Defense team's preparation challenges",
+          "Impact of COVID-19 lockdown on attorney-client meetings",
+          "Complexity and severity of the case against Mr. Robertson"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Mr. Robertson",
+            "role": "Defendant in the case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document highlights the challenges faced by the defense team in preparing for trial due to COVID-19 lockdown conditions and the complexity of the case, potentially impacting the defendant's right to effective assistance of counsel.",
+        "summary": "The document discusses the difficulties faced by Mr. Robertson's defense team in preparing for trial, including the recent change in attorneys, the complexity of the case, and the limitations imposed by COVID-19 lockdown conditions on attorney-client meetings. The defense team argues that these conditions hinder their ability to effectively review documentary evidence and prepare for trial. The case is serious, with Mr. Robertson facing decades in prison if convicted on all charges."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:18-cr-00490-rmb-dcf",
+      "document_number": "1:18-cr-00490-RMB-DCF",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court filing or legal memorandum",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Bail Reform Act",
+          "Pretrial detention",
+          "Factors considered in determining bail or detention"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [],
+        "significance": "This document outlines the legal standards and factors considered in determining whether to detain or release a defendant pending trial, highlighting the importance of assessing both risk of flight and danger to the community.",
+        "summary": "The document discusses the legal framework for pretrial detention under the Bail Reform Act, including the factors to be considered and the standards of proof required for detention based on risk of flight or danger to the community. It cites relevant case law from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals to support its analysis. The document provides insight into the complex considerations involved in making bail decisions."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:18-cr-00880",
+      "document_number": "1:18-cr-00880",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Indictment",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Sex trafficking of minors",
+          "Kidnapping of a minor",
+          "Use of interstate commerce facilities in committing crimes"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Claudius English",
+            "role": "Defendant accused of various crimes including sex trafficking and kidnapping"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Minor Victim-7",
+            "role": "Alleged victim, a 14-year-old girl who was kidnapped and trafficked"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Geoffrey S. Berman",
+            "role": "United States Attorney who presented the indictment"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This indictment is significant as it charges the defendant with serious crimes involving the exploitation and kidnapping of minors, highlighting the severity of the alleged offenses and the legal consequences.",
+        "summary": "The document is an indictment charging Claudius English with various crimes, including sex trafficking and kidnapping of minors. It details specific counts and charges under Title 18 of the United States Code. The indictment was presented by United States Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman in the Southern District of New York."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:19-cr-00490-rmb",
+      "document_number": "1:19-cr-00490-RMB",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "bail hearing",
+          "adjournment request",
+          "reply submission"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Richard M. Berman",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Geoffrey S. Berman",
+            "role": "United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alex Rossmiller",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison Moe",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Maurene Comey",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Martin Weinberg",
+            "role": "Counsel for defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Reid Weingarten",
+            "role": "Counsel for defendant"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document reveals a dispute between the prosecution and defense regarding the timing of a bail hearing and the judge's decision on the matter.",
+        "summary": "The US Attorney's office requested an adjournment of a bail hearing to allow time for the court to review their reply submission. The request was denied by Judge Richard M. Berman, who deemed it unnecessary to grant extra time."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:19-cr-00490-rmb document 38",
+      "document_number": "1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 38",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Order",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Discovery materials handling",
+          "Confidentiality and non-disclosure",
+          "Restrictions on filing and public disclosure"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Individual referenced in litigation"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "The Defendant",
+            "role": "Accused in the case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is a court order governing the handling of discovery materials in a criminal case, outlining the terms of confidentiality and non-disclosure for the defendant and their counsel.",
+        "summary": "The court order restricts the use, disclosure, and filing of discovery materials provided by the government to the defendant and their counsel, with specific guidelines for handling confidential information and prohibiting public disclosure of certain details."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:19-cr-00490-rmb document 6-1",
+      "document_number": "1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 6-1",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Plea agreement",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Terms of Jeffrey Epstein's plea agreement",
+          "Conditions for Epstein's sentencing and incarceration",
+          "Non-prosecution of Epstein's potential co-conspirators"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Sarah Kellen",
+            "role": "Potential co-conspirator"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Adriana Ross",
+            "role": "Potential co-conspirator"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Lesley Groff",
+            "role": "Potential co-conspirator"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Nadia Marcinkova",
+            "role": "Potential co-conspirator"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document reveals the terms of Jeffrey Epstein's plea agreement with the US government, including the conditions for his sentencing and the non-prosecution of his potential co-conspirators. It provides insight into the negotiations between Epstein and the government.",
+        "summary": "This document outlines the plea agreement between Jeffrey Epstein and the US government, detailing the terms of his guilty plea, sentencing, and incarceration. The agreement also includes the non-prosecution of Epstein's potential co-conspirators in exchange for his cooperation. The document was part of a court filing in a 2008 case."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:19-cv-09233-ajn document 136-3",
+      "document_number": "1:19-cv-09233-AJN Document 136-3",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Protective Order",
+          "Confidential Information",
+          "Disclosure"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "attorneys actively working on this case",
+            "role": "handling confidential information"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "parties",
+            "role": "involved in the case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Court Personnel",
+            "role": "employees of the court handling the case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is a Protective Order governing the handling of confidential information in a court case, outlining who can access such information and under what conditions.",
+        "summary": "This court filing outlines the terms of a Protective Order, specifying who can access confidential information and the procedures for disclosure. It lists various categories of individuals who may access such information, including attorneys, parties, expert witnesses, and court personnel. The order requires individuals to sign a written acknowledgment before being given access to confidential information."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cd-13003",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cd-13003",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Exhibit List",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Emails and correspondence related to Deutsche Bank Alex. Brown",
+          "Client statements and transaction records",
+          "Letters and faxes between various individuals and entities"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Carrie Yackee",
+            "role": "Sender of emails and faxes"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "R. Craig Brubaker",
+            "role": "Sender of emails"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Daniel Aronoff",
+            "role": "Sender of letters to David Parse"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "David Parse",
+            "role": "Recipient of letters from Daniel Aronoff"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it lists exhibits related to a court case, possibly involving financial transactions or communications between individuals and entities associated with Deutsche Bank Alex. Brown.",
+        "summary": "This document appears to be a list of exhibits filed in a court case, including emails, letters, faxes, and client statements related to Deutsche Bank Alex. Brown and various individuals. The exhibits are labeled with a unique identifier and page number. The document provides a catalog of evidence submitted in the case."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cr-00038",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cr-00038",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell court appearance",
+          "arraignment",
+          "legal proceedings"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "defendant in a criminal case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it relates to the court proceedings of Ghislaine Maxwell, a high-profile defendant, and may contain relevant information about the case.",
+        "summary": "The document appears to be a court filing related to Ghislaine Maxwell's first in-person NYC court appearance. It includes a news article from the New York Daily News dated April 23, 2021, discussing her arraignment. The case is identified as 1:20-cr-00038."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cr-00203-rjws-d",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cr-00203-RJWS-D",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Protective Order",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Confidentiality and handling of protected material",
+          "Limitations on the use and disclosure of confidential information",
+          "Modification of the Protective Order"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [],
+        "significance": "This document is a Protective Order governing the handling of confidential information in a court case, outlining the rules for designation, use, and disclosure of protected material.",
+        "summary": "This Protective Order allows for retroactive designation of confidential material and outlines exceptions for its use and disclosure. It also states that it may be modified by the Court and has no effect on the use of confidential information at trial."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cr-00203-rjws-document-134-25",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cr-00203-RJWS-Document-134-25",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Protective Order",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Handling of Confidential Material",
+          "Disclosure and Use Restrictions",
+          "Modification of Protective Order"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [],
+        "significance": "This document outlines the terms and conditions for handling confidential information in a court case, establishing the rules for disclosure, use, and protection of sensitive material.",
+        "summary": "This is a Protective Order filed in a court case, governing the handling of confidential material. It allows for retroactive designation of protected material and outlines exceptions for disclosure and use. The order may be modified by the court with notice to all parties."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cr-00303-pae document 611 filed 02/24/22",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cr-00303-PAE Document 611 Filed 02/24/22",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Juror investigation",
+          "Waiver issue",
+          "Disclosure of information"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ms. Edelstein",
+            "role": "witness"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "THE COURT",
+            "role": "presiding judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "MR. SCHECTMAN",
+            "role": "attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "MR. OKULA",
+            "role": "attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "MS. DAVIS",
+            "role": "attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ms. Brune",
+            "role": "previous witness"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it reveals the court's inquiry into the disclosure of information regarding a juror investigation and the potential waiver issue.",
+        "summary": "The transcript shows the redirect examination of witness Ms. Edelstein, with the court asking questions about the disclosure of information regarding Juror No. 1 and whether the law firm would have disclosed it without the court's inquiry or the government's action. The witness responds that they thought it would come out at some point during the proceedings."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cr-00330",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cr-00330",
+      "page_count": 6,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court filing/news article",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell trial",
+          "jury deliberations",
+          "sexual abuse allegations"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "defendant in sex abuse trial"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Scotty David",
+            "role": "juror in Ghislaine Maxwell trial"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "late financier associated with Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison Nathan",
+            "role": "U.S. District Judge presiding over Ghislaine Maxwell trial"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document provides insight into the jury deliberations in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial and raises questions about a juror's potential nondisclosure of personal experience with sexual abuse during jury selection.",
+        "summary": "A juror in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial revealed that some jurors initially doubted the accounts of two accusers, but were swayed after one juror shared their personal experience of being sexually abused as a child. The U.S. Attorney's office has asked the judge to investigate the juror's statements. Maxwell was convicted of recruiting and grooming teenage girls for sexual encounters with Epstein."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cr-00330-ajn",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
+      "page_count": 6,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Bail application for the defendant, Ghislaine Maxwell",
+          "Risk of flight and proposed bail package",
+          "Relevance of Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Co-conspirator"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "United States Attorney",
+            "role": "Prosecutor"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is a crucial court filing in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, detailing the prosecution's arguments against her bail application and the defense's proposed bail package. It reveals the prosecution's concerns about Maxwell's risk of flight and her financial resources.",
+        "summary": "The document is a court filing in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, discussing her bail application and the prosecution's objections to it. The prosecution argues that Maxwell is a flight risk due to her financial resources, ability to live in hiding, and lack of transparency about her finances. The defense proposes a bail package with certain conditions to mitigate these concerns."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cr-00330-ajn document 636 filed 01/13/21",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 636 Filed 01/13/21",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "COVID-19 testing in prisons",
+          "Inmate test statistics",
+          "BOP COVID-19 data"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [],
+        "significance": "This document provides statistical information about COVID-19 testing among inmates, which could be relevant to a case involving prison conditions or inmate health.",
+        "summary": "The document appears to be a page from a court filing in a criminal case, providing statistics on COVID-19 testing among inmates, including the number of completed tests, pending tests, and positive tests. The data is related to the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and is likely relevant to the case."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cr-00330-ajn document 641-1 filed 01/13/21 page 1 of 4",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 641-1 Filed 01/13/21 Page 1 of 4",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court filing exhibit",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "COVID-19 response",
+          "Bureau of Prisons operations",
+          "pandemic management"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Assistant Secretary for Health",
+            "role": "directed BOP's Public Health Service staff to respond to COVID-19 incidents"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document provides insight into the Bureau of Prisons' response to the COVID-19 pandemic, potentially relevant to a court case involving a defendant in federal custody.",
+        "summary": "The document is a printout from the Bureau of Prisons website detailing their COVID-19 response efforts, including their modified operations plan and collaboration with other agencies. It highlights the BOP's measures to ensure safety during the pandemic. The document was filed as an exhibit in a court case."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cr-00330-pae",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "page_count": 4,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court filings and transcripts",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "USA v. Maxwell trial",
+          "Jury selection process",
+          "Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) analysis"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Pete Brush",
+            "role": "Reporter for Law360"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Judge Nathan",
+            "role": "Judge in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ms. Brune",
+            "role": "Witness in the USA v. Maxwell trial"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Villafaña",
+            "role": "Prosecutor in the USA v. Maxwell case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Epstein",
+            "role": "Defendant in related case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document provides insight into the USA v. Maxwell trial, specifically regarding jury selection and the Crime Victims' Rights Act. It reveals the involvement of various reporters and media organizations in opposing secret jury selection.",
+        "summary": "The document contains a collection of court filings and transcripts related to the USA v. Maxwell trial. It includes an email from reporters opposing secret jury selection and excerpts from a witness testimony discussing the jury selection process. Additionally, it contains a timeline of key events for a Crime Victims' Rights Act analysis."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cr-00330-pae document 135 filed 05/04/21",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 135 Filed 05/04/21",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "email",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "External hard drive acceptance",
+          "MDC Brooklyn protocol",
+          "US v Maxwell case"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Sophia Papapetru",
+            "role": "Staff Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Christian Everdell",
+            "role": "Defense counsel"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Nathan NYSD Chambers",
+            "role": "Judge/Recipient"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This email clarifies the protocol for accepting an external hard drive from defense counsel in the US v Maxwell case and indicates the MDC Brooklyn's position on the matter.",
+        "summary": "Sophia Papapetru, Staff Attorney at the Federal Bureau of Prisons, emails Judge Nathan NYSD Chambers regarding the acceptance of an external hard drive from defense counsel in the US v Maxwell case. The MDC Brooklyn initially had restrictions on accepting external hard drives but has agreed to accept it from defense counsel without needing a court order. The MDC will coordinate with defense counsel for the delivery."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cr-00330-pae document 161 filed 02/24/22 page 63 of 117",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 161 Filed 02/24/22 Page 63 of 117",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "alleged lack of candor by lawyers Brune & Richard",
+          "strategic decision-making and its implications",
+          "circumstantial evidence and its interpretation"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "MR. SHECHTMAN",
+            "role": "lawyer arguing before the court"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "THE COURT",
+            "role": "presiding judge in the case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it reveals the court's consideration of the lawyers' conduct and its implications for the case, potentially impacting the trial's outcome.",
+        "summary": "The transcript captures a discussion between the court and lawyer MR. SHECHTMAN regarding the alleged lack of candor by lawyers Brune & Richard and whether their actions were circumstantial evidence of a strategic decision to game the system."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cr-00330-pae document 161 filed 02/24/22 page 68 of 130",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 161 Filed 02/24/22 Page 68 of 130",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "deposition transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "conference call with the Court",
+          "emails",
+          "statements to the Court"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ms. Brune",
+            "role": "witness being questioned"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ms. Trzaskoma",
+            "role": "person who informed Ms. Brune about the conference call and whose statements to the Court are being discussed"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Judge Pauley",
+            "role": "presiding judge who directed actions during the conference call"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it reveals the testimony of Ms. Brune regarding her knowledge of emails and Ms. Trzaskoma's statements to the Court during a conference call, which may be relevant to the case.",
+        "summary": "Ms. Brune testifies that she saw certain emails before filing a July 21st letter and had knowledge of the July 15th conference call transcript. She disagrees that Ms. Trzaskoma's statements to the Court were incorrect."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cr-00330-pae document 1616220 filed 02/24/22 page 56 of 130",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 1616220 Filed 02/24/22 Page 56 of 130",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "deposition transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Witness testimony",
+          "Investigation procedures",
+          "Communication with the court"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ms. Brune",
+            "role": "witness being questioned"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it reveals the testimony of Ms. Brune regarding her actions and decisions during an investigation, and may be relevant to understanding the case.",
+        "summary": "The document is a transcript of a deposition where Ms. Brune is being questioned about her knowledge and actions regarding a significant piece of information. She testifies that she did not initially consider it significant and did not immediately contact the court, but had the resources and team to investigate further if she had deemed it necessary."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cr-00330-pae document 208-1",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 208-1",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Motion to join additional petitioners under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21",
+          "Motion to amend petition under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15",
+          "Government opposition to both motions"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Jane Doe 1",
+            "role": "Petitioner"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jane Doe 2",
+            "role": "Petitioner"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jane Doe 3",
+            "role": "Proposed additional petitioner"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jane Doe 4",
+            "role": "Proposed additional petitioner"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it reveals the court's decision regarding the addition of new petitioners to an ongoing CVRA (Crime Victims' Rights Act) action and provides insight into the court's interpretation of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15 and 21.",
+        "summary": "The document discusses a court case where two additional victims, Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4, sought to join the action as petitioners under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21, and later, the original petitioners moved to amend their petition under Rule 15 to include them. The Government opposed both motions, and the court ultimately denied the motion to amend."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cr-00330-pae document 61102",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 61102",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "deposition transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "omissions as lies",
+          "phone call with the Court on July 15",
+          "Theresa Trzaskoma's participation and preparation for the call"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Theresa Trzaskoma",
+            "role": "participant in the phone call with the Court"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Susan Brune",
+            "role": "potential person who may have discussed the phone call with Theresa Trzaskoma"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it reveals a witness's testimony about their firm's actions and omissions, particularly regarding a phone call with the Court, and raises questions about the firm's transparency and honesty.",
+        "summary": "The witness agrees that omissions can be considered lies and testifies about Theresa Trzaskoma's participation in a phone call with the Court. The witness did not discuss the call with Trzaskoma beforehand and is unsure if anyone else did. The testimony highlights potential issues with the firm's communication and candor."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cr-00330-pae document 61102/20",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 61102/20",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Deposition Transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Discussion about the content of a legal brief",
+          "Investigation into certain facts related to a case",
+          "Knowledge of specific information prior to a certain date"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Theresa Trzaskoma",
+            "role": "Individual whose knowledge of certain facts is being discussed"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Catherine Conrad",
+            "role": "Suspended lawyer mentioned in the context of the case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ms. Brune",
+            "role": "Colleague who discussed the content of the brief with the witness"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This deposition transcript reveals the thought process and discussions behind the drafting of a legal brief, potentially shedding light on the intentions and knowledge of the individuals involved in the case.",
+        "summary": "The witness is being questioned about their knowledge of certain facts and the drafting of a legal brief. They discuss their understanding of events and the reasoning behind the wording used in the brief. The testimony highlights potential discrepancies in interpretation and the context in which the brief was written."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cr-00330-pae document 636 filed 05/04/21",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 636 Filed 05/04/21",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "email",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "court filing",
+          "memorandum endorsement",
+          "Judge Alison J. Nathan"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Judge Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "US District Judge who signed the memorandum endorsement"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This email indicates that a significant court document (memorandum endorsement) has been filed in a high-profile case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), and its contents are now part of the public record.",
+        "summary": "An email from Judge Alison J. Nathan's chambers notifies counsel that a memorandum endorsement has been filed on the public docket in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The email includes a link and cautions against external emails. The attached memorandum endorsement is not included in the provided snippet."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cr-00336",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cr-00336",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "defendant's risk of flight",
+          "defendant's arrest and conduct",
+          "security measures at defendant's property"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "the defendant",
+            "role": "the individual being prosecuted"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "the defendant's brother",
+            "role": "hired security company to guard the defendant"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it provides evidence to support the argument that the defendant is a flight risk and should not be granted bail. It reveals details about the defendant's lifestyle, conduct at the time of arrest, and security measures taken to potentially evade law enforcement.",
+        "summary": "The document argues that the defendant is a flight risk due to her ability to maintain a privileged lifestyle without apparent employment and her conduct during arrest, including attempting to flee and using a private security guard. The FBI discovered a cell phone wrapped in tin foil and learned that the defendant's brother hired former British military members to guard her. The defendant was found to have been staying at a remote New Hampshire property with significant security measures in place."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cr-00336-ajn",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cr-00336-AJN",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Indictment charges and their relation to a prior investigation",
+          "Statute of limitations for the charges brought",
+          "Risk of flight assessment for the defendant"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "The defendant",
+            "role": "The individual being charged and prosecuted"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it reveals the government's argument against the defendant's claims regarding the indictment's validity and timeliness, and assesses the defendant's risk of flight.",
+        "summary": "The government argues that the indictment is valid and timely, contrary to the defendant's claims, citing 18 U.S.C. § 3283 for the statute of limitations. The government also asserts that the defendant poses a significant risk of flight due to her international ties, financial resources, and lack of ties to the United States."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cr-00336-ljl",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cr-00336-LJL",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "bail opposition for the defendant",
+          "strength of the Government's case against the defendant",
+          "victim testimony and evidence"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "the defendant",
+            "role": "accused individual"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Maxwell",
+            "role": "the defendant, Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it reveals the Government's strong opposition to the defendant's bail and highlights the strength of their case, including victim testimony and corroborating evidence.",
+        "summary": "The Government opposes bail for the defendant, citing concerns that victims will be denied justice. The Government's case is strong, with multiple victims providing credible evidence and corroborating testimony supported by documentary evidence. The defendant's motion for bail is expected to be opposed by victims at the July 14, 2020 hearing."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cr-00336-pae",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cr-00336-PAE",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Witness testimony",
+          "Direct examination",
+          "Legal proceedings"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Susan Elizabeth Brune",
+            "role": "Witness"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "MS. Davis",
+            "role": "Prosecutor/Examiner"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Caroline Rule, ESQ.",
+            "role": "Attorney for Defendant Field"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Christine Mazzella",
+            "role": "Special Agent - IRS"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is a transcript of a court hearing, potentially related to a significant criminal case (1:20-cr-00336-PAE), and contains testimony from a witness, Susan Elizabeth Brune, who is being questioned by the prosecution.",
+        "summary": "The document is a court transcript containing the testimony of Susan Elizabeth Brune, a witness called by the Government, who is being questioned by MS. Davis during a hearing. Brune's background as a lawyer and former Assistant United States Attorney is discussed. The case involves multiple defendants and attorneys."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cr-00338",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cr-00338",
+      "page_count": 4,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court filings and deposition transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's criminal case",
+          "Witness testimony and evidence discussion",
+          "Jury selection and legal strategy"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant in a criminal case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "David Boies",
+            "role": "Victims' attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Theresa Trzaskoma",
+            "role": "Partner in charge of jury selection detail work"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ms. Brune",
+            "role": "Witness being deposed"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document appears to be a collection of court filings and a deposition transcript related to Ghislaine Maxwell's criminal case, potentially revealing details about the case's proceedings, witness testimonies, and legal strategies.",
+        "summary": "The document contains excerpts from court filings and a deposition transcript in Ghislaine Maxwell's criminal case, discussing topics such as the media's portrayal of Maxwell, witness testimony, and jury selection. The deposition focuses on Ms. Brune's testimony about her involvement in the case and interactions with other lawyers."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cr-00338-pae",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cr-00338-PAE",
+      "page_count": 4,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Closure of courtroom during witness testimony",
+          "Witness Catherine Conrad's medical condition and disciplinary proceedings",
+          "Assertion of Fifth Amendment rights by witness Catherine Conrad"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Catherine Conrad",
+            "role": "Witness"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ms. Sternheim",
+            "role": "Counsel for Catherine Conrad"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "The Court (Judge)",
+            "role": "Presiding judge over the case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Mr. Gair",
+            "role": "Counsel for one of the defendants"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Mr. Okula",
+            "role": "Counsel for one of the defendants"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document reveals a dispute over whether to close the courtroom during the testimony of witness Catherine Conrad, who is asserting her Fifth Amendment rights. The court ultimately denies the request to close the courtroom.",
+        "summary": "The transcript shows a discussion between the court and counsel regarding Catherine Conrad's request to close the courtroom during her testimony due to concerns about her medical condition and disciplinary proceedings. The court denies the request, citing prior public disclosures and the defendants' right to a public proceeding."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cr-00338-pae document 161 filed 02/24/22",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cr-00338-PAE Document 161 Filed 02/24/22",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Exhibit list",
+          "Government exhibits",
+          "Defendant exhibits"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [],
+        "significance": "This document appears to be a list of exhibits in a court case, potentially related to a criminal trial, and may be used to track evidence presented.",
+        "summary": "The document is a court filing listing government and defendant exhibits, with receipt numbers, in the case 1:20-cr-00338-PAE. It includes a list of exhibit numbers and corresponding receipt numbers for both government and defendant exhibits. The document was filed in the Southern District of New York."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cr-00338-pae document 161 filed 02/24/22 page 70 of 117",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cr-00338-PAE Document 161 Filed 02/24/22 Page 70 of 117",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "ineffective assistance of counsel",
+          "waiver of claims",
+          "legal precedents in different circuits"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Judge Van Graafeiland",
+            "role": "dissenting judge in Flores case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document provides insight into legal arguments regarding ineffective assistance of counsel and waiver, referencing specific cases and circuit court decisions.",
+        "summary": "The document appears to be a transcript of a court proceeding or deposition discussing legal concepts such as ineffective assistance of counsel and waiver, with references to specific cases like Chappee and Flores."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cr-00338-pae document 161 filed 02/24/22 page 93 of 130",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cr-00338-PAE Document 161 Filed 02/24/22 Page 93 of 130",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Witness testimony",
+          "Government's knowledge and actions",
+          "Brady violation"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ms. Brune",
+            "role": "Witness"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "MR. OKULA",
+            "role": "Prosecutor"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "THE COURT",
+            "role": "Judge"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document reveals the government's response to a potentially exculpatory note and clarifies their actions and knowledge regarding the information contained in the note.",
+        "summary": "The document is a court transcript of a redirect examination of witness Ms. Brune. Prosecutor MR. OKULA clarifies that the government did not conduct an independent investigation after receiving a note, as they deemed it innocuous, and corrects Ms. Brune's speculation about the government's knowledge and actions."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cr-00338-pae document 1616-2 filed 02/24/22 page 78 of 117",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cr-00338-PAE Document 1616-2 Filed 02/24/22 Page 78 of 117",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court filing or transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "tax returns",
+          "backdating transactions",
+          "mens rea"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "defendant (unnamed)",
+            "role": "defendant in a tax-related criminal case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it appears to be a transcript of a court hearing or filing related to a tax-related criminal case, and it reveals the defense's argument regarding the defendant's intent (mens rea).",
+        "summary": "The document contains a statement made by the defense, arguing that the defendant's actions were mistakes made in the chaos of a law firm, and that the government has not provided sufficient evidence to prove the defendant's intent (mens rea). The defense challenges the 'must have known' argument made by the government, citing the defendant's limited accounting experience."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cr-00338-pae document 1616-20 filed 02/24/22 page 623 of 130",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cr-00338-PAE Document 1616-20 Filed 02/24/22 Page 623 of 130",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "deposition transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "conversation with defense counsel",
+          "joint defense communications",
+          "receipt of a jury note and letter"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ms. Brune",
+            "role": "witness"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ms. Conrad",
+            "role": "author of a letter"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Mr. Okula",
+            "role": "recipient of Ms. Conrad's letter"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ms. Edelstein",
+            "role": "co-counsel or associate of Ms. Brune"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Mr. Daugerdas",
+            "role": "defendant represented by Mr. Gair"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it reveals the testimony of Ms. Brune regarding her interactions with defense counsel and the handling of a jury note, which may be relevant to the case.",
+        "summary": "The document is a transcript of the direct examination of Ms. Brune, where she discusses her conversations with defense counsel and the receipt of a jury note. She testifies that she had conversations with co-counsel after receiving a copy of a letter and that the communications were joint defense communications. The witness also mentions being upset upon reading the jury note and verifying information on the Bar website."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cr-00338-pae document 1616-20 filed 02/24/22 page 91 of 130",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cr-00338-PAE Document 1616-20 Filed 02/24/22 Page 91 of 130",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Disclosure of information to the court",
+          "Google search on a juror",
+          "Government's knowledge and argumentation"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Brune",
+            "role": "witness"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "THE COURT",
+            "role": "presiding judge"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document reveals a witness's testimony regarding their knowledge and disclosure of information about a juror, and the government's actions in relation to that information.",
+        "summary": "The witness, Brune, testifies about their understanding of disclosure requirements and their assumption that the government had also conducted a Google search on a juror. The court questions Brune about why they didn't disclose certain information earlier."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cr-00338-pae document 1616220 filed 02/24/22 page 58 of 130",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cr-00338-PAE Document 1616220 Filed 02/24/22 Page 58 of 130",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "deposition transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Timeline of events related to a court case",
+          "Discussion about a person's education and background",
+          "Details about a Westlaw report and its significance"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ms. Trzaskoma",
+            "role": "Handled a telephone conference with the Court"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ms. Edelstein",
+            "role": "A thorough person who wants to see documents and cases"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This deposition transcript reveals details about a court case, including the timeline of events and the roles of key individuals involved.",
+        "summary": "The witness clarifies the timeline of events related to a court case, initially making an error but later correcting it to July 18th. The discussion involves the witness's knowledge of a Westlaw report and the characteristics of Ms. Edelstein. The transcript appears to be part of a larger legal proceeding."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cr-00338-pae document 1616220 filed 02/24/22 page 613 of 130",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cr-00338-PAE Document 1616220 Filed 02/24/22 Page 613 of 130",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "deposition transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "witness testimony",
+          "jury deliberations",
+          "attorney suspension"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ms. Brune",
+            "role": "witness"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ms. Trzaskoma",
+            "role": "person discussed in testimony"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Barry Berke",
+            "role": "attorney mentioned in conversation"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Paul Schoeman",
+            "role": "attorney mentioned in conversation"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it contains testimony from a key witness, Ms. Brune, regarding her knowledge of a potentially suspended attorney and the actions taken by her team during jury deliberations.",
+        "summary": "The document is a transcript of the direct examination of Ms. Brune, where she is questioned about her knowledge of Ms. Trzaskoma's potential attorney suspension and the actions taken by her team during the eight-day jury deliberation period."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cr-00338-pae document 1616220 filed 02/24/22 page 85 of 130",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cr-00338-PAE Document 1616220 Filed 02/24/22 Page 85 of 130",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Witness testimony",
+          "Jury list",
+          "Westlaw report"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Catherine M. Conrad",
+            "role": "Juror"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Brune",
+            "role": "Witness"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it reveals details about a juror and her background, which may be relevant to the case.",
+        "summary": "The document is a transcript of a court proceeding where a witness, Brune, is being questioned about a Westlaw report concerning a juror, Catherine M. Conrad. The witness confirms that the report matches the juror's information provided to the firm before voir dire."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cr-00338-pae document 1616620 filed 02/24/22 page 63 of 117",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cr-00338-PAE Document 1616620 Filed 02/24/22 Page 63 of 117",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "strategic judgment in legal representation",
+          "performance deficiency in a court case",
+          "interpretation of legal decisions"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Justice Stevens",
+            "role": "Supreme Court Justice whose dissent is referenced"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it discusses the legal concept of 'strategic judgment' and its implications in a court case, providing insight into the thought process behind legal decisions.",
+        "summary": "The document appears to be a transcript of a legal discussion or argument, focusing on whether the actions of the Brune law firm on May 12, 2011, constituted a 'strategic judgment'. The speaker analyzes the concept of strategic judgment, referencing the Second Circuit and Justice Stevens' dissent, to determine if the firm's actions were a deliberate choice or oversight."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cr-00338-pae document 1616620 filed 02/24/22 page 68 of 117",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cr-00338-PAE Document 1616620 Filed 02/24/22 Page 68 of 117",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "ineffective assistance of counsel",
+          "attorney conduct",
+          "trial strategy"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "The Brune firm lawyers",
+            "role": "defense attorneys whose conduct is being scrutinized"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document potentially reveals a critical examination of the defense attorneys' conduct and their decision-making process during the trial, which may have implications for the case's outcome and potential appeals.",
+        "summary": "The document appears to be a transcript of a court hearing where an attorney is discussing the conduct of the Brune firm lawyers, arguing that their failure to inform the court about certain information was a result of ineffectiveness rather than a deliberate strategy. The attorney is addressing the court's potential disappointment and the consequences of the lawyers' actions."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cr-00338-pae document 16166320 filed 02/24/22 page 63 of 117",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cr-00338-PAE Document 16166320 Filed 02/24/22 Page 63 of 117",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "juror selection and potential bias",
+          "defense strategy in a criminal trial",
+          "attorney decision-making and ethics"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Justice Stevens",
+            "role": "Supreme Court Justice referenced in the discussion"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Theresa",
+            "role": "Attorney involved in the juror selection process"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document provides insight into the defense strategy and attorney decision-making in a high-stakes criminal trial, potentially impacting the case's outcome.",
+        "summary": "The document appears to be a transcript of a court hearing or argument where an attorney is discussing the strategic decisions made during juror selection, specifically regarding a juror with a 'checkered history'. The attorney argues that their decision was not a 'sandbagging' tactic, but rather a genuine change of heart after re-evaluating the juror's note."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cr-00338-pae document 616-301 filed 02/24/22 page 93 of 117",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cr-00338-PAE Document 616-301 Filed 02/24/22 Page 93 of 117",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "deposition",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "witness testimony",
+          "employment history",
+          "legal career"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Barry H. Berke",
+            "role": "witness and partner at Kramer, Levin, Naftalis & Frankel"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "David Parse",
+            "role": "defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Mr. Shechtman",
+            "role": "attorney conducting direct examination"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it contains the testimony of Barry H. Berke, a lawyer involved in the trial of David Parse, and provides insight into Berke's background and experience.",
+        "summary": "The document is a transcript of the direct examination of Barry H. Berke, a partner at Kramer, Levin, Naftalis & Frankel, who testified as a witness for defendant Parse. Berke provided details about his employment history and legal career. The testimony was given in a courtroom in the Southern District of New York."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cr-00380",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cr-00380",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Index of Exhibits",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "David Parse sentencing",
+          "Restitution calculation",
+          "Legal proceedings against David Parse"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "David Parse",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Paul Shechtman",
+            "role": "Defendant's lawyer"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Judge Pauley",
+            "role": "Presiding judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Stephen Gillers",
+            "role": "Expert witness or relevant individual"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it provides an index of exhibits related to the sentencing of David Parse, which may be relevant to understanding the case and its proceedings.",
+        "summary": "This document is an index of exhibits filed in the case against David Parse, including affidavits, transcripts, letters, and sentencing memoranda. The exhibits span from 2012 to 2013 and cover various aspects of the case, including sentencing and restitution. The document provides a roadmap to the key filings in the case."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cr-00382-ajn document 16 filed 07/06/20 page 119 of 133",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cr-00382-AJN Document 16 Filed 07/06/20 Page 119 of 133",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Indictment",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Perjury charges against Ghislaine Maxwell",
+          "False testimony in a deposition",
+          "Interactions with minors at Jeffrey Epstein's properties"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Associate of Ghislaine Maxwell, owner of properties in question"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it provides evidence of perjury charges against Ghislaine Maxwell, specifically related to her testimony about interactions with minors and knowledge of sex toys/devices at Jeffrey Epstein's properties.",
+        "summary": "The document is an indictment charging Ghislaine Maxwell with perjury for making false statements in a deposition, specifically regarding her interactions with minors at Jeffrey Epstein's properties and her knowledge of sex toys/devices used in sexual activities."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cr-00388",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cr-00388",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell arraignment",
+          "Sex trafficking charges",
+          "Jeffrey Epstein association"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant in sex trafficking case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Isabel Maxwell",
+            "role": "Ghislaine Maxwell's sister"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Danielle Bensky",
+            "role": "Jeffrey Epstein victim"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Associated with Ghislaine Maxwell in sex trafficking allegations"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it relates to the ongoing prosecution of Ghislaine Maxwell on sex trafficking charges and provides insight into the case proceedings.",
+        "summary": "Ghislaine Maxwell pleaded not guilty to a new charge of sex trafficking a minor. The case involves multiple fronts of contention between Maxwell and prosecutors. Maxwell's sister and a Jeffrey Epstein victim were present in the courtroom during a brief hearing."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cr-00800",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cr-00800",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "news article reference with handwritten notes",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell trial",
+          "juror's statement",
+          "conviction"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "defendant in the trial"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Scotty (juror's name not specified)",
+            "role": "juror in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document references a news article about a juror's statement on the Ghislaine Maxwell trial, potentially providing insight into the jury's deliberation process and confidence in their verdict.",
+        "summary": "A juror in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial expressed satisfaction with the conviction, stating that the evidence presented convinced the panel of Maxwell's guilt. The juror believes Maxwell will likely spend the rest of her life in prison. The document is a reference to a Daily Mail Online news article."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cr-00840",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cr-00840",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "News article printout",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell trial",
+          "Juror's perspective on the trial",
+          "Impact of evidence on the jury's decision"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant in the trial"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Scotty (Juror)",
+            "role": "Juror in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document provides insight into the thought process of a juror in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial, potentially shedding light on the jury's deliberation process and the impact of the evidence presented.",
+        "summary": "A juror from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial shared their perspective on the case, stating that the evidence presented convinced them of Maxwell's guilt. The juror, identified as Scotty, initially approached the trial with a skeptical view of the victims but was persuaded by the evidence. The article discusses the juror's experience and insights into the trial."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cr-00860",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cr-00860",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "news article",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislane Maxwell trial",
+          "Juror misconduct allegations",
+          "Potential grounds for mistrial"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "David",
+            "role": "Juror in Ghislane Maxwell trial"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislane Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant in sex trafficking trial"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it reveals a juror's statements that could be used to challenge the validity of Ghislane Maxwell's conviction, potentially leading to a mistrial or appeal.",
+        "summary": "A juror in the Ghislane Maxwell trial spoke out after the guilty verdict, revealing his initial skepticism of the victims and his change of heart after hearing the evidence. The juror's statements have raised questions about potential juror misconduct and grounds for a mistrial. Maxwell was convicted of sex trafficking charges related to Jeffrey Epstein's crimes."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cr-10033-pae document 61-3",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cr-10033-PAE Document 61-3",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing Exhibit",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Criminal Case Proceedings",
+          "Evidence Submission",
+          "DOJ Investigation"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [],
+        "significance": "This document appears to be an exhibit in a criminal case, potentially containing evidence or supporting documentation relevant to the case proceedings.",
+        "summary": "The document is labeled as 'EXHIBIT A' and contains a reference number 'DOJ-OGR-00009456', indicating it is part of a larger collection of evidence or documents submitted in a court filing related to criminal case proceedings."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cv-00203-rws-d document 134-25",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cv-00203-RWS-D Document 134-25",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Protective Order",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Confidentiality of discovery materials",
+          "Procedures for handling confidential documents",
+          "Obligations of parties regarding confidential information"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [],
+        "significance": "This document outlines the procedures and obligations for handling confidential discovery materials in a court case, establishing the rules for designation, use, and protection of sensitive information.",
+        "summary": "This document is a protective order governing the handling of confidential discovery materials in a court case. It outlines the procedures for designating and protecting confidential information, the obligations of parties regarding such information, and the consequences of inadvertently producing confidential materials without proper designation. The order also specifies the requirements for returning or destroying confidential documents at the conclusion of the case."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cv-00203-rws-darws document 136-75 filed 09/04/20",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cv-00203-RWS-DARWs Document 136-75 Filed 09/04/20",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Protective Order",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Confidentiality and protection of discovery materials",
+          "Procedures for handling and storing confidential documents",
+          "Designation and disclosure of confidential information"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [],
+        "significance": "This document outlines the procedures for handling confidential information in a court case, establishing the responsibilities of parties involved in producing and receiving sensitive information.",
+        "summary": "This document is a protective order governing the handling of confidential discovery materials in a court case. It outlines procedures for designating and protecting confidential information, handling disputes, and storing or destroying confidential documents at the conclusion of the case. The order also applies to non-parties who produce discovery materials."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cv-00233",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cv-00233",
+      "page_count": 6,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Deposition transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "G Maxwell's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein",
+          "G Maxwell's involvement in hiring staff for Jeffrey Epstein's homes",
+          "Allegations of G Maxwell approaching females to bring to Jeffrey Epstein"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "G Maxwell",
+            "role": "Deponent"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "G Maxwell's associate"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "MR. PAGLIUCA",
+            "role": "G Maxwell's attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This deposition transcript provides insight into G Maxwell's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and her potential involvement in his alleged misconduct. It may be significant in understanding the scope of Maxwell's involvement and her potential liability.",
+        "summary": "The deposition transcript reveals G Maxwell's testimony about her relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, her role in hiring staff for his homes, and allegations of her approaching females to bring to Epstein. G Maxwell denies some allegations and provides explanations for her actions, while her attorney objects to certain questions."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cv-00233-jp",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cv-00233-JP",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Deposition Transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Payment amount",
+          "G Maxwell's financial transactions",
+          "Motivation for actions"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "G Maxwell",
+            "role": "Deponent"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it reveals G Maxwell's testimony about receiving payments and their amount, which could be relevant to the case's financial transactions and motivations.",
+        "summary": "The deposition transcript shows G Maxwell being questioned about payments received in 2009, with G Maxwell confirming they were paid under $500,000 and stating they performed the actions out of 'thoughtfulness and consideration' for someone in trouble."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cv-00233-jpae document 1207-10 filed 10/12/21 page 383 of 435",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cv-00233-JPAE Document 1207-10 Filed 10/12/21 Page 383 of 435",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Deposition Transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Girls under 18 brought to Jeffrey Epstein's home",
+          "Purpose of employment at Epstein's home",
+          "Virginia Roberts' age during employment"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "G Maxwell",
+            "role": "Deponent"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Individual whose home was visited by the deponent"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Virginia Roberts",
+            "role": "Individual mentioned as being under 18 and brought to Epstein's home"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This deposition transcript is potentially important as it relates to the case involving G Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein, and may reveal information about the ages and roles of individuals brought to Epstein's home.",
+        "summary": "The deponent, G Maxwell, is questioned about bringing girls under 18 to Jeffrey Epstein's home for employment purposes. Maxwell claims to have looked for adults for professional jobs, while acknowledging that Virginia Roberts was 17 at the time."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cv-00233-jpae document 1207-10 filed 10/26/21 page 7 of 8",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cv-00233-JPAE Document 1207-10 Filed 10/26/21 Page 7 of 8",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "deposition transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Jeffrey Epstein's alleged abuse of minors",
+          "Witness testimony",
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's knowledge or beliefs"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "deponent/witness"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "alleged abuser"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Virginia",
+            "role": "alleged victim, likely Virginia Giuffre"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This deposition transcript reveals Ghislaine Maxwell's stated beliefs about Jeffrey Epstein's alleged abuse of minors and her knowledge of related investigations.",
+        "summary": "Ghislaine Maxwell is questioned about her beliefs regarding Jeffrey Epstein's alleged abuse of minors. She states she can only speak to what she has read and what she knows personally, claiming that everything Virginia Giuffre said was a lie. Maxwell avoids directly answering whether she believes Epstein abused minors."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cv-00233-pae document 1207-10",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cv-00233-PAE Document 1207-10",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Deposition transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Jeffrey Epstein's alleged sexual misconduct",
+          "G Maxwell's involvement with Jeffrey Epstein",
+          "Recruitment of underage girls"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "G Maxwell",
+            "role": "Deponent, associate of Jeffrey Epstein"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Subject of allegations, employer of G Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "MR. PAGLIUCA",
+            "role": "Counsel for G Maxwell"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This deposition transcript provides insight into G Maxwell's knowledge and involvement with Jeffrey Epstein's alleged misconduct, potentially relevant to ongoing litigation.",
+        "summary": "The transcript captures G Maxwell's testimony, where she is questioned about her knowledge of Jeffrey Epstein's alleged scheme to recruit underage girls and her involvement in bringing girls to his house. G Maxwell denies knowledge of Epstein's activities and claims not to have recruited girls under 18. The testimony is marked by repeated objections from her counsel, MR. PAGLIUCA."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cv-00243-rbwsdocument 136-75",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cv-00243-RBWSDocument 136-75",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Confidentiality Order",
+          "Protected Material",
+          "Discovery Material Designation"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [],
+        "significance": "This document outlines the procedures for handling confidential information in a court case, establishing the burden of proof for designating material as confidential and the process for challenging such designations.",
+        "summary": "This document appears to be a court filing containing a confidentiality order with provisions for challenging the designation of discovery material as confidential or highly confidential. It outlines the procedures for resolving objections to such designations and the burden of proof for establishing good cause for confidentiality. The order is part of a larger court case (Case 1:20-cv-00243-RBW)."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cv-00243-rjws-dr-docket #134-5",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cv-00243-RJWS-DR-Docket #134-5",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Protective Order",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Confidentiality provisions",
+          "Document designation procedures",
+          "Deposition confidentiality"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Counsel for the parties",
+            "role": "Responsible for designating and handling confidential documents"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document establishes the procedures for handling confidential information in a legal proceeding, outlining the requirements for designating and protecting sensitive information.",
+        "summary": "This Protective Order governs the handling of confidential information in a legal case, specifying how documents are designated as confidential, the procedures for depositions involving confidential information, and the obligations of counsel in maintaining confidentiality."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cv-00243-rjwsdoc#:38filed:06/04/21",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cv-00243-RJWSDoc#:38Filed:06/04/21",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Protective Order",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Confidentiality",
+          "Protective Order",
+          "Discovery Material Handling"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [],
+        "significance": "This document establishes the terms for handling confidential information in a court case, outlining procedures for designation, protection, and review.",
+        "summary": "This is a protective order governing the handling of confidential information in a court case. It outlines procedures for designating documents as confidential, handling depositions involving confidential information, and the obligations of parties in protecting such information. The order aims to balance the need for discovery with the protection of sensitive information."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cv-00243-rws-d",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cv-00243-RWS-D",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Confidentiality Order",
+          "Protected Material",
+          "Discovery Process"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [],
+        "significance": "This document outlines the procedures for handling confidential information in a court case, establishing the responsibilities of parties involved in the discovery process.",
+        "summary": "This document appears to be an excerpt from a court filing, specifically a protective order governing the handling of confidential information in a legal case. It details the procedures for designating and challenging the confidentiality of discovery materials. The order outlines the responsibilities of the parties involved and the process for resolving disputes regarding confidentiality designations."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cv-00243arwsdoc#81-1",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cv-00243ARWSDoc#81-1",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Protective Order court filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Confidentiality agreement",
+          "Deposition transcript handling",
+          "Filing documents under seal"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [],
+        "significance": "This document establishes the rules for handling confidential information in a court case, outlining procedures for designation, objection, and filing of sensitive materials.",
+        "summary": "This Protective Order governs the handling of confidential information in a court case, specifying how to designate and object to confidential designations, and the procedures for filing documents containing confidential information under seal."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cv-00243arwsdoc#83 filed: 08/04/21",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cv-00243ARWSDoc#83 Filed: 08/04/21",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Protective Order",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Confidentiality",
+          "Deposition Transcript Handling",
+          "Filing Documents Under Seal"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [],
+        "significance": "This document outlines the procedures for handling confidential information in a court case, including deposition transcripts and filing documents under seal.",
+        "summary": "This is a Protective Order governing the handling of confidential information in a court case. It outlines procedures for designating and objecting to confidential information, filing documents under seal, and sharing deposition transcripts. The order aims to balance the need to protect sensitive information with the requirements of the litigation process."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cv-00330",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cv-00330",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Juror misconduct or misidentification",
+          "Criticism of lawyers' judgment in handling a situation",
+          "Potential waiver or misjudgment in a court case"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "The judge (referenced as 'your Honor')",
+            "role": "Presiding over the court case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "The speaker (likely a lawyer or attorney)",
+            "role": "Arguing or commenting on the case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "The juror in question (referenced as 'she')",
+            "role": "A juror whose identity or actions are being discussed"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it reveals a critical discussion about a juror's identity and the lawyers' handling of the situation, highlighting potential misjudgments or misconduct.",
+        "summary": "The speaker is criticizing the lawyers involved in a case for not properly investigating or reporting a potential issue with a juror's identity, instead making a 'tragic misjudgment' that led to further complications. The speaker argues that the lawyers should have either investigated further or informed the court about the issue. The judge is referenced as having also criticized the lawyers' actions as a 'tragic misjudgment'."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cv-00330-pae",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cv-00330-PAE",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "deposition",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "The accuracy of a brief written by Ms. Brune",
+          "The investigation mentioned in the brief",
+          "The suspension opinion found by Ms. Trzaskoma"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ms. Brune",
+            "role": "Witness being deposed"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ms. Trzaskoma",
+            "role": "Colleague who drafted facts for the brief and found the suspension opinion"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ms. Conrad",
+            "role": "Person whose letter is mentioned in the brief as prompting an investigation"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This deposition testimony reveals potential inaccuracies in a brief written by Ms. Brune and highlights the importance of accurate fact representation in legal documents.",
+        "summary": "Ms. Brune testifies about a brief she wrote, admitting it missed an important issue and did not accurately represent the timeline of an investigation. She also acknowledges that her colleague, Ms. Trzaskoma, was aware of the investigation but it was not accurately reflected in the brief."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cv-00330-pae document 61102/20",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cv-00330-PAE Document 61102/20",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "deposition transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Juror misconduct",
+          "Post-trial motion",
+          "Discussion about a suspended lawyer"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ms. Edelstein",
+            "role": "witness being cross-examined"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Mr. Schectman",
+            "role": "attorney conducting cross-examination"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ms. Brune",
+            "role": "colleague of Ms. Edelstein, mentioned in conversation"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ms. Trzaskoma",
+            "role": "colleague of Ms. Edelstein, mentioned in conversation"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Juror No. 1 (Catherine Conrad)",
+            "role": "juror in a trial"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it reveals the thought process and discussions among the attorneys regarding a potential juror misconduct issue and their decision not to bring it to the court's attention.",
+        "summary": "Ms. Edelstein is cross-examined about a conversation with colleagues regarding a suspended lawyer with the same name as Juror No. 1. She explains that they didn't bring it to the court's attention because they deemed it inconceivable that Juror No. 1 was the suspended lawyer. There was no discussion about raising a juror misconduct issue in a post-trial motion until after receiving a letter from Ms. Conrad."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cv-00333-jpa document 1207-10",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cv-00333-JPA Document 1207-10",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "deposition transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "G Maxwell's testimony about guests at a house",
+          "Age appropriateness of exercise instructors",
+          "G Maxwell's knowledge of people at the house"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "G Maxwell",
+            "role": "deponent"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it contains testimony from G Maxwell regarding the age and appropriateness of individuals brought to a house, which may be relevant to the case.",
+        "summary": "G Maxwell testifies that they can only speak to the years they were present and the people they personally met or worked with at a house. They claim that the individuals they brought to the house were 'age appropriate adults' and that they did not know of any exercise instructors under 18."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cv-00338",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cv-00338",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Trial Transcript Index",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Trial transcripts",
+          "Case proceedings",
+          "Court records"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [],
+        "significance": "This document is a crucial index of trial transcripts for a specific court case, providing a detailed record of the trial proceedings and potentially serving as a reference for future legal actions or analyses.",
+        "summary": "This document is an index of trial transcripts for a court case, listing the transcripts for each day of the trial from March 15, 2011, to April 15, 2011. The index provides page numbers for each day's transcript. It appears to be part of a larger court filing."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cv-00338-pae",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cv-00338-PAE",
+      "page_count": 3,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Catherine Conrad's testimony",
+          "Fifth Amendment privilege",
+          "Grant of use immunity"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Catherine Conrad",
+            "role": "Witness"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Mr. Gair",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Mr. Okula",
+            "role": "Prosecutor"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Judge Pauley",
+            "role": "Presiding Judge"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This transcript reveals Catherine Conrad's testimony in a court case, where she initially invoked her Fifth Amendment privilege but was later granted use immunity, compelling her to testify.",
+        "summary": "The transcript documents Catherine Conrad's testimony in the case United States v. Daugerdas, where she is questioned about her previous statements and actions as a juror, and initially invokes her Fifth Amendment privilege before being granted use immunity."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cv-00338-pae document 161 filed 02/24/22",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cv-00338-PAE Document 161 Filed 02/24/22",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Deposition Transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Parse matter case details",
+          "Team members involved in the case",
+          "Roles of various personnel"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Brune",
+            "role": "Witness being deposed"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Melissa Desori",
+            "role": "Associate attorney on the Parse matter"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "David Elbaum",
+            "role": "Attorney who worked on expert testimony issues"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Brendan Henry",
+            "role": "Paralegal on the case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jenson Smith",
+            "role": "Paralegal on the case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ariel Stoddard",
+            "role": "Paralegal on the case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Nancy Ma",
+            "role": "Paralegal on the case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "David Benhamou",
+            "role": "Non-attorney personnel on the case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This deposition transcript provides insight into the team members involved in the Parse matter case and their respective roles, potentially establishing the extent of involvement and responsibilities of various individuals.",
+        "summary": "The witness, Brune, is being questioned about the team members who worked on the Parse matter case. Brune confirms the involvement of various attorneys and paralegals, including Melissa Desori, David Elbaum, Brendan Henry, Jenson Smith, Ariel Stoddard, and Nancy Ma. The testimony provides details about the roles of these individuals in the case."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cv-00338-pae document 161 filed 02/24/22 page 273 of 117",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cv-00338-PAE Document 161 Filed 02/24/22 Page 273 of 117",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Decision",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Attorney Suspension",
+          "Reinstatement",
+          "Nunc Pro Tunc Order"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Conrad",
+            "role": "Respondent attorney subject to suspension and reinstatement proceedings"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is a court decision regarding an attorney's suspension and potential reinstatement, providing insight into the court's reasoning and the conditions for reinstatement.",
+        "summary": "The Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court suspended an attorney (Conrad) from practicing law indefinitely, effective from December 18, 2007, and denied her cross-motion for reinstatement without prejudice to a future motion supported by an expert evaluation of her fitness to practice law."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cv-00385",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cv-00385",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Index of Trial Transcripts",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Trial transcripts",
+          "Court case proceedings",
+          "Document indexing"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it provides an index of trial transcripts for a specific court case, allowing for easy reference to specific days and pages of the trial proceedings.",
+        "summary": "This document is an index of trial transcripts for a court case, listing the transcripts for days 28 to 46 of the trial, with corresponding page numbers. It appears to be a filing in a court case, possibly related to the Department of Justice (DOJ). The document is labeled with a specific case number and filing date."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cv-00386-lpa",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cv-00386-LPA",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Exhibit List",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Trial Exhibits",
+          "Juror Misconduct",
+          "Motion for a New Trial"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Lisa Hurley",
+            "role": "Sender of faxes and letters to James D. Beumel"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "James D. Beumel",
+            "role": "Recipient of faxes and letters from Lisa Hurley"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Erwin Mayer",
+            "role": "Sender of letters to R. Craig Brubaker and Bob Price"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "R. Craig Brubaker",
+            "role": "Recipient and sender of emails and letters"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Stanley J. Okula, Jr.",
+            "role": "Author of a letter to Judge Pauley"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Theresa Trzaskoma",
+            "role": "Declarant in support of Defendants' Motion for a New Trial"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is a list of exhibits presented in a court case, potentially related to a motion for a new trial or evidentiary hearing due to juror misconduct. It reveals the various documents and correspondence considered as evidence.",
+        "summary": "This document is a court filing listing various trial exhibits, including faxes, letters, emails, and memoranda, related to a case involving multiple defendants. The exhibits are referenced in relation to a motion for a new trial or evidentiary hearing concerning juror misconduct. The list includes correspondence between various individuals and entities."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cv-00743-pae document 1204-10 filed 10/27/21 page 9 of 63",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cv-00743-PAE Document 1204-10 Filed 10/27/21 Page 9 of 63",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "deposition",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "G Maxwell's role in hiring for Jeffrey Epstein",
+          "Definition of 'recruit' and 'female' in the context of the questioning",
+          "G Maxwell's understanding of the questions being asked"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "G Maxwell",
+            "role": "deponent, allegedly involved in hiring for Jeffrey Epstein"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "employer, referenced in the questioning"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it appears to be a deposition of G Maxwell, who is being questioned about her involvement with Jeffrey Epstein, a figure associated with various controversies and legal issues.",
+        "summary": "The document is a deposition transcript where G Maxwell is being questioned about her role in recruiting females to work for Jeffrey Epstein. G Maxwell expresses confusion about the questions, seeking clarification on the terms 'female' and 'recruit'. The questioning continues with G Maxwell acknowledging her role in hiring people for Epstein."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cv-00743-pae document 1234-18",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cv-00743-PAE Document 1234-18",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "deposition",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "G Maxwell's involvement with Jeffrey Epstein",
+          "Virginia Giuffre's interactions with Jeffrey Epstein",
+          "Underage individuals at Jeffrey Epstein's home"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "G Maxwell",
+            "role": "deponent"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "individual whose home and actions are being questioned"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Virginia Giuffre (Roberts)",
+            "role": "alleged victim and individual who interacted with Jeffrey Epstein"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "MR. PAGLIUCA",
+            "role": "attorney representing G Maxwell"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This deposition transcript potentially reveals information about G Maxwell's involvement with Jeffrey Epstein and her knowledge of underage individuals, including Virginia Giuffre, at Epstein's home.",
+        "summary": "The document is a deposition transcript where G Maxwell is questioned about her interactions with Jeffrey Epstein and underage individuals, including Virginia Giuffre. Maxwell denies inviting anyone under 18 to Epstein's home, claiming that Virginia Giuffre presented herself as a masseuse and invited herself. The attorney representing Maxwell repeatedly objects to the form and foundation of the questions."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cv-00743-pae document 204-18 filed 10/27/21 page 15 of 65",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cv-00743-PAE Document 204-18 Filed 10/27/21 Page 15 of 65",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Deposition Transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's involvement with Jeffrey Epstein",
+          "Virginia Roberts' interactions with Jeffrey Epstein",
+          "Allegations of underage individuals being invited to Epstein's home"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Witness being deposed"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Individual whose actions and associates are being questioned"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Virginia Roberts",
+            "role": "Individual allegedly invited to Epstein's home when underage"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "MR. PAGLIUCA",
+            "role": "Attorney representing Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This deposition transcript is potentially important as it provides insight into Ghislaine Maxwell's involvement with Jeffrey Epstein and her interactions with Virginia Roberts, a key figure in allegations against Epstein.",
+        "summary": "The deposition transcript shows Ghislaine Maxwell being questioned about her role in inviting Virginia Roberts to Jeffrey Epstein's home when Roberts was underage. Maxwell denies directly inviting Roberts, stating she came as a masseuse. The attorney representing Maxwell objects to the form and foundation of the questions."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cv-00743-pae document 204-18 filed 10/27/21 page 790 of 833",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cv-00743-PAE Document 204-18 Filed 10/27/21 Page 790 of 833",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Deposition Transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's interactions with Virginia Roberts",
+          "Virginia Roberts' arrival at Maxwell's home",
+          "Maxwell's recollection of meeting Roberts"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Deponent"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Virginia Roberts",
+            "role": "Individual discussed in the deposition"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "MR. PAGLIUCA",
+            "role": "Counsel for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This deposition transcript provides insight into Ghislaine Maxwell's interactions with Virginia Roberts, a key figure in the case, and may be relevant to understanding Maxwell's involvement in alleged wrongdoing.",
+        "summary": "The deposition transcript shows Ghislaine Maxwell testifying about her interactions with Virginia Roberts, stating that Roberts was brought to her home by her mother and that she was presented as a masseuse. Maxwell claims not to recall her first meeting with Roberts."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cv-03000",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cv-03000",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Exhibit",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Confidential Document Production",
+          "Case Evidence",
+          "Civil Litigation"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Giuffre",
+            "role": "Party involved in the litigation"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it is a confidential exhibit filed in a civil litigation case, possibly containing relevant evidence or testimony.",
+        "summary": "This document appears to be a confidential exhibit filed in a civil case (1:20-cv-03000-PAE), marked as 'GIUFFRE007180' and 'CONFIDENTIAL AFARMER00000556 DOJ-OGR-00005100', indicating its sensitive nature and potential relevance to the case."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cv-0300330-pae",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cv-0300330-PAE",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Confidential documents",
+          "Case filing",
+          "Court proceedings"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [],
+        "significance": "This document appears to be a part of a court filing in a specific case, potentially related to a high-profile or sensitive matter given the 'CONFIDENTIAL' designation.",
+        "summary": "The document is a court filing with confidential information, marked with specific case and document identifiers. It includes page breaks and references to confidential documents with unique identifiers."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cv-0300330-pae document 336-19",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cv-0300330-PAE Document 336-19",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Exhibit",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Confidential document production",
+          "Case evidence",
+          "Civil litigation"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it is a confidential exhibit filed in a civil case, possibly containing relevant evidence or testimony.",
+        "summary": "This document appears to be a confidential exhibit filed in a civil case (Case 1:20-cv-03033-PAE), marked as 'GIUFFRE007178' and 'DOJ-OGR-00005098', indicating its potential relevance to the case proceedings."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cv-03008",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cv-03008",
+      "page_count": 4,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing Exhibit",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Confidential documents",
+          "Court case evidence",
+          "Redacted or sensitive information"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [],
+        "significance": "This document appears to be a collection of pages from a court filing in a specific case, potentially containing sensitive or confidential information.",
+        "summary": "The document consists of page breaks from a court filing (Case 1:20-cv-03008-PAE) with various page numbers and confidential document identifiers, suggesting it is an exhibit containing potentially sensitive information."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cv-0303380-pae",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cv-0303380-PAE",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Exhibit",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Confidential document production",
+          "Civil litigation",
+          "Evidence filing"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Giuffre",
+            "role": "Party involved in the litigation"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it is a confidential exhibit filed in a civil litigation case, possibly containing relevant evidence.",
+        "summary": "This document appears to be a confidential exhibit filed in a civil case (1:20-cv-0303380-PAE), marked as 'GIUFFRE007176' and 'DOJ-OGR-00005096', indicating its production and filing in the context of litigation."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cv-03038-pae",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cv-03038-PAE",
+      "page_count": 3,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas et al.",
+          "Testimony of Conrad and Trzaskoma",
+          "Proceedings in the Southern District of New York"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Paul M. Daugerdas",
+            "role": "Defendant in the case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Conrad",
+            "role": "Witness testifying on direct examination"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Trzaskoma",
+            "role": "Witness testifying on redirect examination"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document appears to be a transcript of court proceedings in a significant case involving Paul M. Daugerdas, potentially related to financial or tax-related crimes. The testimony of Conrad and Trzaskoma may be crucial to understanding the case.",
+        "summary": "The document contains excerpts from a court transcript in the case United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas et al., dated February 15, 2012. It includes testimony from witnesses Conrad and Trzaskoma. The case was heard in the Southern District of New York."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cv-03038-pae document 616-1",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cv-03038-PAE Document 616-1",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Exhibit List",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Conrad v. Manessis case documents",
+          "Trial testimony and verdict",
+          "Post-trial motions and juror information"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Catherine Conrad",
+            "role": "Plaintiff in Conrad v. Manessis"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Robert J. Conrad",
+            "role": "Individual with FEC contribution records"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Victor M. Serby",
+            "role": "Attorney filing affirmation in opposition to motion to dismiss"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Susan E. Brune",
+            "role": "Attorney filing letter and affidavit"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Paul H. Schoeman",
+            "role": "Attorney filing affidavit"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is a list of exhibits filed in a court case, potentially providing evidence and context for the case of Conrad v. Manessis and related proceedings.",
+        "summary": "This document is an exhibit list from a court filing in Case 1:20-cv-03038-PAE, referencing various documents from the Conrad v. Manessis case, including trial testimony, verdict, and post-trial motions. The exhibits include affirmations, affidavits, and other records related to the case. The list provides a catalog of documents submitted as evidence or used in the proceedings."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cv-03038-pae document 616-1 filed 02/24/22 page 73 of 117",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cv-03038-PAE Document 616-1 Filed 02/24/22 Page 73 of 117",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "deposition",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Juror No. 1's identity and background",
+          "The importance of having more information for analysis",
+          "Statistical likelihood of shared identity based on shared name and middle initial"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Mr. Schoeman",
+            "role": "witness being deposed"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Juror No. 1",
+            "role": "subject of discussion regarding identity and background"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Catherine Conrad",
+            "role": "hypothetical individual used for statistical analysis"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This deposition testimony is potentially important because it reveals the thought process and conclusions of Mr. Schoeman regarding Juror No. 1's identity and the impact of additional information on his analysis.",
+        "summary": "Mr. Schoeman testifies that he didn't know if more information would have helped his analysis of Juror No. 1's identity, but agrees that sharing a middle initial with another person of the same name makes it statistically more likely they are the same person."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cv-03083-pae",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cv-03083-PAE",
+      "page_count": 3,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing Exhibit",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Confidential documents related to a court case",
+          "Potential evidence in a civil lawsuit",
+          "Redacted or confidential information"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [],
+        "significance": "This document appears to be a collection of confidential exhibits filed in a court case, potentially containing relevant evidence or information.",
+        "summary": "The document consists of page breaks from a court filing (Case 1:20-cv-03083-PAE) with references to confidential documents and exhibits. The pages are labeled as 'CONFIDENTIAL' and contain various document IDs. The content is likely related to a civil lawsuit, but the specifics are not clear from the provided snippet."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cv-030838-pae",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cv-030838-PAE",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Confidential documents",
+          "Case filing",
+          "Court proceedings"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [],
+        "significance": "This document appears to be a part of a larger court filing in a specific case (1:20-cv-03083-PAE), potentially related to a sensitive or confidential matter given the 'CONFIDENTIAL' designation.",
+        "summary": "The document shows page breaks from a court filing with confidential designations and reference numbers, indicating it is part of a larger legal proceeding."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cv-03303",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cv-03303",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "deposition transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Authenticity of juror identity",
+          "Intent behind a court brief",
+          "Perception of information in a court brief"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Catherine Conrad",
+            "role": "Juror No. 1 and suspended lawyer"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ms. Brune",
+            "role": "Involved in drafting the court brief"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it reveals a dispute over the interpretation of a court brief and the intent behind its wording, which could impact the case's outcome.",
+        "summary": "The deposition transcript discusses the authenticity of a juror's identity and the intent behind a court brief's wording. The witness explains that the brief's detail was necessary to establish the juror's identity and denies that the intent was to create a false impression. The questioning highlights a potential misinterpretation of the brief's content."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cv-03303-pae",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cv-03303-PAE",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "deposition transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Investigation by Theresa Trzaskoma",
+          "Accuracy of a statement regarding the investigation timeline",
+          "Knowledge of the witness regarding the investigation on May 12th"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Theresa Trzaskoma",
+            "role": "Conducted an investigation"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Edelstein",
+            "role": "Witness being deposed"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it reveals a discrepancy in the testimony of Edelstein regarding the timeline of an investigation and their knowledge of Theresa Trzaskoma's prior investigation.",
+        "summary": "The deposition transcript shows Edelstein being questioned about their knowledge of an investigation conducted by Theresa Trzaskoma and the accuracy of a statement regarding when the investigation began. Edelstein's testimony appears to be inconsistent, and they are pressed to clarify their answers."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cv-03308",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cv-03308",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "deposition transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Discussion about a brief and its content",
+          "Level of knowledge regarding juror misconduct",
+          "Drafting and editing the brief"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Susan Brune",
+            "role": "Discussing the brief with the deponent"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Theresa Trzaskoma",
+            "role": "Drafting the brief"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This deposition transcript reveals the thought process and discussions behind the drafting of a brief in a court case, potentially shedding light on the case's strategy and key issues.",
+        "summary": "The deponent discusses their conversation with Susan Brune about the brief, their level of knowledge regarding juror misconduct, and the editing process. They decided to focus on whether a suspended lawyer and a juror were the same person. The deponent ultimately edited the fact section of the brief."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cv-03339",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cv-03339",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Deposition transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Investigation into Juror No. 1's identity",
+          "Westlaw report and its implications",
+          "Resources available for investigation"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Theresa Trzaskoma",
+            "role": "Person involved in the court conference and investigation"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Catherine M. Conrad",
+            "role": "Juror No. 1 and potentially a suspended attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This deposition transcript reveals the investigation process and discussions around Juror No. 1's identity and potential bias, which could impact the validity of the trial outcome.",
+        "summary": "The deposition transcript discusses the investigation into Juror No. 1's identity and the use of a Westlaw report. The witness confirms they had resources to investigate further but chose not to, and later called Nardello to assist in gathering information after receiving a juror letter."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cv-03363-pae",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cv-03363-PAE",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "deposition transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Voir dire process",
+          "Juror research and investigation",
+          "Identification of potential juror Catherine M. Conrad"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ms. Brune",
+            "role": "Witness being deposed"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Catherine M. Conrad",
+            "role": "Potential juror in question"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Judge Pauley",
+            "role": "Judge presiding over the case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ms. Trzaskoma",
+            "role": "Person who accessed information on a computer"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This deposition transcript reveals the questioning of Ms. Brune regarding her handling of juror research and investigation, particularly concerning a potential juror named Catherine M. Conrad.",
+        "summary": "The deposition transcript shows Ms. Brune being questioned about her team's research on a potential juror, Catherine M. Conrad, and whether she had her team conduct additional research before voir dire. Ms. Brune admits that she did not ask her team to do so, relying instead on the voir dire process to determine if Catherine M. Conrad was the same person mentioned in a New York court opinion."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cv-03380-pae",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cv-03380-PAE",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Evidence filing in a court case",
+          "Confidential documents related to Virginia Roberts Giuffre",
+          "FBI investigation or evidence"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Virginia Roberts Giuffre",
+            "role": "Plaintiff or key witness in the case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document appears to be a filing in a court case that includes confidential evidence or exhibits related to Virginia Roberts Giuffre, potentially relevant to a high-profile case.",
+        "summary": "The document is a court filing that includes references to confidential evidence and exhibits, specifically photos related to Virginia Roberts Giuffre, as part of a larger court case (1:20-cv-03380-PAE)."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cv-10033-pae document 61-2",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cv-10033-PAE Document 61-2",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "deposition transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "The success of a law firm and its relation to winning cases",
+          "The importance of a lawyer's reputation and marketing",
+          "The biography of a lawyer on the firm's website"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Brune",
+            "role": "lawyer being deposed, partner at Brune & Richard law firm"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This deposition transcript provides insight into the business aspects of a law firm's success and how a lawyer's reputation is presented to potential clients.",
+        "summary": "The deposition questions Brune about the success of his law firm, the importance of winning cases, and the content of his biography on the firm's website, highlighting his strategic choices, preparation, and advocacy skills."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cv-13003",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cv-13003",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Witness testimonies",
+          "Exhibit evidence",
+          "Trial proceedings"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "THERESA MARIE TRZASKOMA",
+            "role": "Witness"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "CATHERINE M. CONRAD",
+            "role": "Witness"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Mr. Hernandez",
+            "role": "Prosecutor/Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Mr. Shechtman",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Mr. Gair",
+            "role": "Prosecutor/Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Mr. Okula",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "PAUL M. DAUGERDAS",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is a transcript of a court proceeding, likely a trial, and contains witness testimonies and exhibit evidence, which could be crucial in understanding the case against Paul M. Daugerdas and others.",
+        "summary": "This document is a transcript of a court proceeding on February 15, 2012, featuring testimonies from Theresa Marie Trzaskoma and Catherine M. Conrad, with various attorneys conducting direct and cross-examinations, and a list of government and defense exhibits received into evidence."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cv-13003-rgs document 6-16/201 filed 02/24/22 page 37 of 67",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cv-13003-RGS Document 6-16/201 Filed 02/24/22 Page 37 of 67",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Exhibit List",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Financial transactions and communications",
+          "Deutsche Bank Alex. Brown client statements",
+          "Emails and letters between various individuals and entities"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Paul M. Daugerdas",
+            "role": "Sender of a letter to Michael Hammer"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Donna Guerin",
+            "role": "Sender of letters to David K. Parse and Michael Toporek"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Michael Toporek",
+            "role": "Sender of letters to David Parse"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Michael Hammer",
+            "role": "Recipient of letters and faxes"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "David Parse",
+            "role": "Recipient of letters"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "John Beery",
+            "role": "Sender of a fax to Michael Hammer"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Robert Greisman",
+            "role": "Sender of an email to Charles Bee and others"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Carrie Yackee",
+            "role": "Sender of emails to various recipients"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it lists exhibits related to a court case, possibly involving financial irregularities or disputes. The listed documents may provide evidence or insight into the case.",
+        "summary": "This document appears to be a list of exhibits filed in a court case (1:20-cv-13003-RGS), including letters, emails, and client statements related to financial transactions and communications between various individuals and entities. The exhibits are labeled with a 'GX' or 'DOJ-OGR' prefix and reference specific page numbers. The document provides a catalog of evidence or supporting materials for the case."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cv-13038",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cv-13038",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "deposition transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Conversation between the witness and Ms. Trzaskoma about Juror No. 1",
+          "Investigation into Juror No. 1's identity and background",
+          "Voir dire process and its relevance to Juror No. 1's identity"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Schoeman",
+            "role": "witness"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ms. Trzaskoma",
+            "role": "person involved in conversation with Schoeman"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Juror No. 1 (Ms. Conrad)",
+            "role": "juror being discussed"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Someone from Brune firm",
+            "role": "potential discussant about Juror No. 1"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it reveals a conversation between the witness and Ms. Trzaskoma about Juror No. 1, which may be relevant to the case and potentially impact the juror's impartiality or the trial's outcome.",
+        "summary": "The witness, Schoeman, testifies about a conversation with Ms. Trzaskoma regarding Juror No. 1, discussing a person with the same name who was a disbarred lawyer. Trzaskoma assured Schoeman it was not the same person based on the voir dire process. No further discussion about Juror No. 1 occurred with Trzaskoma or anyone at the Brune firm during that time."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cv-30033",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cv-30033",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Deposition Transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Financial disclosure",
+          "Witness credibility",
+          "Questioning about personal finances"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ms. Conrad",
+            "role": "Witness being questioned"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Judge Pauley",
+            "role": "Judge involved in a previous proceeding"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Mr. Daugerdas",
+            "role": "Defendant in the case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "MR. GAIR",
+            "role": "Questioning attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "MR. OKULA",
+            "role": "Attorney making objections"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This deposition transcript reveals the questioning of a witness, Ms. Conrad, about her personal finances and credibility, potentially impacting the case against Mr. Daugerdas.",
+        "summary": "The document is a deposition transcript where Ms. Conrad is being questioned about her financial situation and credibility. She is asked about her cash on hand, stocks, and bonds, as well as her tax filing history. The questioning attorney attempts to challenge her credibility and financial disclosure."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cv-30038",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cv-30038",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Financial transactions and amounts",
+          "Dates and timelines",
+          "Case proceedings and testimonies"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Paul M. Daugerdas",
+            "role": "Defendant in the case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document appears to be a transcript of a court proceeding, potentially related to a financial crime or tax evasion case involving Paul M. Daugerdas. The transcript contains specific financial transactions and dates that may be relevant to the case.",
+        "summary": "The document is a court transcript from the case 'UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v PAUL M. DAUGERDAS, ET AL.' It contains a detailed record of financial transactions, dates, and testimonies. The transcript is likely to be used as evidence in the case."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cv-30038-pae",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cv-30038-PAE",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Exhibit List",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Catherine Conrad/Rosa's criminal records",
+          "Frank Rosa's criminal records",
+          "Conrad v. Manessis court case"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Catherine Conrad/Rosa",
+            "role": "Individual with multiple criminal records"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Frank Rosa",
+            "role": "Individual with criminal records, possibly related to Catherine Conrad/Rosa"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Trzaskoma",
+            "role": "Declarant submitting exhibits"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it lists various exhibits related to Catherine Conrad/Rosa and Frank Rosa's criminal records, which may be relevant to the court case.",
+        "summary": "The document appears to be a list of exhibits filed in a court case, including records of Catherine Conrad/Rosa and Frank Rosa's criminal history, as well as documents related to a previous court case, Conrad v. Manessis."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cv-300380-pae",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cv-300380-PAE",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Juror's residence and potential misrepresentation during voir dire",
+          "Cross-examination of Juror Conrad about her living arrangements",
+          "Potential bias or misconduct by Juror Conrad"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Conrad",
+            "role": "Juror No. 3 in the trial of Paul M. Daugerdas"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Paul M. Daugerdas",
+            "role": "Defendant in the trial"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Mr. Gair",
+            "role": "Prosecutor or attorney questioning Juror Conrad"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Mr. Okula",
+            "role": "Defense attorney or other counsel present during the testimony"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Judge Pauley",
+            "role": "Presiding judge over the trial"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it reveals potential juror misconduct or bias, as Juror Conrad's testimony suggests she may have misrepresented her residence during voir dire, which could impact the validity of the trial verdict.",
+        "summary": "The transcript records the cross-examination of Juror Conrad, who is questioned about her residence and potential misrepresentation during voir dire. Conrad admits to having two addresses, one in the Bronx and one in Westchester, and is challenged about her initial statement that she resided in Bronxville. The questioning also touches on her husband's criminal history and her father's role as an immigration judge."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:20-cv-30380-pae",
+      "document_number": "1:20-cv-30380-PAE",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Tax shelter fraud",
+          "Sentencing hearing",
+          "United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas et al."
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Paul M. Daugerdas",
+            "role": "Defendant in the case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Dennis M. Kelly",
+            "role": "IRS agent/testifying witness"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it contains testimony from an IRS agent regarding the defendants' involvement in tax shelter fraud, which is central to the case.",
+        "summary": "This document appears to be a transcript of a sentencing hearing in the case United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas et al., where IRS agent Dennis M. Kelly testifies about the defendants' roles in tax shelter fraud schemes."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:21-cr-00038-dlf",
+      "document_number": "1:21-cr-00038-DLF",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Bail and detention under 18 U.S.C. § 3142",
+          "Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure",
+          "Criminal proceedings"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [],
+        "significance": "This document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case, referencing specific statutes and rules that govern bail and detention proceedings.",
+        "summary": "This document is a court filing in a criminal case (1:21-cr-00038-DLF), referencing various statutes and rules, including 18 U.S.C. § 3142 and Rule 5(F) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The filing includes citations to relevant laws and rules, suggesting it may be related to a bail or detention hearing. The document is part of a larger filing, as indicated by the page number."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:21-cr-02949-mv document 30802 filed 02/06/23 page 14 of 16",
+      "document_number": "1:21-cr-02949-MV Document 30802 Filed 02/06/23 Page 14 of 16",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Mr. Robertson's release and trial preparation",
+          "Alternative arrangements for attorney-client meetings",
+          "Court's decision on reconsideration motion"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Mr. Robertson",
+            "role": "defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "United States Marshal's Service",
+            "role": "provider of courthouse facilities"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document reveals the court's reasoning for its decision on Mr. Robertson's release and highlights the importance of attorney-client interaction in trial preparation.",
+        "summary": "The court rejects the government's proposed alternatives for Mr. Robertson to meet with his attorneys, citing the inadequacy of a screen between them and the government's late presentation of this information. The court maintains its decision to release Mr. Robertson due to concerns about trial preparation."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:21-cr-02949-mv document 30802 filed 02/06/23 page 15 of 36",
+      "document_number": "1:21-cr-02949-MV Document 30802 Filed 02/06/23 Page 15 of 36",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "In-person attorney visits for defendant Robertson",
+          "COVID-19 protocols at Santa Fe County Detention Center",
+          "Request for stay pending appeal"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Mr. Robertson",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Defense team",
+            "role": "Representing Mr. Robertson"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it reveals the court's concerns about the defendant's access to his attorneys during the pandemic and the government's proposals to address these concerns.",
+        "summary": "The court rejects the government's proposals for in-person attorney visits for defendant Robertson, citing uncertainty and risk due to COVID-19. The court also denies the government's request for a stay pending appeal, citing failure to apply the relevant legal standard."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:21-cr-02949-mv-dhh document 30802 filed 02/06/21 page 11 of 36",
+      "document_number": "1:21-cr-02949-MV-DHH Document 30802 Filed 02/06/21 Page 11 of 36",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Pretrial release under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e) and § 3142(i)",
+          "Necessity of release for trial preparation",
+          "Complexity of the case and its impact on the defendant's ability to prepare"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Mr. Robertson",
+            "role": "The defendant in the case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Magistrate Judge Briones",
+            "role": "Issued the initial order of detention"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it reveals the legal arguments made by the defendant, Mr. Robertson, in support of his pretrial release and highlights the complexities of the case.",
+        "summary": "The document argues that Mr. Robertson's pretrial release is necessary for the preparation of his trial defense under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(i) due to the complexity of the case and the limited time available before the trial reset for April 5, 2021. The court considers factors such as time, complexity, and inconvenience in determining whether to grant temporary release. The defendant's release is also argued to be required under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:22-cr-00330",
+      "document_number": "1:22-cr-00330",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "bail motion",
+          "risk of flight",
+          "jurisdiction"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Audrey Strauss",
+            "role": "United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Maurene Comey",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison Moe",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Lara Pomerantz",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is a response from the United States Attorney's office opposing the defendant's third bail motion, arguing that the defendant poses a significant risk of flight.",
+        "summary": "The United States Attorney's office submits a response opposing the defendant's third bail motion, arguing that the proposed bail conditions are insufficient to mitigate the risk of flight. The government contends that the court should deny the motion due to the defendant's continued risk of flight. The document is signed by Audrey Strauss, United States Attorney, and several Assistant United States Attorneys."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:29-cr-00388-rws-document 136-7",
+      "document_number": "1:29-cr-00388-RWS-Document 136-7",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Legal Representation",
+          "Court Case",
+          "Signature Block"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Sigrid McCawley",
+            "role": "Attorney (Pro Hac Vice)"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "David Boies",
+            "role": "Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ellen Brockman",
+            "role": "Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is a court filing that establishes the legal representation for a case, providing contact information for the attorneys involved.",
+        "summary": "This is a court filing document from the case 1:29-cr-00388-RWS, dated March 4, 2016. It contains a signature block with information about the attorneys representing the case, including Sigrid McCawley, David Boies, and Ellen Brockman from Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP. The document is part of a larger filing, as indicated by the page number."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:29-cr-00388-rws-document1342",
+      "document_number": "1:29-cr-00388-RWS-Document1342",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Declaration or affidavit",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Protective Order",
+          "Document exchange",
+          "Legal proceedings"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Sigrid S. McCawley",
+            "role": "Declarant/Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Laura Menninger",
+            "role": "Recipient of proposed Protective Order"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it provides evidence of the exchange of proposed Protective Orders between parties in a legal case, which may be relevant to the case's proceedings or disputes.",
+        "summary": "The document is a declaration by Sigrid S. McCawley, Esq., stating that she has attached true and correct copies of proposed Protective Orders exchanged between parties in a legal case. The declaration is made under penalty of perjury."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:29-cr-00388-rws-document136-7",
+      "document_number": "1:29-cr-00388-RWS-Document136-7",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Affidavit or Declaration",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Protective Order",
+          "Document exchange between parties",
+          "Legal proceedings"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Sigrid S. McCawley",
+            "role": "Declarant/Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Laura Menninger",
+            "role": "Recipient of proposed Protective Order"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it provides evidence of the exchange of proposed Protective Orders between parties in a legal case, which may be relevant to the case's proceedings or disputes.",
+        "summary": "The document is a declaration by Sigrid S. McCawley, Esq., stating that attached exhibits are true and correct copies of proposed Protective Orders exchanged between parties. The declaration is made under penalty of perjury."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:29-cv-008388-rws-document1342",
+      "document_number": "1:29-cv-008388-RWS-Document1342",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Legal Representation",
+          "Court Submission",
+          "Case Details"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Sigrid McCawley",
+            "role": "Attorney (Pro Hac Vice)"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "David Boies",
+            "role": "Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ellen Brockman",
+            "role": "Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is a court filing in a specific case, indicating the representation by a law firm and the attorneys involved.",
+        "summary": "This is a court filing document from the law firm Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, representing a party in a case (1:29-cv-008388-RWS), with attorneys Sigrid McCawley, David Boies, and Ellen Brockman listed."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "1:29-cv-09233-ajn document 124-6",
+      "document_number": "1:29-cv-09233-AJN Document 124-6",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Confidentiality Order",
+          "Discovery Material Handling",
+          "Designation and Protection of Confidential Documents"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [],
+        "significance": "This document outlines the procedures for handling confidential documents and resolving disputes related to their designation, which is crucial for understanding the management of sensitive information in the case.",
+        "summary": "This document is a court filing that details the procedures for handling confidential documents, including objections to designations, resolution of disputes, and the handling of documents at the conclusion of the case. It outlines the responsibilities of the parties involved and the steps to be taken to protect confidential information. The document is part of a larger court case (Case 1:29-cv-09233-AJN)."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "2",
+      "document_number": "2",
+      "page_count": 15,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Indictment of Ghislaine Maxwell",
+          "Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking and abuse of minors",
+          "Unsealing of indictment"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Co-conspirator and alleged perpetrator"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Audrey Strauss",
+            "role": "Acting United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alex Rossmiller",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Katherine H. Parker",
+            "role": "United States Magistrate Judge"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it reveals the indictment of Ghislaine Maxwell and provides details about Jeffrey Epstein's alleged sex trafficking and abuse of minors. It also shows the court's order to unseal the indictment.",
+        "summary": "The document contains a court order to unseal the indictment against Ghislaine Maxwell and excerpts from an indictment related to Jeffrey Epstein's alleged sex trafficking and abuse of minors. The indictment details Epstein's abuse of dozens of minor girls in New York and Palm Beach, Florida. The court filing is significant in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "20",
+      "document_number": "20",
+      "page_count": 25,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court transcript and filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Criminal proceedings against Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell",
+          "Sex trafficking charges",
+          "Bail hearing for Jeffrey Epstein"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Christian R. Everdell",
+            "role": "Counsel for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Reid H. Weingarten",
+            "role": "Counsel for Jeffrey Epstein"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alexander Rossmiller",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Henry B. Pitman",
+            "role": "Magistrate Judge"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it contains court records related to the criminal proceedings against Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, both accused of sex trafficking. The transcript of Epstein's bail hearing provides insight into the charges and the government's argument for detention.",
+        "summary": "The document includes a notice of appearance for Ghislaine Maxwell's counsel and a transcript of Jeffrey Epstein's bail hearing, where the government argued for detention due to the serious charges and Epstein's risk of flight."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "20 cr. 330 (ajn)",
+      "document_number": "20 Cr. 330 (AJN)",
+      "page_count": 15,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's conditions of confinement at the MDC",
+          "Discovery review and access to materials",
+          "Disclosure of co-conspirators' identities"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Bobbi C. Sternheim",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Christian R. Everdell",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Audrey Strauss",
+            "role": "Acting United States Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document provides insight into the pre-trial proceedings of Ghislaine Maxwell's case, highlighting issues related to her confinement conditions and access to discovery materials.",
+        "summary": "The document is a collection of court filings related to Ghislaine Maxwell's case, including letters from defense attorneys and the government to Judge Alison J. Nathan, discussing Maxwell's conditions of confinement and access to discovery materials."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "20-00380",
+      "document_number": "20-00380",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Official Letter",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Extradition procedures in France",
+          "French nationality and extradition",
+          "International cooperation in criminal matters"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Philippe JAEGIÉ",
+            "role": "Chef du Bureau de l'Entraide Pénale Internationale"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Andrew FINKELMAN",
+            "role": "Magistrat de liaison, Ambassade des Etats-Unis d'Amérique à Paris"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document clarifies French extradition laws and policies, particularly regarding the extradition of French nationals, and is potentially important for international cooperation in criminal matters.",
+        "summary": "The document is a letter from the French Ministry of Justice to the US Department of Justice, explaining that French law prohibits the extradition of individuals who held French nationality at the time of the alleged offense. It cites relevant articles of the French Code of Criminal Procedure, specifically articles 696 and 694-4."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "20-0170088",
+      "document_number": "20-0170088",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing or Legal Exhibit List",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Julie Addendum Opinion",
+          "Perry Addendum Opinion",
+          "DOJ Investigation or Filing"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Julie",
+            "role": "Subject of an addendum opinion from France"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Perry",
+            "role": "Subject of an addendum opinion from the U.K."
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document appears to be a table of exhibits related to a legal case, potentially involving international opinions or investigations.",
+        "summary": "The document is a table of exhibits listing three items: Julie Addendum Opinion from France, Perry Addendum Opinion from the U.K., and a DOJ filing or document. It is likely part of a larger legal filing or case."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "20-0330",
+      "document_number": "20-0330",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "bail conditions and jurisdiction",
+          "renunciation of foreign citizenship as a condition of release",
+          "interpretation of French extradition law"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ms. Maxwell",
+            "role": "defendant in the case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "William Jule",
+            "role": "French legal counsel providing opinion on French law"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it discusses the jurisdiction of the court to decide on bail conditions and the validity of renunciation of foreign citizenship as a condition of release, which could impact the defendant's chances of being released on bail.",
+        "summary": "The document argues that the court has jurisdiction to decide on bail conditions despite a pending appeal and that Ms. Maxwell's renunciation of her foreign citizenship is a valid condition of release, contrary to the government's assertion based on a letter from the French Ministry of Justice."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "20-0380",
+      "document_number": "20-0380",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "extradition treaty between the US and France",
+          "assessment of nationality for extradition purposes",
+          "impact of renunciation of citizenship on extradition"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "The Defendant",
+            "role": "the individual facing extradition proceedings"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "French legal expert",
+            "role": "providing expert opinion on French law regarding extradition"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it reveals the complexity and uncertainty surrounding the extradition proceedings against the Defendant, highlighting the differing interpretations of the extradition treaty between the US and France.",
+        "summary": "The document discusses the extradition case against the Defendant, focusing on the relevance of her nationality at the time of the offense versus at the time of the extradition request. The court notes the uncertainty surrounding this issue due to conflicting expert opinions and ambiguous legal materials. The Defendant's renunciation of French citizenship is also considered, with its impact on extradition unclear."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "20-0700830",
+      "document_number": "20-0700830",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Search procedures at the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC)",
+          "Treatment and conditions of the defendant in custody",
+          "Response to complaints raised by defense counsel"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "The defendant",
+            "role": "The individual in custody at MDC whose treatment and conditions are being discussed"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document provides insight into the procedures and conditions at MDC, potentially relevant to the defendant's case and treatment while in custody.",
+        "summary": "The document details the search procedures and conditions faced by the defendant while in custody at MDC, including pat-down searches, cell searches, and nighttime wellness checks. It also addresses complaints raised by defense counsel regarding the defendant's treatment and responds to allegations of improper conduct by MDC staff. The document confirms that certain procedures are in place for the safety of the institution and the defendant."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "20-0770080",
+      "document_number": "20-0770080",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "extradition waiver",
+          "renunciation of citizenship",
+          "risk of flight"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "the Defendant",
+            "role": "the individual whose risk of flight is being assessed by the Court"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it reveals the Court's reasoning in assessing the Defendant's risk of flight and the effectiveness of proposed conditions to mitigate that risk.",
+        "summary": "The Court remains unconvinced that the Defendant's proposed conditions, including renunciation of citizenship and oversight of financial affairs, sufficiently mitigate the risk of flight. The Court is concerned that the Defendant could still resist or delay extradition, incentivizing her to flee."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "20-1",
+      "document_number": "20-1",
+      "page_count": 31,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Motion for Pretrial Release",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's pretrial detention conditions",
+          "Request for bail or evidentiary hearing",
+          "Alleged unconstitutional treatment during detention"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Appellant/Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "David Oscar Markus",
+            "role": "Moving Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Won S. Shin",
+            "role": "Opposing Attorney for the United States of America"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "Judge, Southern District of New York"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it reveals the harsh conditions of Ghislaine Maxwell's pretrial detention and her legal team's argument that these conditions violate her constitutional rights, potentially impacting her ability to prepare for trial.",
+        "summary": "Ghislaine Maxwell's legal team filed a motion for pretrial release, arguing that her detention conditions are unconstitutional and hinder her ability to prepare for trial. The conditions include solitary confinement, inadequate food, constant surveillance, and limited access to legal materials. Maxwell's team contends that the government's evidence against her is weak and based on hearsay accusations."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "20-13133-rws",
+      "document_number": "20-13133-RWS",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Deposition Limit",
+          "Federal Rules of Civil Procedure",
+          "Discovery Dispute"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it reveals a discovery dispute between the plaintiff and defendant Ghislaine Maxwell regarding the number of depositions allowed, and provides insight into Maxwell's testimony and the plaintiff's strategy.",
+        "summary": "Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell opposes the plaintiff's motion to exceed the presumptive ten deposition limit, arguing that the plaintiff's request is premature and lacks legal support. Maxwell contends that her own testimony, which was thorough and not evasive, is irrelevant to the plaintiff's request to depose additional non-party witnesses. The plaintiff's motion is criticized for lacking specificity about the information expected from the additional depositions."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "20-1700088",
+      "document_number": "20-1700088",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Exhibit Document",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Extradition and deportation of individuals who have lost French nationality",
+          "Deprivation of citizenship and its implications",
+          "European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) case law on deportation and extradition"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Djamel Beghal",
+            "role": "Dual French-Algerian citizen convicted of terrorist offences and deprived of French nationality"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "William Julié",
+            "role": "Attorney at Law who authored the document"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document provides insight into France's policies and practices regarding the deprivation of citizenship and the subsequent deportation or extradition of individuals, highlighting the complexities and potential human rights implications.",
+        "summary": "The document discusses the case of Djamel Beghal, a dual French-Algerian citizen who was deprived of his French nationality and deported to Algeria. It highlights the French government's use of citizenship deprivation as a means to facilitate removal from France, and the complexities surrounding extradition and deportation under European human rights law."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "20-2",
+      "document_number": "20-2",
+      "page_count": 98,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal for pretrial release",
+          "Bail hearing transcript",
+          "Detention memoranda"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Appellant/Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "David Oscar Markus",
+            "role": "Appellant's attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Moe",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Mark S. Cohen",
+            "role": "Defendant's attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is a crucial court filing in Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal for pretrial release, containing key documents and transcripts related to her detention and bail hearings.",
+        "summary": "The document is an appendix to Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for pretrial release, including various court documents, memoranda, and a transcript from a bail hearing on July 14, 2020. It provides insight into the legal arguments and proceedings surrounding Maxwell's detention. The transcript reveals the remote court proceedings due to the COVID-19 pandemic."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "20-3",
+      "document_number": "20-3",
+      "page_count": 9,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing Compilation",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's motions for release on bail",
+          "Government's opposition to Maxwell's bail requests",
+          "Court opinions and orders regarding Maxwell's detention"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant in the case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "The Government (DOJ)",
+            "role": "Prosecutor in the case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document compilation provides insight into the legal proceedings and arguments surrounding Ghislaine Maxwell's detention and bail requests, potentially shedding light on the case's progression and the court's decisions.",
+        "summary": "This document is a compilation of court filings related to Ghislaine Maxwell's motions for release on bail, including memoranda from both the defense and prosecution, as well as court opinions and orders. The filings span multiple documents and exhibits, showcasing the back-and-forth between Maxwell's legal team and the government. The compilation includes various court documents, letters, and opinions from related cases."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "20-3036",
+      "document_number": "20-3036",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Motion to Compel",
+          "Disclosure of Ongoing Criminal Investigations",
+          "Stay Proceedings"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Virginia L. Giuffre",
+            "role": "Plaintiff"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Laura A. Menninger",
+            "role": "Counsel for Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca",
+            "role": "Counsel for Defendant"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is a court filing related to a motion to compel or stay proceedings in a high-profile case involving Ghislaine Maxwell, potentially revealing information about ongoing criminal investigations.",
+        "summary": "The document is a court filing in the case Virginia L. Giuffre v. Ghislaine Maxwell, where the defendant is filing a motion to compel the plaintiff to disclose information about alleged ongoing criminal investigations or, alternatively, to stay the proceedings."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "20-3061",
+      "document_number": "20-3061",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Mandate",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "United States v. Maxwell",
+          "Appeal",
+          "Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant-Appellant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Lara Pomerantz",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney for Appellee"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Adam Mueller",
+            "role": "Counsel for Defendant-Appellant Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "José A. Cabranes",
+            "role": "Circuit Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Rosemary S. Pooler",
+            "role": "Circuit Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Reena Raggi",
+            "role": "Circuit Judge"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is a mandate from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in the case United States v. Maxwell, indicating a decision has been made and is being enforced.",
+        "summary": "The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a mandate in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell on November 9, 2020. The case was heard by Circuit Judges José A. Cabranes, Rosemary S. Pooler, and Reena Raggi. The mandate follows a summary order, which does not have precedential effect."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "20-3380",
+      "document_number": "20-3380",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Defendant's risk of flight",
+          "Proposed conditions to mitigate flight risk",
+          "Extradition and citizenship renunciation"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "The Defendant",
+            "role": "The individual whose risk of flight is being assessed"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "The Government",
+            "role": "The party opposing the Defendant's proposed conditions"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it reveals the court's reasoning in denying the Defendant's proposed conditions to mitigate her risk of flight, and highlights the complexities of international extradition.",
+        "summary": "The court rejects the Defendant's proposed conditions to mitigate her risk of flight, including renouncing her UK and French citizenship and having a retired federal judge oversee her financial affairs. The court is unconvinced that these conditions would sufficiently reduce the risk of flight, given the uncertainty surrounding their enforceability and the Defendant's substantial international ties."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "20-370088",
+      "document_number": "20-370088",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "extradition",
+          "French nationality",
+          "interpretation of Article 696-4 of the French Code of Criminal Procedure"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "William Julié",
+            "role": "attorney arguing a point related to extradition and French nationality"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it provides insight into a legal argument regarding the extradition of individuals who have lost French nationality and the interpretation of relevant French law.",
+        "summary": "The document appears to be a court filing arguing that a person who has lost French nationality should not be protected from extradition under Article 696-4 of the French Code of Criminal Procedure, citing instances where the French government has deported individuals deprived of their French nationality for criminal offenses."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "20-4030",
+      "document_number": "20-4030",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Appeal dismissal",
+          "Unsealing order",
+          "Motion to consolidate"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe",
+            "role": "Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant-Appellant"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it represents a court decision dismissing an appeal and denying a motion to consolidate, providing insight into the court's reasoning and procedures.",
+        "summary": "The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed Maxwell's appeal and denied a motion to consolidate, finding Maxwell's arguments to be without merit. The appeal concerned an unsealing order and the connection between discovery materials in a criminal case and civil litigation. The court found Maxwell's explanation on this matter to be incoherent."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "20-6033",
+      "document_number": "20-6033",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Motion to consolidate appeals",
+          "Jurisdiction over interlocutory appeals",
+          "Protective orders in criminal cases"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant-Appellant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "District Court Judge"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is a court ruling on Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal of a protective order in a criminal case, and it clarifies the jurisdictional limits of interlocutory appeals.",
+        "summary": "The Second Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal of a protective order for lack of jurisdiction, holding that it was not a final decision and did not fall within the collateral order exception. The court also denied Maxwell's request for a writ of mandamus and her motion to consolidate the appeal with a related civil case."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "20-6701330",
+      "document_number": "20-6701330",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "detention hearing",
+          "bail application",
+          "flight risk assessment"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "defendant",
+            "role": "the individual being considered for detention"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it outlines the legal basis for detaining a defendant before trial, citing relevant statutes and case law, and argues that the defendant poses a significant flight risk.",
+        "summary": "The document discusses the legal framework for detention hearings under 18 U.S.C. § 3142, arguing that the defendant should be detained due to being a flight risk and the serious nature of the alleged crimes involving the sexual exploitation of minors."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "20-6703",
+      "document_number": "20-6703",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court filing or affidavit",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's media coverage and public perception",
+          "Threats and harassment faced by Ghislaine Maxwell",
+          "Impact of media attention on Ghislaine Maxwell's life"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "subject of media attention and harassment"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "associated individual whose arrest and death triggered increased media attention on Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document provides evidence of the intense media scrutiny and violent threats faced by Ghislaine Maxwell following Jeffrey Epstein's arrest and death, potentially relevant to her defense or mitigation.",
+        "summary": "The document details the significant increase in media coverage of Ghislaine Maxwell following Jeffrey Epstein's arrest and death, as well as the violent threats she received on social media, which made it impossible for her to live a quiet life."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "20-cr-00330-ajn",
+      "document_number": "20-CR-00330-AJN",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Criminal Notice of Appeal",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal",
+          "Bail release motion",
+          "United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell case"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "District Court Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "David Oscar Markus",
+            "role": "Defendant's Counsel"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Maurene Comey, Alison Moe & Lara Pomerantz",
+            "role": "Assistant U.S. Attorneys"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document signifies Ghislaine Maxwell's formal appeal against the denial of her third motion for release on bail, indicating a significant development in her ongoing criminal case.",
+        "summary": "Ghislaine Maxwell, through her counsel David Oscar Markus, appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit against the order denying her third motion for release on bail, entered on March 22, 2021, by District Judge Alison J. Nathan."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "20-cv-9121",
+      "document_number": "20-CV-9121",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Letter to the Court",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Motion to Seal",
+          "Temporary Sealing of Court Documents",
+          "Public Access to Court Records"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Christian R. Everdell",
+            "role": "Attorney for Ms. Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ms. Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it reveals the defense's argument for temporarily sealing a motion in a court case, and highlights the balance between the public's right of access and the need to protect the integrity of the fact-finding process.",
+        "summary": "The letter, written by Christian R. Everdell, argues that the court should temporarily seal a motion until the court rules on it or until the conclusion of any hearing. The defense claims that this is necessary to protect the integrity of the fact-finding process and cites precedent from similar cases."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "20-cr-336-ajn",
+      "document_number": "20-Cr-336-AJN",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "bail application",
+          "risk of flight",
+          "detention"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Alison G. Moe",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alex Rossmiller",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Maurene Comey",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "AUDREY STRAUSS",
+            "role": "Acting United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Gleeson, J.",
+            "role": "Judge"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is a court filing by the US Attorney's office arguing that the defendant is a flight risk and should be denied bail, citing relevant case law and statutory presumption in favor of detention.",
+        "summary": "The US Attorney's office filed a document opposing the defendant's bail application, arguing that she is an extreme risk of flight and that no bail conditions can ensure her presence in court. The filing cites several cases to support its position. The government respectfully submits that the defendant's application for bail should be denied."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "20-cr-00038-ajn",
+      "document_number": "20-cr-00038-AJN",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Order",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Access to legal materials",
+          "Detention conditions",
+          "Evidence review"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it reveals the court's consideration of the defendant's access to legal materials while in detention, which may be relevant to her preparation for trial.",
+        "summary": "The court orders the U.S. Marshal to allow Ghislaine Maxwell access to her legal materials while in the courthouse cellblock. The order is related to her detention and evidence review with the U.S. Attorney's office. The order was issued by Judge Alison J. Nathan in April 2021."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "20-cr-0030",
+      "document_number": "20-cr-0030",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "request for trial continuance",
+          "impact of COVID-19 on trial preparation",
+          "superseding indictment and new charges"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ms. Maxwell",
+            "role": "defendant"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it reveals the defense's argument for a trial continuance due to the challenges posed by COVID-19 and the superseding indictment, and highlights the complexities of the case.",
+        "summary": "The defense requests a trial continuance due to the difficulties caused by COVID-19 and the recent superseding indictment, arguing that they need more time to prepare and investigate new allegations. The government had previously represented that the trial would last two weeks, but now predicts it will last a month. The defense argues that the government's proposed timeline is unrealistic and ignores the impact of COVID-19 on trial preparation."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "20-cr-00300",
+      "document_number": "20-cr-00300",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Discovery review challenges",
+          "Impact of superseding indictment on trial preparation",
+          "Request for continuance and disclosure of trial information"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Bobbi C. Sternheim",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document highlights the challenges faced by the defense in reviewing discovery materials and preparing for trial, particularly after the superseding indictment, and requests a continuance to ensure a fair trial.",
+        "summary": "The defense argues that the superseding indictment has significantly expanded the scope of the case, requiring a re-review of discovery materials, including non-searchable documents and records. They request a 90-day continuance and disclosure of trial information to accurately determine the trial length."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "20-cr-00304",
+      "document_number": "20-cr-00304",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Table of Authorities",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Precedent cases cited in a criminal proceeding",
+          "Bail or detention decisions",
+          "Legal arguments and relevant case law"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [],
+        "significance": "This document is a table of authorities for a court filing in a criminal case, indicating the legal precedents and cases cited by the parties involved. It provides insight into the legal arguments and strategies employed.",
+        "summary": "This document is a table of authorities listing cases cited in a court filing for the case United States v. [defendant], with case numbers and citations for various federal court decisions. The table is part of a larger filing in a criminal proceeding. It references multiple cases related to bail, detention, and other legal issues."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "20-cr-00330",
+      "document_number": "20-cr-00330",
+      "page_count": 19,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's conditions of confinement at the Metropolitan Detention Center",
+          "Access to discovery materials and communication with attorneys",
+          "Impact of COVID-19 protocols on Maxwell's confinement and trial preparation"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Bobbi C. Sternheim",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document provides insight into Ghislaine Maxwell's conditions of confinement and access to her attorneys during the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as the impact of a superseding indictment on her trial preparation.",
+        "summary": "The document contains letters between the prosecution, defense, and Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding Ghislaine Maxwell's confinement conditions and trial preparation. The prosecution updates the court on Maxwell's access to discovery materials and communication with her attorneys, while the defense requests a trial continuance due to a superseding indictment."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "20-cr-00330-ajn document 397 filed 07/21/21 page 4 of 5",
+      "document_number": "20-cr-00330-AJN Document 397 Filed 07/21/21 Page 4 of 5",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Letter or Affidavit",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghulamali J. Ghulamali's client (Ms. Maxwell) conditions of confinement",
+          "Inadequate facilities and equipment for preparing for trial",
+          "Alleged mistreatment and neglect by the detention facility (MDC)"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ms. Maxwell",
+            "role": "The detainee whose conditions of confinement are being described"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghulamali J. Ghulamali",
+            "role": "The author of the document, likely an attorney representing Ms. Maxwell"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document highlights the allegedly harsh conditions faced by Ms. Maxwell while in detention and argues that these conditions hinder her ability to prepare for trial.",
+        "summary": "The document details the poor conditions faced by Ms. Maxwell in detention, including issues with mail, food, and inadequate facilities for reviewing discovery materials. It argues that these conditions amount to de facto solitary confinement and hinder her ability to prepare for trial. The author contends that the detention facility's (MDC) actions and inactions have negatively impacted Ms. Maxwell's treatment and trial preparation."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "20-cr-00330-ajn-dcf",
+      "document_number": "20-cr-00330-AJN-DCF",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing or Legal Agreement",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Asset management for Ghislaine Maxwell",
+          "Conditions for managing her financial accounts",
+          "Role and responsibilities of the asset monitor"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "The individual whose assets are being managed"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "The Honorable William S. Duffey, Jr.",
+            "role": "The selected asset monitor, a retired federal District Court judge and former United States Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document outlines the conditions and restrictions on Ghislaine Maxwell's financial assets as part of a legal agreement or court order, likely related to her ongoing litigation.",
+        "summary": "The document details the terms under which Ghislaine Maxwell's assets will be managed, including the creation of a new account and the role of an asset monitor. The asset monitor, Judge William S. Duffey, Jr., will oversee the management of her assets, excluding certain funds. The agreement includes restrictions on disbursements and reporting requirements."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "20-cr-00338",
+      "document_number": "20-cr-00338",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Opinion or Ruling",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Bail and pretrial detention",
+          "Risk of flight assessment",
+          "Conditions of release"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "The Defendant",
+            "role": "The individual whose bail is being contested"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "The Government",
+            "role": "Prosecutor in the case against the Defendant"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it reveals the court's reasoning for denying the Defendant's third motion for bail, highlighting concerns about the Defendant's risk of flight and the insufficiency of proposed conditions to mitigate that risk.",
+        "summary": "The court denies the Defendant's third motion for bail, concluding that despite new proposed conditions, including renouncing citizenship and asset monitoring, the Defendant still poses a significant risk of flight and that no set of conditions can reasonably assure her appearance in future proceedings."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "20-cr-0038",
+      "document_number": "20-cr-0038",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Bail Reform Act",
+          "Pretrial detention",
+          "Rebuttable presumption"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "The Defendant",
+            "role": "The individual whose bail is being contested"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it discusses the legal standards and precedents governing pretrial detention and bail decisions, specifically in the context of a defendant who has filed multiple motions for bail.",
+        "summary": "The document analyzes the Bail Reform Act and relevant case law, discussing the rebuttable presumption that arises when a defendant is charged with certain offenses, and the burden of production and persuasion in bail hearings. The defendant has filed a third motion for bail, arguing that new conditions and the strength of the government's case warrant reconsideration."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "20-cr-00380",
+      "document_number": "20-cr-00380",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "defendant's conditions of confinement",
+          "access to discovery and legal counsel",
+          "quarantine procedures at MDC"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Audrey Strauss",
+            "role": "Acting United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Maurene Comey",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison Moe",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Lara Pomerantz",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it provides details about the defendant's conditions of confinement and access to legal counsel while in quarantine, addressing potential concerns about her rights.",
+        "summary": "The document outlines the conditions under which the defendant is being held in quarantine at the MDC, including her access to discovery and legal counsel. It explains that despite quarantine, the defendant has significant time to review her discovery and communicate with her lawyers. The Government assures that it will continue to be responsive to any concerns raised by the defense regarding the defendant's conditions of confinement."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "20-cr-00382",
+      "document_number": "20-cr-00382",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Indictment",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Sexual abuse of minors",
+          "Conspiracy involving Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell",
+          "Travel for illicit sexual activities"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant accused of participating in and facilitating sexual abuse of minors"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Co-conspirator in the sexual abuse of minors"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Minor Victim-1",
+            "role": "Victim of alleged sexual abuse"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Minor Victim-2",
+            "role": "Victim of alleged sexual abuse"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Minor Victim-3",
+            "role": "Victim of alleged sexual abuse"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is a crucial piece of evidence in a high-profile criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell, detailing serious allegations of sexual abuse and conspiracy involving multiple victims and Jeffrey Epstein.",
+        "summary": "The indictment charges Ghislaine Maxwell with conspiracy and enticement of minors to travel for illegal sex acts, alleging her involvement in multiple instances of sexual abuse with Jeffrey Epstein between 1994 and 1997 across various locations."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "20-cr-0080",
+      "document_number": "20-cr-0080",
+      "page_count": 10,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Bail conditions for defendant Ghislaine Maxwell",
+          "COVID-19 pandemic response at MDC Brooklyn",
+          "Pretrial detention and bail reform act"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Sophia Papapetru",
+            "role": "Staff Attorney, MDC Brooklyn"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "John Wallace",
+            "role": "Staff Attorney, MDC Brooklyn"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant as it provides insight into the conditions of Ghislaine Maxwell's confinement at MDC Brooklyn during the COVID-19 pandemic and her bail application, which includes a detailed proposal for bail conditions and new information addressing the court's initial concerns.",
+        "summary": "The document contains a letter from MDC Brooklyn staff attorneys addressing concerns about Ghislaine Maxwell's treatment and a court filing discussing her bail application, including proposed bail conditions and new information to support her release."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "20-cr-00800-ajn document 110",
+      "document_number": "20-cr-00800-AJN Document 110",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Bail application for Ghislaine Maxwell",
+          "Conditions for release",
+          "Government's opposition to bail"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Associated individual mentioned in the context of Maxwell's case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant as it presents Ghislaine Maxwell's bail application and the arguments made by her legal team to secure her release on strict conditions, despite the government's opposition.",
+        "summary": "The document is a court filing related to Ghislaine Maxwell's bail application, presenting a detailed bail package and arguing that the conditions proposed warrant her release. The government's opposition is criticized for setting an unreasonably high standard for bail eligibility."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "20-cr-00830",
+      "document_number": "20-cr-00830",
+      "page_count": 13,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's detention conditions",
+          "Use of flashlights in security checks at MDC",
+          "Access to counsel and discovery materials"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Audrey Strauss",
+            "role": "United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Maurene Comey",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison Moe",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Lara Pomerantz",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Philippe AEGLE",
+            "role": "Head of the International Criminal Assistance Bureau, France"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document provides insight into Ghislaine Maxwell's detention conditions and access to counsel while awaiting trial, as well as information on the procedures followed by the Metropolitan Detention Center.",
+        "summary": "The document is a court filing in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, responding to the court's order regarding the use of flashlights in security checks at MDC and detailing Maxwell's detention conditions and access to counsel. It describes the procedures followed by MDC staff, including flashlight checks, pat-down searches, and access to discovery materials and counsel. The document also includes information from the French Ministry of Justice regarding extradition procedures."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "20-cr-00830-ajn",
+      "document_number": "20-cr-00830-AJN",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Request for laptop access on weekends and holidays",
+          "Review of discovery documents",
+          "Bail conditions"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Christian R. Everdell",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it reveals a court order granting the defendant's request to access a laptop on weekends and holidays to review discovery documents, which is crucial for her defense preparation.",
+        "summary": "The document is a court filing where the defense attorney requests the court to order the Bureau of Prisons to give Ghislaine Maxwell access to a laptop on weekends and holidays. The court grants the unobjected-to request. The judge, Alison J. Nathan, signs the order on January 15, 2021."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "20-cr-00830-ajn document 11",
+      "document_number": "20-cr-00830-AJN Document 11",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "bail conditions for Ms. Maxwell",
+          "flight risk assessment",
+          "conditions of confinement and their impact on trial preparation"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ms. Maxwell",
+            "role": "defendant in the case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it argues for the release of Ms. Maxwell on bail, highlighting the conditions that could assure her presence at trial and challenging the government's opposition to her release.",
+        "summary": "The document argues that Ms. Maxwell should be released on bail due to the proposed bail package that includes renunciation of foreign citizenship, asset monitoring, and strict home confinement. It highlights the difficulties she faces in preparing for trial while in custody, including issues with electronic discovery and poor conditions at the detention facility."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "20-cr-00830-ajn document 296 filed 07/04/23 page 6 of 6",
+      "document_number": "20-cr-00830-AJN Document 296 Filed 07/04/23 Page 6 of 6",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Government submission",
+          "Request for additional information",
+          "Case update"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Audrey Strauss",
+            "role": "United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Maurene Comey",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Allison Moe",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Lara Pomerantz",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is a formal submission by the United States Attorney's office in a criminal case, indicating the government's willingness to provide additional information as needed by the Court.",
+        "summary": "The document is a court filing in a criminal case (20-cr-00830-AJN) where the United States Attorney's office, led by Audrey Strauss, submits a letter to the Court, offering to provide additional information if required. The filing is signed by Assistant United States Attorneys Maurene Comey, Allison Moe, and Lara Pomerantz. The letter is copied to all counsel of record via ECF."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "20-cr-00830-ajn-1",
+      "document_number": "20-cr-00830-AJN-1",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's detention conditions",
+          "Allegations of mistreatment by MDC staff",
+          "Monitoring and surveillance of Maxwell's activities and communications"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant in the case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it highlights alleged mistreatment and excessive surveillance of Ghislaine Maxwell during her detention, which could be relevant to her defense and potentially impact the trial.",
+        "summary": "The document details the harsh conditions and excessive surveillance faced by Ghislaine Maxwell during her detention, including allegations of mistreatment by MDC staff and monitoring of her communications. It argues that Maxwell's detention conditions are not justified by the risks posited by the MDC. The document invites the court and government to review Maxwell's monitored communications to evidence her strong ties to the United States and intention to establish her innocence at trial."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "20-cr-0088",
+      "document_number": "20-cr-0088",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Extradition law",
+          "French nationality and extradition",
+          "Interpretation of Article 696-4 of the French Code of Criminal Procedure"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "William Julié",
+            "role": "Attorney at Law representing a party in the case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it provides a legal argument regarding the interpretation of extradition laws in France, specifically in relation to individuals who have changed or lost their French nationality.",
+        "summary": "The document discusses the French Ministry of Justice's interpretation of extradition laws, arguing that it is contradicted by precedents and case law. It cites academic literature and specific court rulings to support its claims, including a ruling by the Criminal Chamber of the French Court de cassation."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "20-cr-00880",
+      "document_number": "20-cr-00880",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's detention conditions",
+          "Search procedures and surveillance at MDC",
+          "Request for Warden Tellez to provide information to the Court"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant in the case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Warden Tellez",
+            "role": "Warden at MDC, responsible for Maxwell's detention"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Audrey Strauss",
+            "role": "Acting United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Maurene Comey",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison Moe",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Lara Pomerantz",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document highlights concerns about Ghislaine Maxwell's detention conditions and requests the Warden to provide information to the Court, potentially impacting the case.",
+        "summary": "The document is a court filing by the US Attorney's office expressing concerns about Ghislaine Maxwell's detention conditions at MDC, including excessive searching despite 24/7 surveillance. The filing requests Warden Tellez to provide a first-hand accounting to the Court on the detention conditions."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "20-cr-00880-ajn document 11-02 filed 03/23/21 page d31of518",
+      "document_number": "20-cr-00880-AJN Document 11-02 Filed 03/23/21 Page d31of518",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Memorandum/Opinion",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Extradition of nationals",
+          "French nationality law",
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's bail proceedings"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant in bail proceedings in the USA"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Olivier Laude",
+            "role": "Partner at Laude Esquior Champey, acting on behalf of Cohen & Gresser LLP"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Philippe Jaeglé",
+            "role": "Head of the International Criminal Assistance Bureau of the French Ministry of Justice"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "William Julié",
+            "role": "Author of the memorandum, attorney at law"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document provides a counter-opinion to the French Ministry of Justice's assertion that renouncing French nationality does not affect extradition proceedings, potentially impacting Ghislaine Maxwell's bail proceedings.",
+        "summary": "The memorandum, written by William Julié, argues that the French government can extradite an individual who renounces their French nationality, countering the Ministry of Justice's claim that nationality at the time of the alleged offense is what matters."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "20-cr-00880-ajn document 11-02 filed 08/23/21 page 151 of 518",
+      "document_number": "20-cr-00880-AJN Document 11-02 Filed 08/23/21 Page 151 of 518",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Expert opinion or legal analysis document",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Extradition law",
+          "Interpretation of treaty provisions and French Code of Criminal Procedure",
+          "Nationality and its impact on extradition requests"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "William Julié",
+            "role": "Attorney at Law providing expert opinion"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document provides a detailed legal analysis on the interpretation of extradition laws, specifically regarding the nationality of the person being extradited, and is potentially important for understanding the legal grounds for extradition or denial thereof.",
+        "summary": "The document, authored by William Julié, an attorney at law, provides a legal analysis arguing that certain provisions regarding extradition should not apply to individuals who have lost French nationality at the time of the extradition request. It interprets the relevant treaty and French law, concluding that the nationality status at the time of the request is what matters for extradition purposes."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "20-cr-00880-ajn document 112 filed 03/23/21 page 141 of 518",
+      "document_number": "20-cr-00880-AJN Document 112 Filed 03/23/21 Page 141 of 518",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "extradition law",
+          "interpretation of extradition treaty between USA and France",
+          "nationality protection under extradition law"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "William Julié",
+            "role": "attorney at law representing a client in an extradition case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it provides a detailed analysis of extradition law and treaty provisions between the USA and France, which could be relevant to the court's decision in the case.",
+        "summary": "The document argues that the Ministry's interpretation of extradition law is incorrect, citing the Extradition Treaty between the USA and France and the French Code of Criminal Procedure. It asserts that nationality protection only applies to individuals who were French nationals at the time of the offense, not at the time of the extradition request. The document is a legal argument presented by attorney William Julié."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "20-cr-00880-ajn document 92",
+      "document_number": "20-cr-00880-AJN Document 92",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Order",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Access to legal materials",
+          "Communication with defense counsel",
+          "Detention or imprisonment conditions"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it reveals a court's decision regarding a defendant's access to legal materials and communication with their lawyer, which is a significant issue in ensuring a fair trial.",
+        "summary": "The court orders that the defendant continues to receive adequate access to her legal materials and her ability to communicate with defense counsel, as ruled by Judge Alison J. Nathan on December 8, 2020."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "20-cr-0330",
+      "document_number": "20-cr-0330",
+      "page_count": 11,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Bail Application",
+          "Risk of Flight",
+          "Extradition Treaty"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ms. Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Mr. Julié",
+            "role": "Expert on French extradition law"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is a court filing related to Ghislaine Maxwell's bail application, discussing the conditions of her release and the risk of flight. It provides insight into the legal arguments presented by both the defense and the prosecution.",
+        "summary": "The document is a court filing in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, discussing her third bail application and the conditions proposed to ensure her appearance at trial. The court ultimately denies the bail motion, citing the risk of flight and the weight of the evidence against her."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "20-cr-0336",
+      "document_number": "20-cr-0336",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's bail conditions",
+          "Financial support and sureties for bail",
+          "Consequences of violating bail conditions"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell's spouse",
+            "role": "co-signing bail bond and supporting Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it provides details about Ghislaine Maxwell's bail arrangement and the financial support she has from family and friends, demonstrating their confidence in her not fleeing.",
+        "summary": "The document discusses Ghislaine Maxwell's $22.5 million bail bond, co-signed by her spouse and supported by properties worth $8 million. Several family members and friends have also volunteered to sign significant bonds, demonstrating their confidence in Maxwell's commitment to abide by her bail conditions."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "20-cr-17-00388",
+      "document_number": "20-cr-17-00388",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Motion to dismiss indictment",
+          "Jury selection process",
+          "Alleged violations of Fifth and Sixth Amendments and Jury Selection and Service Act (JSSA)"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Schulte",
+            "role": "defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Government",
+            "role": "prosecutor"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it reveals the defendant's claims that the indictment was unlawfully obtained due to issues with the jury selection process, and the court's consideration of these claims may impact the validity of the indictment.",
+        "summary": "The document discusses Schulte's motion to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that it was obtained in violation of his constitutional rights and the JSSA, due to issues with the jury selection process in the White Plains courthouse. The court provides background on the District's jury selection plan and the defendant's claims. The motion is based on alleged underrepresentation of African American and Hispanic American populations in the grand jury venire."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "20-cr-20002 (alc)",
+      "document_number": "20-cr-20002 (ALC)",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Sealing of court documents",
+          "Juror 50",
+          "Defense's legal theories"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "Judge presiding over the case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it reveals the defense's argument for sealing a motion related to Juror 50 and highlights the tension between the public's right to access court documents and the need to protect sensitive information.",
+        "summary": "The defense requests that a motion be sealed temporarily to prevent Juror 50 from accessing information that could influence their responses at a hearing. The defense argues that sealing is necessary and narrowly tailored to preserve higher values. The document explains why redacting the motion is not feasible due to the potential for revealing the defense's legal theories and interpretation of facts."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "20-cr-306 (at 3)",
+      "document_number": "20-cr-306 (AT 3)",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "bail application",
+          "detention",
+          "risk of flight"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Alison G. Moe",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alex Rossmiller",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Maurene Comey",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Audrey Strauss",
+            "role": "Acting United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "The defendant",
+            "role": "The individual whose bail application is being contested"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it reveals the government's opposition to the defendant's bail application and their argument that the defendant is a flight risk.",
+        "summary": "The document is a court filing by the United States Attorney's office arguing that the defendant is a flight risk and should be denied bail. The government submits that there are no conditions of bail that would assure the defendant's presence in court proceedings. The filing is signed by Assistant United States Attorneys Alison G. Moe, Alex Rossmiller, and Maurene Comey."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "20-cr-330",
+      "document_number": "20-cr-330",
+      "page_count": 17,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's detention conditions",
+          "Sleep deprivation due to MDC's flashlight checks",
+          "Bail conditions and proposals"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Bobbi C. Sternheim",
+            "role": "defendant's lawyer"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it highlights the concerns regarding Ghislaine Maxwell's detention conditions, specifically the sleep deprivation caused by the MDC's flashlight checks, and her proposals for bail conditions.",
+        "summary": "The document is a court filing related to Ghislaine Maxwell's case, discussing her detention conditions and bail proposals. It highlights the issues with sleep deprivation caused by the MDC's flashlight checks and Maxwell's proposals for bail, including renouncing her French and British citizenship and having her assets monitored by a retired federal judge."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "20-cr-330 (ajn) document 110",
+      "document_number": "20-cr-330 (AJN) Document 110",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "bail application",
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's ties to the United States",
+          "government's handling of the Epstein case"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Epstein",
+            "role": "associated individual in a prior case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it reveals the defense's argument for Ghislaine Maxwell's bail and highlights the government's handling of the Epstein case, which may be relevant to Maxwell's case.",
+        "summary": "The document is a court filing arguing for Ghislaine Maxwell's bail, citing her strong ties to the United States, including her spouse and friends, and criticizing the government's handling of the case and its comparison to the Epstein case. The defense argues that new information has come to light since the initial bail hearing, including Maxwell's spouse coming forward as a co-signor. The government is accused of not scrutinizing the accusers' accounts seriously."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "20-cr-330 (ajn) document 192-2 filed 03/24/20 page 14 of 45",
+      "document_number": "20-cr-330 (AJN) Document 192-2 Filed 03/24/20 Page 14 of 45",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's bail application",
+          "Sureties and bonds for Maxwell's release",
+          "Maxwell's likelihood of fleeing the United States"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "defendant in the case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Defense counsel",
+            "role": "representing Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it provides insight into Ghislaine Maxwell's bail application and the support she has from her family and friends, which could impact the court's decision on her release.",
+        "summary": "The document discusses Ghislaine Maxwell's bail application, highlighting the significant financial pledges made by her sureties and the support of a security company. It argues that Maxwell will not flee due to the risks taken by her supporters and her relationships with them. The document showcases the depth of support Maxwell has and the measures being taken to ensure her compliance with bail conditions."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "20-cr-330 (ajn) document 192-2 filed 08/24/20 page 36 of 95",
+      "document_number": "20-cr-330 (AJN) Document 192-2 Filed 08/24/20 Page 36 of 95",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's bail hearing",
+          "Government's allegations against Ghislaine Maxwell",
+          "Lack of documentary evidence supporting the allegations"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "alleged co-conspirator"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it challenges the government's representations about the strength of their case against Ghislaine Maxwell, suggesting that the discovery materials do not contain meaningful corroboration of the allegations.",
+        "summary": "The defense argues that despite the government's claims of having strong evidence backed by contemporaneous documents, the discovery materials produced so far lack meaningful documentary corroboration of the allegations against Ghislaine Maxwell. The majority of the documents relate to a later time period than the charged conspiracy."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "20-cr-330 (ajn) document 192-2 filed 08/28/20 page 40 of 45",
+      "document_number": "20-cr-330 (AJN) Document 192-2 Filed 08/28/20 Page 40 of 45",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "bail conditions for Ghislaine Maxwell",
+          "risk of flight assessment",
+          "comparison with other high-profile defendants"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "defendant in the case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it presents a detailed bail package for Ghislaine Maxwell and argues that it is sufficient to reasonably assure her presence in court, addressing concerns raised by the government.",
+        "summary": "The document argues that the proposed bail package for Ghislaine Maxwell is expansive and sufficient to warrant her release from custody, citing comparisons with other high-profile defendants and addressing government concerns about risk of flight."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "20-cr-330 (ajn) document 192-2 filed 12/03/20 page 48 of 55",
+      "document_number": "20-cr-330 (AJN) Document 192-2 Filed 12/03/20 Page 48 of 55",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "discovery production issues",
+          "Ms. Maxwell's access to discovery materials",
+          "COVID-19 exposure risks in prison"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ms. Maxwell",
+            "role": "defendant in a criminal case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document highlights significant issues with the defendant's access to discovery materials and her risk of COVID-19 exposure while in prison, potentially impacting her ability to defend herself.",
+        "summary": "The document reports that Ms. Maxwell has faced technical issues with discovery productions, resulting in over four months without access to complete and readable discovery materials. Additionally, she has been quarantined and is at risk of COVID-19 exposure due to inadequate testing and safety protocols at the prison."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "20-cr-330 (ajn)",
+      "document_number": "20-cr-330 (ajn)",
+      "page_count": 17,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's bail motion",
+          "Conditions of confinement",
+          "Flashlight checks by MDC staff"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Heriberto Tellez",
+            "role": "Warden of MDC"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant as it reveals the ongoing legal proceedings against Ghislaine Maxwell, including her bail motions and concerns about her conditions of confinement.",
+        "summary": "The document is a court filing in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, containing multiple orders and opinions from Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding Maxwell's bail motions and conditions of confinement at the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC)."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "20-cr-330(ajn) document 192-2 filed 10/30/20 page 5 of 45",
+      "document_number": "20-cr-330(AJN) Document 192-2 Filed 10/30/20 Page 5 of 45",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's bail request",
+          "extradition laws and procedures",
+          "conditions of confinement and their impact on Maxwell's defense"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "defendant in a criminal case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it reveals the defense's arguments for Ghislaine Maxwell's bail request and highlights concerns about the government's handling of evidence and Maxwell's treatment in detention.",
+        "summary": "The document argues that Ghislaine Maxwell should be granted bail due to the lack of corroborating evidence against her, the unlikelihood of her fleeing to countries with which the US has extradition treaties, and the oppressive conditions of her confinement. It also criticizes the government's handling of discovery and highlights the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on Maxwell's detention."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "20-cr-330(ljl)",
+      "document_number": "20-cr-330(LJL)",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Bail conditions for Ghislaine Maxwell",
+          "Extradition waivers as a condition of release",
+          "Flight risk assessment during a pandemic"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "defendant in a criminal case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it reveals the defense's argument for bail and addresses concerns about Maxwell's flight risk, providing insight into the legal strategies employed in her case.",
+        "summary": "The document is a court filing arguing for Ghislaine Maxwell's release on bail, addressing concerns about her potential flight risk by highlighting her irrevocable waivers of extradition rights and the intense media scrutiny she faces. It cites legal precedents and expert reports to support its claims. The filing argues that Maxwell's detention is unjustified given the conditions proposed."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "20-cr-330(ajn)",
+      "document_number": "20-cr-330(ajn)",
+      "page_count": 8,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Bail application",
+          "Additional evidence for bail consideration",
+          "Financial disclosure and asset transparency"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant in a criminal case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Associated individual mentioned in the context of the case against Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it presents new evidence in support of Ghislaine Maxwell's renewed bail application, addressing concerns raised by the court during the initial bail hearing.",
+        "summary": "The document is a court filing by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team, presenting additional information to support her renewed bail application. It includes letters from family and friends, a financial report, and expert opinions to address the court's previous concerns regarding her family ties, financial transparency, and likelihood of flight. The filing argues that this new evidence demonstrates that reasonable bail conditions can be set to ensure Maxwell's appearance in court."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "20-cr-330-ajn",
+      "document_number": "20-cr-330-AJN",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Bail application for Ghislaine Maxwell",
+          "Proposed bail conditions",
+          "Pretrial motions challenging the government's case"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant in a criminal case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Associated individual mentioned in the context of Maxwell's case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is a court filing in a high-profile criminal case, detailing the defendant's bail application and arguing for her release under certain conditions. It highlights the legal arguments and circumstances surrounding Maxwell's detention.",
+        "summary": "The document is a court filing arguing for Ghislaine Maxwell's release on bail with specific conditions to prevent flight. It references pretrial motions challenging the government's case and discusses media coverage and public perception of Maxwell. The filing argues that with the proposed bail conditions, Maxwell should be granted bail to prepare for trial."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "20-cr-330-ajn document 11202 filed 03/23/21 page 6 of 18",
+      "document_number": "20-cr-330-AJN Document 11202 Filed 03/23/21 Page 6 of 18",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Bail conditions for Ghislaine Maxwell",
+          "Asset monitoring as a condition of release",
+          "Proposed monitorship by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr."
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "William S. Duffey, Jr.",
+            "role": "Proposed asset monitor and retired federal district court judge"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it reveals the defense's proposal for a monitorship to oversee Ghislaine Maxwell's assets as a condition of her release on bail, and the government's opposition to this proposal.",
+        "summary": "The document discusses the proposed bail conditions for Ghislaine Maxwell, including the imposition of a monitor to supervise her assets. Judge William S. Duffey, Jr. has been proposed as the asset monitor. The government opposes this proposal, citing concerns about Maxwell's candor."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "20-cr-60036",
+      "document_number": "20-cr-60036",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Bail denial",
+          "Flight risk assessment",
+          "Indictment details"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "The Defendant",
+            "role": "The individual being charged and denied bail"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "The individual whose sexual abuse the Defendant is accused of facilitating"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it reveals the court's reasoning for denying bail to the Defendant, deemed a flight risk due to the serious charges and her substantial resources and foreign ties.",
+        "summary": "The court denies the Defendant's renewed motion for release on bail, citing the serious charges, strong evidence, and the Defendant's substantial resources and foreign ties as reasons she is a flight risk. The Defendant was indicted for facilitating Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse of minors. The court previously denied bail on July 14, 2020, after a thorough consideration of the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "20-cr-7003",
+      "document_number": "20-cr-7003",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Letter",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Request for trial continuance",
+          "Arraignment scheduled for April 23rd",
+          "Interests of justice"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Bobbi C. Sternheim",
+            "role": "Attorney for the defendant"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it indicates a request for a trial continuance, which may impact the trial's timeline and proceedings.",
+        "summary": "The letter, written by attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim, requests a trial continuance in the interests of justice ahead of an arraignment scheduled for April 23rd. The letter is copied to all counsel of record. It is related to case #20-cr-7003."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "20-cr00330-ajn document 1392 filed 03/22/21 page 9 of 12",
+      "document_number": "20-cr00330-AJN Document 1392 Filed 03/22/21 Page 9 of 12",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "extradition treaty between the US and France",
+          "assessment of nationality for extradition purposes",
+          "impact of renunciation of citizenship on extradition proceedings"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "The Defendant",
+            "role": "the individual facing extradition proceedings"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "French legal expert",
+            "role": "providing expert opinion on French law regarding extradition and nationality"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it reveals a dispute over the interpretation of extradition treaties and the relevance of nationality at the time of the offense versus at the time of extradition request.",
+        "summary": "The document discusses a legal dispute regarding the extradition of the Defendant from France to the US, focusing on the issue of nationality and its assessment at different times. The parties present different interpretations of the extradition treaty and French law, leading to uncertainty about the impact of the Defendant's renunciation of French citizenship on the extradition proceedings."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "20-cr00880",
+      "document_number": "20-cr00880",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's bail hearing",
+          "Relationship between Ghislaine Maxwell and her spouse",
+          "Disclosure of Ghislaine Maxwell's finances"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell's spouse",
+            "role": "co-signer for bail and relevant to her ties to the country"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it provides insight into Ghislaine Maxwell's defense strategy and her relationship with her spouse during her bail hearing, and challenges the government's assertions regarding her ties to the country and disclosure of her finances.",
+        "summary": "The document is a court filing related to Ghislaine Maxwell's bail hearing, where her defense counters the government's assertions about her relationship with her spouse and her disclosure of finances. It argues that her relationship is strong and that she has thoroughly disclosed her finances. The filing disputes the government's claims and provides supporting documentation."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "20-cr0330",
+      "document_number": "20-cr0330",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's detention and flight risk assessment",
+          "Challenges to the government's case against Ghislaine Maxwell",
+          "Alleged weaknesses and concessions in the government's prosecution"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "alleged co-conspirator"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Accuser-3/Minor Victim-3",
+            "role": "alleged victim"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it highlights the weaknesses in the government's case against Ghislaine Maxwell and raises questions about prosecutorial misconduct.",
+        "summary": "The document argues that the government's case against Ghislaine Maxwell is weakening as her detention period extends, citing concessions made by the government and challenging the strength of the case. It highlights the government's alleged misrepresentation to a federal judge and the potential impact on the perjury counts. The document asserts that Maxwell's prosecution is potentially barred by a Non-Prosecution Agreement with Jeffrey Epstein."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "20-cr0336",
+      "document_number": "20-cr0336",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "COVID-19 outbreak at MDC",
+          "impact on Ghislaine Maxwell's legal preparation",
+          "request for bail"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "defendant in the case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it highlights the challenges faced by the defendant, Ghislaine Maxwell, in preparing her defense due to COVID-19 restrictions and advocates for her release on bail.",
+        "summary": "The document discusses the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak at the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) on Ghislaine Maxwell's ability to prepare her defense and argues that this should be a factor in favor of granting her bail. It highlights the surge in COVID-19 cases among inmates and staff and the resulting suspension of in-person legal visits. The filing urges the court to consider the threat of COVID-19 when deciding on Maxwell's bail request."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "20-cv-00854",
+      "document_number": "20-cv-00854",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "JSSA violation",
+          "motion to dismiss",
+          "substantial violation"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Schulte",
+            "role": "plaintiff or movant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Paul A. Crotty",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is a court order denying a motion to dismiss, indicating that the case will proceed. It reveals the court's reasoning on the substantiality of a JSSA violation.",
+        "summary": "The court denies Schulte's motion to dismiss, concluding that Schulte has not demonstrated a plausible violation of the JSSA. The court found that the violation was technical and did not have a substantial effect. The case will proceed as a result of this order."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "20-cv-00880",
+      "document_number": "20-cv-00880",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's conditions of detention",
+          "Request for MDC Warden to report to the Court",
+          "Dispute between prosecution and defense regarding the appropriate next steps"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Heriberto Tellez",
+            "role": "Warden of the Metropolitan Detention Center"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document reveals a dispute between the prosecution and defense regarding Ghislaine Maxwell's conditions of detention and the appropriate next steps to address the concerns raised by the defense.",
+        "summary": "The document is a joint letter submitted by the prosecution and defense in response to the Court's order regarding Ghislaine Maxwell's conditions of detention. The parties disagree on whether MDC legal counsel should submit a written response or Warden Heriberto Tellez should appear before the Court to address the concerns raised by the defense."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "20-cv-03336-akh document 1922-1 filed 08/24/20 page 30 of 45",
+      "document_number": "20-cv-03336-AKH Document 1922-1 Filed 08/24/20 Page 30 of 45",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Government subpoenas for Ghislaine Maxwell's documents",
+          "Lack of corroborating evidence in the case against Maxwell",
+          "Bail consideration for Maxwell based on the strength of the case against her"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant in the case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Main target who died in government custody"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it reveals the timing and nature of the government's investigation into Ghislaine Maxwell, suggesting that the case against her was an afterthought following Epstein's death.",
+        "summary": "The document argues that the government's case against Ghislaine Maxwell lacks corroborating evidence and was likely pursued only after Jeffrey Epstein's death. It highlights that subpoenas for Maxwell's financial information were issued after Epstein's death and that the case relies heavily on witness testimony about events over 25 years ago. The lack of evidence is presented as a factor in favor of granting Maxwell bail."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "20-mj-132-01-aj",
+      "document_number": "20-mj-132-01-AJ",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Commitment to Another District",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Criminal charges against Ghislaine Maxwell",
+          "Transfer of case from District of New Hampshire to Southern District of New York",
+          "Charges related to conspiracy, enticement, and transportation of minors for illegal sex acts"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Lawrence Vogelman, Esq.",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document signifies the transfer of Ghislaine Maxwell's case to the Southern District of New York, where she will face serious charges related to sex trafficking and conspiracy.",
+        "summary": "The document is a court filing committing Ghislaine Maxwell to another district (Southern District of New York) to face charges related to conspiracy, enticement, and transportation of minors for illegal sex acts. Maxwell was detained after a hearing and is represented by Lawrence Vogelman, Esq. The case was initially filed in the District of New Hampshire."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "20-mj-330 (jad) document 62 filed 07/06/20 page 2 of 33",
+      "document_number": "20-mj-330 (JAD) Document 62 Filed 07/06/20 Page 2 of 33",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's initial appearance and removal hearing",
+          "COVID-19 pandemic's impact on court proceedings",
+          "First and Sixth Amendment rights during video hearings"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant in the case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it details the court's findings and considerations regarding conducting a video hearing for Ghislaine Maxwell's initial appearance and removal hearing during the COVID-19 pandemic, balancing public access with health concerns.",
+        "summary": "The document is a court filing related to Ghislaine Maxwell's initial appearance and removal hearing, held as a video hearing due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The court considered the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights and the public's First Amendment rights before making findings that the video hearing constitutes a partial closure of the proceedings. The court found that the goals of public access were still achieved as the proceeding was not secret and the public could access it."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "200",
+      "document_number": "200",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Access to legal materials",
+          "Evidence review",
+          "Pre-trial detention conditions"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Bobbi C. Sternheim",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it reveals the defendant's pre-trial detention conditions and her access to legal materials while in custody. It also highlights the court's role in ensuring the defendant's rights are protected.",
+        "summary": "The document is a court filing by defense attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim requesting that the court order the U.S. Marshal to allow defendant Ghislaine Maxwell access to her legal papers while in the cellblock. The court grants the request, issuing an order to permit Maxwell to have access to her legal materials during her detention."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "201-07-003230-admitdocid010321",
+      "document_number": "201-07-003230-AdmitDocID010321",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Expert Opinion/Declaration",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Extradition Act 2003",
+          "Secretary of State's power to bar extradition",
+          "Timescales of extradition proceedings"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "David Perry QC",
+            "role": "Author of the opinion"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ms Maxwell",
+            "role": "Requested person in extradition proceedings"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Gary McKinnon",
+            "role": "Individual whose extradition was previously refused"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document provides expert opinion on the UK extradition law and the Secretary of State's power to bar extradition, which is relevant to Ms Maxwell's case.",
+        "summary": "The document discusses the Secretary of State's exceptional power to bar extradition under the Extradition Act 2003 and notes that it has been exercised only once since the enactment of the Act. It also highlights the typical timescales for extradition proceedings arising from US requests. The author, David Perry QC, concludes that none of the bars or exceptions to extradition would arise in Ms Maxwell's case based on currently known information."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "201-0700320-admindisclosure010321",
+      "document_number": "201-0700320-AdminDisclosure010321",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Legal Opinion or Memorandum",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Extradition proceedings against Ms. Maxwell",
+          "Bars to extradition under the Extradition Act 2003",
+          "Human rights considerations under Article 8 of the ECHR"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ms. Maxwell",
+            "role": "The individual facing extradition proceedings"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it assesses the likelihood of Ms. Maxwell's extradition to the United States and the potential bars to extradition she may raise, providing insight into the legal arguments and potential outcomes in her case.",
+        "summary": "The document analyzes the extradition proceedings against Ms. Maxwell, concluding that bail is unlikely to be granted and that several bars to extradition are unlikely to succeed due to her alleged bad faith in contesting extradition. It also clarifies the limited discretion of the Secretary of State to refuse extradition under section 93 of the Extradition Act 2003."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "201-700320",
+      "document_number": "201-700320",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Expert Opinion or Affidavit",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Extradition Treaty between the US and France",
+          "Extradition of French nationals",
+          "Discretionary power in extradition decisions"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "William Julié",
+            "role": "Author and French lawyer"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Richard J. Durbin",
+            "role": "US Senator who wrote to the French Minister of Foreign Affairs"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Barack Obama",
+            "role": "US Senator who wrote to the French Minister of Foreign Affairs"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ms. Maxwell",
+            "role": "Individual subject to extradition proceedings"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document provides an expert opinion on the likelihood of extraditing a French national to the US, interpreting relevant treaties and agreements, and is potentially important for understanding the legal framework governing extradition between the two countries.",
+        "summary": "The document, authored by French lawyer William Julié, discusses the extradition of a French national to the US, analyzing the Extradition Treaty between the US and France, and relevant agreements. Julié concludes that there is no absolute rule against extraditing French nationals and that the French government is likely to extradite Ms. Maxwell if certain conditions are met. The document highlights the importance of considering the discretionary power in extradition decisions and the impact of subsequent agreements on the Extradition Treaty."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "201-700330",
+      "document_number": "201-700330",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing or Official Letter",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Extradition Treaty between the US and France",
+          "Principle of non-extradition of nationals",
+          "European Union extradition policies"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Philippe JAEGLE (or JAIGLIF, likely a typo)",
+            "role": "Head of the Office for International Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant as it clarifies France's stance on extraditing its nationals based on the Bilateral Extradition Treaty with the US and EU laws, highlighting the principle of non-extradition of nationals and its exceptions within the EU.",
+        "summary": "The document discusses the extradition treaty between the US and France, focusing on the principle of non-extradition of nationals. It explains that while France refuses to extradite its nationals to the US, the US extradites its nationals to France. The document also notes an exception to this principle within the EU due to a high level of political integration and shared international obligations."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "201-cr-00320",
+      "document_number": "201-cr-00320",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's bail request",
+          "risk of flight and harm to others",
+          "consequences of childhood trauma"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "defendant in a criminal case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Sigrid S. McCawley",
+            "role": "attorney submitting a statement to the court"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it reveals the prosecution's or victim's concerns regarding Ghislaine Maxwell's potential release on bail and highlights the severity of her alleged crimes.",
+        "summary": "The document is a court filing submitted by attorney Sigrid S. McCawley, arguing that Ghislaine Maxwell should remain incarcerated until her trial due to concerns about her risk of flight and potential harm to others, particularly children."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "201-cv-700320",
+      "document_number": "201-cv-700320",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Exhibit A",
+          "Exhibit B",
+          "DOJ-OGR documents"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [],
+        "significance": "This document appears to be a part of a larger court case, potentially related to a dispute or investigation involving the Department of Justice (DOJ), as indicated by the 'DOJ-OGR' document references.",
+        "summary": "The document contains page breaks and references to Exhibits A and B, which are associated with court filings in case 20-cv-07003. The exhibits are labeled with 'DOJ-OGR' document numbers, suggesting a connection to the Department of Justice."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "2014r008804",
+      "document_number": "2014R008804",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Indictment",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Kidnapping of a minor",
+          "Human trafficking",
+          "Sex trafficking of a minor"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "CLAUDIUS ENGLISH",
+            "role": "Defendant accused of various crimes including kidnapping and sex trafficking of minors"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Minor Victim-7",
+            "role": "Alleged victim, a 14-year-old girl who was kidnapped and trafficked"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is a federal indictment charging the defendant with serious crimes related to human trafficking and kidnapping of minors, highlighting the severity of the alleged offenses and the involvement of interstate commerce.",
+        "summary": "The document is an indictment charging CLAUDIUS ENGLISH with multiple counts including kidnapping and sex trafficking of minors. It details specific allegations against ENGLISH, including the kidnapping of a 14-year-old girl and using a cellphone to facilitate the crime. The indictment references violations of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1591(a)(1) and (b)(2), and 2."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "2016-00890",
+      "document_number": "2016-00890",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Certificate of Service",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Service of Defendant's Response",
+          "Motion to Exceed Deposition Limit",
+          "Electronic Filing"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Sigrid S. McCawley",
+            "role": "Recipient of electronically served document"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Meridith Schultz",
+            "role": "Recipient of electronically served document"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Bradley J. Edwards",
+            "role": "Recipient of electronically served document"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Paul G. Cassell",
+            "role": "Recipient of electronically served document"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "J. Stanley Pottinger",
+            "role": "Recipient of electronically served document"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Nicole Simmons",
+            "role": "Person certifying service"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document confirms that the Defendant's Response in Opposition to Motion to Exceed Presumptive Ten Deposition Limit was electronically served on the listed recipients, establishing proper service in the case.",
+        "summary": "This Certificate of Service confirms that on June 6, 2016, the Defendant's Response was electronically served via ECF on several attorneys and parties involved in the case. The document lists the recipients and their email addresses. Nicole Simmons certified the service."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "2016-07-00330",
+      "document_number": "2016-07-00330",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "defendant's renewed motion for release",
+          "nature and circumstances of the offense",
+          "conditions of confinement"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "defendant",
+            "role": "the individual whose release is being contested"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it reveals the government's opposition to the defendant's renewed motion for release and provides insight into their arguments and evidence.",
+        "summary": "The document is the government's memorandum in opposition to the defendant's renewed motion for release, outlining their arguments against release based on the nature of the offense, strength of evidence, defendant's characteristics, and conditions of confinement."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "2017-003",
+      "document_number": "2017-003",
+      "page_count": 8,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Bail Application",
+          "Detention Decision",
+          "Bail Reform Act Factors"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant in the case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is a court filing related to Ghislaine Maxwell's renewed bail application, providing insight into the court's decision-making process and the factors considered in determining whether to grant bail.",
+        "summary": "The court denies Ghislaine Maxwell's renewed bail application, concluding that she poses a substantial risk of flight and that no combination of conditions can assure her appearance. The court considers the Bail Reform Act factors, including the nature and circumstances of the offense, Maxwell's ties to the United States, and the proposed bail conditions."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "2017-0033",
+      "document_number": "2017-0033",
+      "page_count": 5,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Bail and detention",
+          "Risk of flight",
+          "Conditions of confinement"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is a court filing related to Ghislaine Maxwell's bail hearing, where the court is considering whether to grant her release or continue her detention. The document reveals the court's reasoning and analysis of the case.",
+        "summary": "The court denies Ghislaine Maxwell's request for bail, citing her risk of flight and the insufficiency of proposed conditions to ensure her appearance. The court also rejects her argument that the conditions of her confinement justify release."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "2017-00330",
+      "document_number": "2017-00330",
+      "page_count": 8,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Bail Reform Act",
+          "extradition waivers",
+          "COVID-19 concerns at MDC"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ms. Maxwell",
+            "role": "defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "co-conspirator"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jean-Luc Brunel",
+            "role": "individual under investigation for alleged sexual assaults"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is a court filing in the case against Ms. Maxwell, arguing for her release on bail. It highlights the defense's counterarguments to the government's objections and provides insight into the legal strategies employed by both sides.",
+        "summary": "The document is a court filing by Ms. Maxwell's defense team, arguing that she should be granted bail due to the unlikelihood of her fleeing to France or the UK, given her extradition waivers and the substantial bail package proposed. The filing also highlights COVID-19 concerns at the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) and argues that these concerns further justify her release on bail."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "2017-00330-aum-document 010302 filed 03/28/20 page 8 of 15",
+      "document_number": "2017-00330-AUM-Document 010302 Filed 03/28/20 Page 8 of 15",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Bail conditions and flight risk assessment",
+          "Extradition procedures and waivers",
+          "Defense response to government allegations"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ms. Maxwell",
+            "role": "defendant in the case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "William Julié",
+            "role": "expert on French extradition law"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it reveals the defense's counterarguments to the government's assertions regarding Ms. Maxwell's flight risk and extradition, highlighting the defense's strategy to contest the government's claims.",
+        "summary": "The document is a court filing by the defense, responding to government allegations that Ms. Maxwell is a flight risk. It argues that the government's interpretations are unfounded and that Ms. Maxwell's actions were taken to protect herself and her family, not to flee. The defense also contests the government's views on extradition from France and the UK."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "2017-00330-aun-dr",
+      "document_number": "2017-00330-AUN-DR",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Corroboration of victim testimony",
+          "Documentary evidence supporting allegations",
+          "Government's evidence against the defendant"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "The defendant",
+            "role": "Accused individual in the case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Individual associated with the defendant and alleged crimes"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it outlines the government's evidence and corroborating witnesses that support the allegations against the defendant, making it a significant filing in the case.",
+        "summary": "The document discusses the government's evidence in a criminal case, highlighting that multiple witnesses and documentary evidence corroborate the victims' accounts of interacting with the defendant and Jeffrey Epstein. The government argues that this evidence strongly supports the victims' testimony. The defendant has filed a motion complaining about the volume of documentary evidence produced."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "2017-03-1303",
+      "document_number": "2017-03-1303",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "extradition waiver",
+          "jurisdiction and extradition laws",
+          "bail motion and defendant's citizenship"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "the defendant",
+            "role": "the individual whose extradition and bail are being discussed"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it reveals that the defendant's citizenship in France could prevent her extradition to the United States, despite any extradition waiver she may have signed.",
+        "summary": "The document argues that the defendant's citizenship in France makes it highly unlikely that she would be extradited to the United States if she flees there, as France does not extradite its citizens outside the European Union. The French Ministry of Justice confirmed this in a letter to the Government. The document concludes that an anticipatory extradition waiver would not be binding in France."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "2017-03-30-auto-notice-010002-file010238-page34of36",
+      "document_number": "2017-03-30-Auto-Notice-010002-File010238-Page34of36",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "defendant's access to discovery materials",
+          "conditions of confinement",
+          "technical issues with discovery materials"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "the defendant",
+            "role": "the accused person in the case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it reveals the government's response to the defense's complaints regarding the defendant's access to discovery materials and conditions of confinement, and may impact the court's decision on the matter.",
+        "summary": "The government responds to the defense's complaints, stating that technical issues with discovery materials were caused by the defendant's actions or were resolved, and that the defendant's conditions of confinement are actually more favorable than those of other inmates in protective custody."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "2017-03-30-docme-010802-filed-032730-page-14-of-22",
+      "document_number": "2017-03-30-Docme-010802-Filed-032730-Page-14-of-22",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "bail hearing",
+          "defendant's ties to the United States",
+          "flight risk assessment"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "The Defendant",
+            "role": "the individual whose bail is being contested"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "The Defendant's spouse",
+            "role": "a key character witness and subject of a letter submitted in support of the defendant's bail motion"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it reveals the court's consideration of new evidence in a bail hearing, specifically letters of support from the defendant's friends and family, and assesses the defendant's flight risk.",
+        "summary": "The court is reconsidering the defendant's bail request in light of new evidence, including letters from friends and family, particularly a letter from the defendant's spouse, which was not disclosed at the initial bail hearing. The court evaluates whether these new ties to the United States sufficiently mitigate the risk of flight. The court remains unconvinced that the defendant's ties would prevent her from fleeing."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "2017-cr-00330",
+      "document_number": "2017-cr-00330",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "bail conditions",
+          "reconsideration of bail denial",
+          "comparison to other high-profile cases"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "The defendant",
+            "role": "The individual whose bail is being contested"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "The Court",
+            "role": "The judicial body deciding on the bail"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it reveals the prosecution's argument against the defendant's bail and highlights the court's previous reasoning for denying bail, emphasizing the defendant's significant foreign connections and financial sophistication.",
+        "summary": "The prosecution argues against the defendant's motion for reconsideration of bail, citing the court's previous consideration and rejection of similar precedent. The court had distinguished the defendant's case from others due to her significant foreign connections and financial sophistication."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "2018-00290",
+      "document_number": "2018-00290",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "discovery",
+          "depositions",
+          "Rule 26(b)(2) standards"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Nadia Marcinkova",
+            "role": "alleged co-conspirator"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Sarah Kellen (a/k/a Sarah Kensignton or Sarah Vickers)",
+            "role": "alleged co-conspirator"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "alleged co-conspirator"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it reveals the plaintiff's request to exceed the presumptive limit on depositions and the defendant's opposition to it, highlighting the dispute over the scope of discovery in the case.",
+        "summary": "The document is a court filing opposing the plaintiff's request to take more than the presumptive limit of 10 depositions, arguing that the request is premature and that the plaintiff has not justified the need for additional depositions under Rule 26(b)(2) standards."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "2018-00333-rws-document-23509",
+      "document_number": "2018-00333-RWS-Document-23509",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Deposition limits",
+          "Relevance of testimony",
+          "Adverse inference argument"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ms. Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant or party involved in the case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Marcincova",
+            "role": "Witness or deponent"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Kellen",
+            "role": "Witness or deponent"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Epstein",
+            "role": "Associated individual mentioned in the context of the case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it discusses a dispute over deposition limits and the relevance of certain testimony in a civil case, highlighting the legal arguments and strategies employed by the parties involved.",
+        "summary": "The document is a court filing arguing against the plaintiff's request to conduct additional depositions beyond the limit of 10, claiming the proposed depositions are cumulative, duplicative, and not relevant to the central issues of the dispute."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "2019-03339",
+      "document_number": "2019-03339",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "defamation claim",
+          "New York law on defamation",
+          "actual malice standard"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ms. Maxwell",
+            "role": "defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Plaintiff (Jane Doe #3)",
+            "role": "plaintiff claiming defamation"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "alleged perpetrator mentioned in the Joinder Motion"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Bradley Edwards",
+            "role": "plaintiff's attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Paul Cassell",
+            "role": "plaintiff's attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it discusses the legal standards for a defamation claim under New York law and argues that the plaintiff cannot establish her claim due to the truth of Ms. Maxwell's statements and lack of evidence of actual malice.",
+        "summary": "The document analyzes a defamation claim by the plaintiff against Ms. Maxwell, arguing that the claim fails because Ms. Maxwell's statements were essentially true and the plaintiff cannot prove actual malice. The document references the legal standards for defamation under New York law and highlights the falsity of statements made in a Joinder Motion filed on behalf of the plaintiff."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "201c7-003",
+      "document_number": "201c7-003",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "bail hearing",
+          "defendant's actions and intentions",
+          "defendant's financial resources"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "the defendant",
+            "role": "the individual on trial"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it reveals the prosecution's arguments against granting bail to the defendant, highlighting concerns about her willingness to follow law enforcement directives and her access to significant wealth.",
+        "summary": "The document argues that the defendant should be denied bail due to concerns that she may prioritize her private security's directives over those of federal law enforcement and that she has access to significant wealth, potentially allowing her to flee or evade law enforcement."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "201e7-00330",
+      "document_number": "201e7-00330",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Criminal charges against the defendant for facilitating sexual abuse of minors",
+          "Conspiracy and enticement charges related to Jeffrey Epstein's crimes",
+          "Perjury charges for lying under oath during a civil deposition"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "The defendant",
+            "role": "Accused of facilitating sexual abuse of minors and perjury"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Co-conspirator in the sexual abuse of minors"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it outlines the charges against the defendant and provides context for the alleged crimes, highlighting the severity of the offenses and the defendant's alleged role in facilitating Jeffrey Epstein's abuse of minors.",
+        "summary": "The document details the indictment against the defendant for conspiring with Jeffrey Epstein to sexually abuse minors and for perjury. The charges include conspiracy, enticement, and transportation of minors for illegal sex acts. The defendant's actions are described as critical to Epstein's abuse, and the document argues that the defendant poses an extreme flight risk."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "202",
+      "document_number": "202",
+      "page_count": 8,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Request for trial continuance due to superseding indictment",
+          "Impact of new charges on defense preparation",
+          "Government's discovery production and its implications"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Bobbi C. Sternheim",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it reveals the defense's argument for a trial continuance due to the government's late filing of a superseding indictment, which added new charges and expanded the scope of the case.",
+        "summary": "The defense requests a trial continuance due to the government's filing of a superseding indictment that added new charges and expanded the time period of the alleged conduct. The defense argues that it needs more time to investigate and prepare for the new charges, citing the significant amount of new discovery material and the difficulties in reviewing it."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "2020-0088",
+      "document_number": "2020-0088",
+      "page_count": 4,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Motion to Seal",
+          "Fair Trial Rights",
+          "Juror 50's Testimony"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Juror 50",
+            "role": "Juror in Ghislaine Maxwell's trial"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it reveals the defense's argument for keeping Ghislaine Maxwell's Motion for a New Trial sealed to protect her right to a fair trial, particularly regarding Juror 50's testimony.",
+        "summary": "The defense argues that Ghislaine Maxwell's Motion for a New Trial should remain sealed to prevent Juror 50 from being influenced by outside information and to protect her constitutional right to a fair trial. The motion asserts that unsealing the document would compromise the integrity of any potential hearing or inquiry. The defense cites the need to safeguard the truth-seeking process and prevent the tainting of Juror 50's testimony."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "2020-0088630",
+      "document_number": "2020-0088630",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Motion to seal a document related to Juror 50",
+          "Fair trial rights of Ms. Maxwell",
+          "Potential prejudice to the trial process"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ms. Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Juror 50",
+            "role": "Potential witness or juror"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it reveals the defense's concerns about the potential prejudice to Ms. Maxwell's fair trial rights if certain information is unsealed, and it provides insight into the defense's strategy and arguments.",
+        "summary": "The document is a court filing arguing that a motion related to Juror 50 should remain sealed to protect Ms. Maxwell's right to a fair trial. The defense counsel asserts that unsealing the motion would give Juror 50 an improper preview of the defense's position and potentially allow him to tailor his answers or destroy evidence. The filing cites relevant case law to support the argument that the motion should be temporarily sealed until the court rules on it or completes any additional fact-finding process."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "2020-08-03-008-bae-n",
+      "document_number": "2020-08-03-008-BAE-N",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Email",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Confiscation of documents during legal visit",
+          "MDC Brooklyn policy on legal visits",
+          "Handling of legal documents for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Sophia Papapetru",
+            "role": "BOP official handling legal visits at MDC Brooklyn"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Bobbi Sternheim",
+            "role": "Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Inmate at MDC Brooklyn"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Nicole McFarland",
+            "role": "BOP official, cc'd on the email"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document reveals a potential issue with the handling of legal documents for Ghislaine Maxwell during a legal visit and highlights the strict policies in place at MDC Brooklyn regarding the passing of materials during such visits.",
+        "summary": "An email from Sophia Papapetru to Bobbi Sternheim explaining that documents brought to Ghislaine Maxwell during a legal visit were confiscated due to MDC Brooklyn's policy prohibiting the passing of materials during legal visits. The confiscated documents will be returned to Sternheim. The email highlights the institution's adherence to its policies and procedures."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "2020-cr-00008",
+      "document_number": "2020-cr-00008",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Government Briefing",
+          "Defense Responses",
+          "Case Progression"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Damian Williams",
+            "role": "United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison Moe",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Lara Pomerantz",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Andrew Rohrbach",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is a court filing indicating the submission of a government briefing in a criminal case, with a deadline for defense responses.",
+        "summary": "The United States Attorney's office, led by Damian Williams, submitted a government briefing on November 15, 2021, in case 2020-cr-00008. The defense is required to respond thereafter. The filing was made by Assistant United States Attorneys Alison Moe, Lara Pomerantz, and Andrew Rohrbach."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "2020cr000308",
+      "document_number": "2020cr000308",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Request for continuance",
+          "Presence of lawyers at proceeding",
+          "Scheduling"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca",
+            "role": "Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Laura A. Menninger",
+            "role": "Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Christian R. Everdell",
+            "role": "Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Bobbi C. Sternheim",
+            "role": "Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is a formal request by Ghislaine Maxwell's lawyers to continue a court proceeding to a later date and to be present during the proceeding, indicating an ongoing legal case.",
+        "summary": "Ghislaine Maxwell's lawyers are requesting a continuance of a court proceeding to a date in May and seeking permission to be present during the proceeding. The request is being made to the Honorable Alison J. Nathan. The letter is signed by Jeffrey S. Pagliuca on behalf of the defense team."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "2020cr00308",
+      "document_number": "2020cr00308",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Speedy Trial Act",
+          "Exclusion of Time",
+          "Post-trial Motions"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Damian Williams",
+            "role": "United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant as it shows the court's decision to exclude time under the Speedy Trial Act, allowing the parties to research and brief post-trial motions in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell.",
+        "summary": "The US Attorney's office requested that the court exclude time under the Speedy Trial Act for Counts Seven and Eight of the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, which was granted by Judge Alison J. Nathan, allowing the parties to research and brief post-trial motions until April 1, 2022."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "2020mc0930",
+      "document_number": "2020mc0930",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court filing or judicial opinion",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "COVID-19 pandemic and court proceedings",
+          "Public access to court hearings during the pandemic",
+          "Balancing public health and safety with the right to a public trial"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it reveals the court's reasoning for allowing public access to proceedings via telephone during the COVID-19 pandemic, balancing public health concerns with the need for transparency.",
+        "summary": "The court ruled that allowing public access to proceedings via telephone conference was justified to promote security and prevent terrorism, and was a less restrictive means of protecting public health and safety during the COVID-19 pandemic. The court's decision enabled a large number of people to access the proceedings while minimizing exposure to the virus. The ruling was deemed less restrictive than in-person hearings, which had limited capacity due to COVID-19 safety protocols."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "2020r00008",
+      "document_number": "2020r00008",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Violation of Sixth Amendment rights",
+          "Confiscation of legal documents",
+          "Request for disclosure of information regarding seized materials"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ms. Maxwell",
+            "role": "The defendant in the case, an indicted pre-trial detainee"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Bobbi C. Sternheim",
+            "role": "Ms. Maxwell's lawyer"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "MDC guards",
+            "role": "The individuals who confiscated Ms. Maxwell's legal documents"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it alleges a serious breach of Ms. Maxwell's Sixth Amendment rights and requests the court to intervene to protect her rights.",
+        "summary": "The document is a letter from Bobbi C. Sternheim, Ms. Maxwell's lawyer, to the court, alleging that MDC guards confiscated Ms. Maxwell's legal documents, potentially breaching her Sixth Amendment rights. The letter requests the court to order the MDC to provide information about the seized materials and the guards involved. The alleged actions by the MDC guards have raised concerns about the confidentiality of Ms. Maxwell's defense preparations."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "2020r00083",
+      "document_number": "2020r00083",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell",
+          "Testimonial Stipulation",
+          "Michael Dawson's Testimony"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Michael Dawson",
+            "role": "Witness"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document reveals that the prosecution and defense have reached an agreement regarding the testimony of Michael Dawson, potentially impacting the trial proceedings.",
+        "summary": "The US Attorney's office and the defense in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell jointly request that the court release Michael Dawson from testifying on December 6, 2021, due to a testimonial stipulation agreement."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "2021 filed028855",
+      "document_number": "2021 Filed028855",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "request for continuance due to new charges and expanded conspiracy",
+          "government's opposition to continuance",
+          "adequacy of time for defense preparation"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ms. Maxwell",
+            "role": "defendant in the prosecution"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it reveals a dispute between the defense and prosecution regarding the adequacy of time to prepare for trial, particularly after new charges and an expanded conspiracy were introduced.",
+        "summary": "The defense argues that the government's recent superseding indictment, which added new charges and expanded the conspiracy, requires a continuance to allow adequate preparation time. The government opposes the continuance, despite having taken over two months to investigate new allegations. The defense highlights the government's recent production of 20,000 pages of material related to non-testifying witnesses as further evidence of the need for more time."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "203",
+      "document_number": "203",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Order",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Redactions to court documents",
+          "Disclosure of public records",
+          "Compliance with court orders"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge presiding over the case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant in the criminal case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it reveals the court's decision regarding redactions to certain documents in the Ghislaine Maxwell case, and orders the government to docket certain documents with limited redactions.",
+        "summary": "The court orders the government to docket its omnibus memorandum of law and corresponding exhibits with limited redactions, and denies the defendant's request to redact certain pages. The court also orders the parties to docket their April 1, 2021 joint letter with proposed redactions by April 19, 2021."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "203-3",
+      "document_number": "203-3",
+      "page_count": 8,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Grand Jury Testimony Transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Testimony about Jeffrey Epstein's background and crimes",
+          "Details about the victims (Jane Does) and their interactions with Epstein",
+          "Corroborating evidence for the victims' statements"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Special Agent",
+            "role": "Witness testifying about the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "The accused individual being investigated for crimes against multiple Jane Does"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "MS. VILLAFANA",
+            "role": "Prosecutor questioning the Special Agent during grand jury testimony"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document provides detailed testimony from a Special Agent regarding the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's crimes, including interactions with multiple victims and corroborating evidence. It is significant for understanding the scope of Epstein's alleged crimes and the evidence gathered during the investigation.",
+        "summary": "The transcript documents the grand jury testimony of a Special Agent involved in the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. The testimony covers Epstein's background, details about the victims (Jane Does), and corroborating evidence such as telephone records and message pads. The Special Agent provides an overview of the evidence supporting the charges against Epstein."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "204",
+      "document_number": "204",
+      "page_count": 238,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's pre-trial motions",
+          "Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement",
+          "Statute of limitations for sex crimes against minors"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Individual mentioned in relation to a Non-Prosecution Agreement"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Audrey Strauss",
+            "role": "United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison Moe",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Maurene Comey",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Lara Pomerantz",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Andrew Rohrbach",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is a crucial court filing in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, as it presents the government's arguments against her pre-trial motions and provides insight into the legal strategies employed by both sides.",
+        "summary": "The document is the government's omnibus memorandum in opposition to Ghislaine Maxwell's pre-trial motions, addressing topics such as the relevance of Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement, the timeliness of the indictment, and the defendant's motions to suppress evidence. The government argues that the indictment is valid and that Maxwell's motions should be denied."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "204-1",
+      "document_number": "204-1",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court filing or exhibit",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "illegal subletting",
+          "financial records",
+          "social relationships"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Jereme Cano",
+            "role": "defendant or individual involved in the case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ivan Fisher",
+            "role": "prominent criminal defense attorney and sublessee"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "individual with a social relationship to the real estate broker"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document potentially reveals evidence of illegal activities, including subletting and potential financial impropriety, involving a defendant and a prominent attorney.",
+        "summary": "The document appears to be a court exhibit discussing Jereme Cano's alleged illegal subletting of a house owned by the state Department to Ivan Fisher, a criminal defense attorney. Cano became nervous when his name was mentioned in relation to financial records. Ghislaine Maxwell had a social relationship with the real estate broker involved."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "204-11",
+      "document_number": "204-11",
+      "page_count": 19,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Deposition transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's involvement in Jeffrey Epstein's sexual activities",
+          "Massages and sexual activities involving underage females",
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's knowledge of Jeffrey Epstein's activities"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Witness and defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "David Boies",
+            "role": "Counsel for plaintiff Virginia Giuffre"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Pagliuca",
+            "role": "Counsel for defendant Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Virginia Giuffre",
+            "role": "Plaintiff"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This deposition transcript provides insight into Ghislaine Maxwell's involvement with Jeffrey Epstein and her knowledge of his activities, which is relevant to the case against her.",
+        "summary": "The document is a transcript of Ghislaine Maxwell's deposition in a case brought by Virginia Giuffre. Maxwell is questioned about her involvement in Jeffrey Epstein's sexual activities and her knowledge of his interactions with underage females. The deposition includes objections from Maxwell's counsel and redactions, indicating sensitive or potentially incriminating information."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "204-12",
+      "document_number": "204-12",
+      "page_count": 30,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Expert Report",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Jury selection process",
+          "Representation of African Americans and Hispanics in the jury wheel",
+          "Disparities in the qualified jury wheel"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Bernard R. Siskin, Ph.D.",
+            "role": "Expert witness for the United States"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Souleymane Balde",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffery Martin",
+            "role": "Defendant's expert witness"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it provides an expert analysis of the jury selection process and identifies disparities in the representation of African Americans and Hispanics in the qualified jury wheel.",
+        "summary": "The report by Bernard R. Siskin, Ph.D. analyzes the jury selection process in the case of United States v. Souleymane Balde and finds that the qualified jury wheel underrepresents African Americans and Hispanics. The report identifies the main causes of this disparity as the lower response rate and qualification rate of African Americans and Hispanics after being sent a juror questionnaire."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "204-3",
+      "document_number": "204-3",
+      "page_count": 348,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility Report",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's criminal conduct",
+          "Non-prosecution agreement (NPA) and its implications",
+          "Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) violations"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Subject of the investigation"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "R. Alexander Acosta",
+            "role": "U.S. Attorney at the time of the investigation"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jane Doe",
+            "role": "Victim who filed a CVRA petition"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it reveals the details of the DOJ's investigation into the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case and potential misconduct by prosecutors. It provides insight into the negotiations surrounding the non-prosecution agreement and the treatment of victims.",
+        "summary": "The report investigates allegations that prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida improperly resolved a federal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's criminal conduct. It details the negotiation of a non-prosecution agreement and the subsequent handling of victims' rights. The report also examines potential professional misconduct by USAO prosecutors."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "204-4",
+      "document_number": "204-4",
+      "page_count": 6,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Deposition Transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Meeting between Amanda Kramer and attorneys representing Virginia Roberts",
+          "Discussion of Jeffrey Epstein case and potential investigation",
+          "Civil litigation involving Epstein and potential witnesses"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Amanda Kramer",
+            "role": "Former Human Trafficking Coordinator and Project Safe Childhood Coordinator at SDNY USAO"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Pete Skinner",
+            "role": "Attorney at Boies Schiller representing Virginia Roberts"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Brad Edwards",
+            "role": "Attorney representing Virginia Roberts"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Subject of potential investigation"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Individual mentioned as having worked for or helped Epstein"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document provides insight into a meeting between SDNY officials and attorneys representing Virginia Roberts, discussing the Jeffrey Epstein case and potential investigation. It sheds light on the interactions between the attorneys and the SDNY USAO.",
+        "summary": "Amanda Kramer recounts a February 29, 2016 meeting with attorneys representing Virginia Roberts, discussing the Jeffrey Epstein case and potential investigation. Kramer details the discussion, her understanding of the meeting's purpose, and her subsequent actions. The document provides context for the SDNY USAO's consideration of the Epstein case."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "204-5",
+      "document_number": "204-5",
+      "page_count": 8,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking case",
+          "Virginia Roberts' allegations against Epstein and Maxwell",
+          "Evidence of sex crimes and potential victims"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Virginia Roberts",
+            "role": "Alleged victim of Epstein and Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Defendant in sex trafficking case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Co-conspirator of Epstein and recruiter of victims"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Brad Edwards",
+            "role": "Trial attorney representing Virginia Roberts"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document appears to be a court filing related to Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking case, containing details about Virginia Roberts' allegations and evidence of sex crimes committed by Epstein and Maxwell. It potentially establishes the extent of their wrongdoing and the involvement of other individuals.",
+        "summary": "The document is a court filing that includes details about Virginia Roberts' allegations against Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, including her recruitment, abuse, and evidence of sex crimes. It also mentions other potential victims and evidence, such as photos and flight logs. The filing appears to be related to a lawsuit or prosecution against Epstein and Maxwell."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "204-6",
+      "document_number": "204-6",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Email chain",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Jeffrey Epstein case",
+          "Virginia Giuffre's case against Ghislaine Maxwell",
+          "Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) case"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Amanda Kramer",
+            "role": "US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (USA-SDNY)"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Peter Skinner",
+            "role": "Attorney representing Virginia Giuffre"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Sigrid McCawley",
+            "role": "Lead attorney on Virginia Giuffre's case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Virginia Giuffre",
+            "role": "Victim and plaintiff in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant in the defamation case filed by Virginia Giuffre"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Individual associated with the case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This email chain reveals communication between the US Attorney's Office and attorneys representing Virginia Giuffre, potentially indicating coordination or information sharing between the parties regarding the Jeffrey Epstein case.",
+        "summary": "The document is an email chain between Peter Skinner, an attorney representing Virginia Giuffre, and Amanda Kramer of the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York. The emails discuss the case against Ghislaine Maxwell and provide documents related to Virginia Giuffre's CVRA case and defamation lawsuit."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "204-7",
+      "document_number": "204-7",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "email chain",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Jeffrey Epstein's alleged recruitment of girls/women",
+          "Contact information for an individual associated with Epstein",
+          "Communication between Stan Pottinger and US Attorney's Office"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Stan Pottinger",
+            "role": "Sender of email to Amanda Kramer, potentially an attorney or investigator"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Amanda Kramer",
+            "role": "US Attorney's Office, recipient of email from Stan Pottinger"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Alleged perpetrator, referenced in email chain"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison Moe",
+            "role": "US Attorney's Office, recipient of forwarded email"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "",
+            "role": "Individual associated with Epstein, subject of email chain"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document potentially establishes a connection between an individual and Jeffrey Epstein, and demonstrates communication between the US Attorney's Office and outside parties regarding Epstein's alleged activities.",
+        "summary": "An email chain from 2016 is forwarded within the US Attorney's Office, discussing an individual who allegedly acted as a 'scout' or recruiter for Jeffrey Epstein, and including contact information for that individual."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "204-8",
+      "document_number": "204-8",
+      "page_count": 6,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Grand Jury Subpoena",
+          "Protective Order",
+          "Unsealing Civil Discovery Materials"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Robert W. Sweet",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Subject of the Investigation"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant in the Litigation"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Virginia L. Giuffre",
+            "role": "Plaintiff in the Litigation"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it reveals the government's efforts to obtain discovery materials from a civil litigation involving Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, which are relevant to an ongoing grand jury investigation.",
+        "summary": "The US Department of Justice filed a sealed application to unseal discovery materials related to the case Virginia L. Giuffre v. Ghislaine Maxwell, as part of an ongoing investigation into Jeffrey Epstein and others for possible violations of federal law. The government served a grand jury subpoena on Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP, which required the production of discovery materials, but the firm was uncertain about complying due to a protective order in the civil litigation. The government is seeking a court order to permit Boies Schiller to comply with the subpoena."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "204-9",
+      "document_number": "204-9",
+      "page_count": 6,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Grand Jury Subpoena",
+          "Protective Order",
+          "Unsealing Civil Discovery Materials"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Subject of the ongoing investigation"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Sarah Netburn",
+            "role": "United States District Court Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jane Doe",
+            "role": "Plaintiff in the civil litigation"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it reveals the government's efforts to obtain discovery materials from a civil litigation involving Jeffrey Epstein, which are potentially relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation.",
+        "summary": "The US Department of Justice filed a sealed application to unseal discovery materials related to Jane Doe v. Epstein, citing a grand jury subpoena and an ongoing investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. The government argues that the court should grant permission to Boies Schiller to comply with the subpoena despite a protective order in the civil litigation."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "205",
+      "document_number": "205",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Order",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Sealing and redaction of court documents",
+          "Pre-trial motions in a criminal case",
+          "Protective order and confidentiality"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it addresses the handling of sensitive information in a high-profile criminal case, specifically the redactions and sealing of the defendant's reply briefs.",
+        "summary": "The court orders the defendant, Ghislaine Maxwell, to docket certain reply briefs without redactions and requires the parties to confer and submit a letter regarding any requested redactions to the remaining briefs. The court emphasizes that a protective order alone is insufficient to justify sealing or redacting judicial documents."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "206",
+      "document_number": "206",
+      "page_count": 22,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Reply Memorandum",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Statute of limitations for Mann Act counts",
+          "Retroactivity of the 2003 Amendment to 18 U.S.C. § 3283",
+          "Applicability of 18 U.S.C. § 3283 to the charged offenses"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Christian R. Everdell",
+            "role": "Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca",
+            "role": "Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Laura A. Menninger",
+            "role": "Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Bobbi C. Sternheim",
+            "role": "Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is a crucial court filing in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, as it presents her legal arguments for dismissing certain counts of the indictment based on statute of limitations grounds. The ruling on this motion could significantly impact the scope of the trial.",
+        "summary": "Ghislaine Maxwell's reply memorandum argues that Counts One through Four of the superseding indictment should be dismissed as time-barred. The memorandum contests the retroactive application of the 2003 Amendment to 18 U.S.C. § 3283 and asserts that the charged offenses do not fall under the statute's provisions."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "207",
+      "document_number": "207",
+      "page_count": 34,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Opinion & Order",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's pretrial motions to dismiss charges",
+          "Effect of Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement on Maxwell's case",
+          "Severance of perjury counts from Mann Act counts"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Late financier and alleged co-conspirator"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "U.S. District Judge presiding over the case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it outlines the court's decisions on Ghislaine Maxwell's pretrial motions, including the denial of her motions to dismiss charges based on Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement and statute of limitations grounds.",
+        "summary": "The court denies Ghislaine Maxwell's motions to dismiss the S1 superseding indictment, grants her motion to sever the perjury counts for a separate trial, and denies her motion to further expedite discovery. The court concludes that Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement does not bar Maxwell's prosecution in the Southern District of New York."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "208",
+      "document_number": "208",
+      "page_count": 16,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Reply Memorandum of Law",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Motion to dismiss Counts Five and Six of the superseding indictment",
+          "Alleged misstatements and perjury charges against Ghislaine Maxwell",
+          "Ambiguity and materiality of questions and answers in a previous deposition"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Laura A. Menninger",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Christian R. Everdell",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Bobbi C. Sternheim",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is a crucial court filing in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, arguing for the dismissal of specific counts in the indictment based on legal precedents and the nature of the alleged misstatements.",
+        "summary": "The document is a reply memorandum in support of Ghislaine Maxwell's motion to dismiss Counts Five and Six of the superseding indictment. It argues that the alleged misstatements are not perjurious as a matter of law due to the ambiguity and immateriality of the questions and answers in a previous deposition. The filing references various legal precedents and cases to support its arguments."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "208-1",
+      "document_number": "208-1",
+      "page_count": 10,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Order",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Motion to join additional parties under Rule 21",
+          "Motion to amend pleadings under Rule 15",
+          "Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) claims"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Jane Doe 1",
+            "role": "Original Petitioner"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jane Doe 2",
+            "role": "Original Petitioner"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jane Doe 3",
+            "role": "Movant seeking to join the action"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jane Doe 4",
+            "role": "Movant seeking to join the action"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Individual accused of sexual crimes"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alan M. Dershowitz",
+            "role": "Movant seeking to intervene"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it reveals the court's decision regarding the joinder of additional parties in a high-profile case involving alleged victims of Jeffrey Epstein and their claims under the Crime Victims' Rights Act.",
+        "summary": "The court denies the motions by Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4 to join the action under Rule 21 and the motion by Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 to amend their pleadings under Rule 15. The court also strikes certain factual details from the record as immaterial and impertinent to the central claim."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "208-2",
+      "document_number": "208-2",
+      "page_count": 15,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Motion to Join Action",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) violations",
+          "Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse and sex trafficking",
+          "Non-prosecution agreement (NPA) and its secrecy"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Jane Doe #3",
+            "role": "Victim of Jeffrey Epstein seeking to join the action"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jane Doe #4",
+            "role": "Victim of Jeffrey Epstein seeking to join the action"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Perpetrator of sexual abuse and sex trafficking"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Co-conspirator in Epstein's sexual abuse and sex trafficking"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alan Dershowitz",
+            "role": "Participant in Epstein's abuse and negotiator of the NPA"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant as it reveals additional victims of Jeffrey Epstein coming forward and seeking to join an existing action against the United States for violating their rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act. It provides further details on Epstein's abuse and the involvement of his co-conspirators.",
+        "summary": "Jane Doe #3 and Jane Doe #4 file a motion to join an existing action against the United States, alleging violations of their rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act due to Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse and the government's secret non-prosecution agreement. The motion details their experiences with Epstein and his co-conspirators, including Ghislaine Maxwell and Alan Dershowitz."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "208-3",
+      "document_number": "208-3",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Email Exhibit",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's response to allegations",
+          "Defamation claims against Virginia Roberts",
+          "Reputation management"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ross Gow",
+            "role": "Representative of ACUITY Reputation handling Ghislaine Maxwell's PR"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Subject of allegations and defamation claims"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Virginia Roberts (Jane Doe 3)",
+            "role": "Alleged victim making claims against Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alan Dershowitz",
+            "role": "Public figure implicated in Virginia Roberts' allegations"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it provides insight into Ghislaine Maxwell's response to allegations made by Virginia Roberts and demonstrates her strategy to manage the fallout through a PR representative.",
+        "summary": "This email, sent by Ross Gow of ACUITY Reputation on January 2, 2015, contains a statement on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell denying allegations made by Virginia Roberts and characterizing them as defamatory and untrue. The statement was circulated to various media contacts. The email highlights Maxwell's strong denial of the allegations and her intention to seek redress."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "209",
+      "document_number": "209",
+      "page_count": 6,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Reply Memorandum of Law",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Pre-indictment delay",
+          "Motion to dismiss counts one through six of the superseding indictment",
+          "Government's failure to provide adequate discovery"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca",
+            "role": "Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Laura A. Menninger",
+            "role": "Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Christian R. Everdell",
+            "role": "Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Bobbi C. Sternheim",
+            "role": "Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it reveals the defense's argument that the government's pre-indictment delay has prejudiced Ghislaine Maxwell's ability to defend herself, and that the government's selective disclosure of information is unfair.",
+        "summary": "This is a reply memorandum of law in support of Ghislaine Maxwell's motion to dismiss counts one through six of the superseding indictment due to pre-indictment delay. The defense argues that the government's delay has prejudiced Maxwell's ability to investigate and defend herself, and that the government's failure to provide adequate discovery has exacerbated this issue. The defense requests that the court defer consideration of the motion until after the government has produced all relevant discovery."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "20cr0008089",
+      "document_number": "20cr0008089",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Criminal Case Filing",
+          "United States Attorney Submission",
+          "Case Update"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Damian Williams",
+            "role": "United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Maurene Comey",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison Moe",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Lara Pomerantz",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Andrew Rohrbach",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is a court filing in a criminal case, indicating an official submission by the United States Attorney's office.",
+        "summary": "The document is a court filing in a criminal case (20cr0008089) submitted by Damian Williams, United States Attorney, along with several Assistant United States Attorneys. It was filed on December 2, 2020, in the Southern District of New York. The filing was copied to defense counsel via ECF."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "20cr00308",
+      "document_number": "20cr00308",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Pre-trial preparation",
+          "Legal mail delivery",
+          "Court order"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Damian Williams",
+            "role": "United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison Moe",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Lara Pomerantz",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Andrew Rohrbach",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ms. Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it reveals the court's expectation for the delivery of legal mail to the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, and its impact on pre-trial preparation.",
+        "summary": "The court denies the defendant's requested order regarding legal mail delivery but expects delivery within approximately 1 business day. The defendant may renew the request if another delay occurs. The court remains confident that Ms. Maxwell and her attorneys can prepare for trial."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "21",
+      "document_number": "21",
+      "page_count": 3,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Waiver of Right to be Present at Criminal Proceeding",
+          "COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on court proceedings",
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's arraignment, bail hearing, and conference"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Christian R. Everdell",
+            "role": "Defense Counsel for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it reveals Ghislaine Maxwell's waiver of her right to be present at certain criminal proceedings due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and it provides insight into the legal proceedings against her.",
+        "summary": "The document is a court filing in which Ghislaine Maxwell waives her right to be present at her arraignment, bail hearing, and conference due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Maxwell's defense counsel, Christian R. Everdell, signed on her behalf. The document also includes a notice of filing of an official transcript from a conference related to Jeffrey Epstein's case."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "21-00330",
+      "document_number": "21-00330",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Order",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's bail request",
+          "Redactions in court filings",
+          "Compliance with court directives"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant in the criminal case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge presiding over the case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it shows the court's decision on Ghislaine Maxwell's bail request and provides insight into the procedural handling of sensitive information in a high-profile case.",
+        "summary": "The document is a court order denying Ghislaine Maxwell's third motion for release on bail and directing the parties to meet and confer regarding redactions in court filings. The order was issued by Judge Alison J. Nathan on March 22, 2021. The court required the parties to justify or remove redactions by March 24, 2021."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "21-00338",
+      "document_number": "21-00338",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "bail motion",
+          "jurisdiction",
+          "Bail Reform Act"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Defendant",
+            "role": "the individual whose bail is being contested"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Government",
+            "role": "the prosecution opposing the defendant's bail motion"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it reveals the legal arguments and considerations surrounding the defendant's third bail motion, and may establish the court's jurisdiction and reasoning in denying the motion.",
+        "summary": "The document discusses the defendant's third motion for release on bail, the government's opposition, and the legal standards governing bail under the Eighth Amendment and the Bail Reform Act. The court considers its jurisdiction to grant the motion while the defendant's bail appeal is pending. The court ultimately denies the defendant's motion without resolving the jurisdictional question."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "21-58-cr (l), 21-770-cr",
+      "document_number": "21-58-cr (L), 21-770-cr",
+      "page_count": 3,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Mandate",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal for bail pending trial",
+          "Denial of bail and temporary pretrial release",
+          "Concerns about Maxwell's sleeping conditions while incarcerated"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant-Appellant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Pierre N. Leval",
+            "role": "Circuit Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Raymond J. Lohier, Jr.",
+            "role": "Circuit Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Richard J. Sullivan",
+            "role": "Circuit Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe",
+            "role": "Clerk of Court"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant as it reveals the Second Circuit Court of Appeals' decision to affirm the lower court's denial of Ghislaine Maxwell's bail requests and highlights concerns about her treatment while incarcerated.",
+        "summary": "The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's orders denying Ghislaine Maxwell's requests for bail pending trial. The court also denied her motion for temporary pretrial release and noted concerns about her sleeping conditions while incarcerated, suggesting that such issues should be addressed to the district court."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "21-770",
+      "document_number": "21-770",
+      "page_count": 3,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Memorandum in Opposition to Government's Memorandum in Support of Detention",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's request for bail",
+          "COVID-19 pandemic's impact on detention",
+          "Presumption of innocence and burden of proof for pretrial detention"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Previously indicted individual associated with Maxwell"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it presents Ghislaine Maxwell's argument against pretrial detention, highlighting the COVID-19 pandemic's risks and her right to the presumption of innocence.",
+        "summary": "Ghislaine Maxwell's legal team argues that she should be released on bail due to the risks posed by COVID-19 in detention and the government's failure to meet its burden of proving she is a flight risk. Maxwell denies the charges against her and has lived in the US since 1991, never leaving the country even after Epstein's arrest."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "21-770, document 3-2",
+      "document_number": "21-770, Document 3-2",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Protective Order",
+          "Conditions of Confinement",
+          "Sealing Requests"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison Moe",
+            "role": "Assistant U.S. Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Christian R. Everdell",
+            "role": "Defense Counsel"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Maurene Comey",
+            "role": "Assistant U.S. Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Lara Pomerantz",
+            "role": "Assistant U.S. Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document provides insight into the pre-trial proceedings of Ghislaine Maxwell's case, including disputes over a protective order and conditions of confinement. It reveals the court's decisions on these matters and the reasoning behind them.",
+        "summary": "The document is a court filing in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, detailing the docket entries related to a protective order, conditions of confinement, and sealing requests. The court ultimately adopts the government's proposed protective order and addresses other procedural matters. The filing includes various letters and orders from July to December 2020."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "21-7708",
+      "document_number": "21-7708",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "bail conditions",
+          "risk of flight",
+          "potential penalties"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ms. Maxwell",
+            "role": "defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Epstein",
+            "role": "associated individual mentioned in the context of Ms. Maxwell's case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it presents a legal argument on behalf of Ms. Maxwell regarding bail conditions and rebuts the government's assertion that detention is warranted due to risk of flight and potential penalties.",
+        "summary": "The document argues that Ms. Maxwell has rebutted the presumption of risk of flight and that the potential penalties in her case do not justify detention. It cites various legal precedents to support the argument that bail conditions should be imposed instead of detention."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "21-7780",
+      "document_number": "21-7780",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "COVID-19 pandemic impact on attorney-client communication",
+          "Bail conditions and release for Ms. Maxwell",
+          "Restrictions on in-person visits and communication at the MDC"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ms. Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant in the case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Epstein",
+            "role": "Referenced in the context of a related case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it highlights the challenges faced by Ms. Maxwell in communicating with her attorneys due to COVID-19-related restrictions and argues for her release on bail.",
+        "summary": "The document discusses the difficulties faced by Ms. Maxwell in communicating with her attorneys due to COVID-19 protocols at the MDC, and argues that these challenges constitute a 'compelling reason' for her release. It also references other cases where defendants were released on bail due to similar circumstances. The document presents arguments in favor of bail for Ms. Maxwell, citing the pandemic's impact on travel and her ability to prepare for trial."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "21-cr-00380",
+      "document_number": "21-cr-00380",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "COVID-19 pandemic impact on prison conditions",
+          "Defendant's ability to prepare for trial while detained",
+          "Request for release under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(i)"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ms. Maxwell",
+            "role": "defendant in the case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Stephens",
+            "role": "defendant in a referenced precedent case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it provides a legal argument for the release of Ms. Maxwell due to the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on her ability to prepare for trial.",
+        "summary": "The document argues that Ms. Maxwell should be released from detention due to the COVID-19 pandemic, citing the increased risk of infection in prisons and the impairment of her ability to prepare for her defense while detained. It references a previous court opinion in the Stephens case and highlights the suspension of in-person visits, including legal visits, by the BOP."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "21-cr-0294",
+      "document_number": "21-cr-0294",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "pretrial release conditions for Mr. Robertson",
+          "defendant's right to a fair trial",
+          "government's request for reconsideration or stay pending appeal"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Mr. Robertson",
+            "role": "defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "N.F.",
+            "role": "alleged victim or witness"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it reveals the court's reasoning for granting Mr. Robertson pretrial release under strict conditions and highlights the tension between the defendant's right to a fair trial and the government's concerns about his release.",
+        "summary": "The court granted Mr. Robertson pretrial release with strict conditions, including home incarceration and GPS tracking, to ensure his appearance and the safety of the community. The court also emphasized the importance of the defendant's ability to meet with his attorneys in person to prepare for trial. The government requested reconsideration or a stay pending appeal, which the court denied."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "21-cr-160",
+      "document_number": "21-cr-160",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Order",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's bail request",
+          "Redactions to Defendant's reply brief",
+          "Court proceedings"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document reveals the court's decision on Ghislaine Maxwell's bail request and provides insight into the court's handling of sensitive information in the case.",
+        "summary": "The court denies Ghislaine Maxwell's third motion for release on bail and orders the parties to review and justify redactions to her reply brief. The court sets a deadline for the parties to confer and potentially docket an unredacted version of the brief. The order is issued by Judge Alison J. Nathan on March 22, 2021."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "21-cr-330",
+      "document_number": "21-cr-330",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Bail request for Ms. Maxwell",
+          "COVID-19 pandemic impact on bail decision",
+          "Flight risk assessment under 18 U.S.C. § 3142"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ms. Maxwell",
+            "role": "defendant in the case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is a crucial court filing in the case against Ms. Maxwell, presenting arguments for her release on bail amidst the COVID-19 pandemic and challenging the government's assertion that she is a flight risk.",
+        "summary": "The document is a court filing arguing for the release of Ms. Maxwell on bail, citing the COVID-19 pandemic and challenging the government's burden to prove she is a flight risk under 18 U.S.C. § 3142. It presents arguments on Ms. Maxwell's personal history, the nature of the charges, and a proposed bail package. The filing concludes by requesting the court to grant bail."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "21-cr-330 (ajn) document 18",
+      "document_number": "21-cr-330 (AJN) Document 18",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Bail request for Ghislaine Maxwell",
+          "COVID-19 pandemic impact on detention",
+          "Bail Reform Act application"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Associated individual mentioned in the context of the case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it presents the defense's argument for granting bail to Ghislaine Maxwell, highlighting the impact of COVID-19 on her detention and the government's failure to meet its burden under the Bail Reform Act.",
+        "summary": "The document is a court filing by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team requesting bail, citing the COVID-19 pandemic's impact on her health and ability to prepare her defense, as well as arguing that the government has not met its burden under the Bail Reform Act to prove she is a flight risk or danger to the community."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "210",
+      "document_number": "210",
+      "page_count": 6,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Reply Memorandum",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Multiplicity of charges in the indictment",
+          "Motion to dismiss counts in the superseding indictment",
+          "Conspiracy charges against Ghislaine Maxwell"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca",
+            "role": "Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it reveals the defense's argument that the indictment is multiplicitous and prejudicial, and requests the court to require the government to elect which conspiracy charge to prosecute.",
+        "summary": "Ghislaine Maxwell's reply memorandum argues that Counts 1 and 3 of the superseding indictment are multiplicitous and requests the court to dismiss one of the counts. The government is accused of overcharging and potentially prejudicing the jury."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "211",
+      "document_number": "211",
+      "page_count": 11,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Reply Memorandum",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Sixth Amendment right to a grand jury drawn from a fair cross-section of the community",
+          "Jury pool composition and representation",
+          "Motion to dismiss the superseding indictment"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Christian R. Everdell",
+            "role": "Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca",
+            "role": "Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Laura A. Menninger",
+            "role": "Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Bobbi C. Sternheim",
+            "role": "Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it reveals the defense's argument that the superseding indictment should be dismissed due to a violation of Ghislaine Maxwell's Sixth Amendment right to a grand jury drawn from a fair cross-section of the community, specifically challenging the composition of the jury pool.",
+        "summary": "Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team filed a reply memorandum arguing that the superseding indictment should be dismissed due to a Sixth Amendment violation, as the White Plains grand jury pool underrepresented Black and Hispanic jurors compared to the Manhattan Counties or the Southern District of New York. The government conceded that Black and Hispanic jurors are 'distinctive' groups and that their underrepresentation is significant."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "212",
+      "document_number": "212",
+      "page_count": 19,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Fourth Amendment violation",
+          "Martindell rule violation",
+          "Fifth Amendment violation"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Associated individual mentioned in the document"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is a crucial court filing in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, as it presents her arguments for suppressing evidence obtained through a grand jury subpoena and potentially dismissing certain counts.",
+        "summary": "Ghislaine Maxwell's legal team files a reply memorandum arguing that the government's subpoena to Boies Schiller Flexner LLP violated her Fourth, Fifth Amendment rights, and the Martindell rule, and thus, the evidence obtained should be suppressed and Counts Five and Six dismissed."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "212-1",
+      "document_number": "212-1",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing Exhibit",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Criminal Case",
+          "Evidence",
+          "DOJ Investigation"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Unknown",
+            "role": "Defendant or subject of the investigation"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it is an exhibit in a federal criminal case, possibly containing evidence or supporting documentation relevant to the investigation or prosecution.",
+        "summary": "This document is labeled as Exhibit A in a federal criminal case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE) and appears to be a filing related to a Department of Justice (DOJ) investigation, marked as DOJ-OGR-00003795."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "212-2",
+      "document_number": "212-2",
+      "page_count": 30,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Pro hac vice motions for Paul Cassell and Brad Edwards",
+          "Confidentiality and protective order in the case",
+          "Potential witness testimony and privilege issues"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Sigrid McCawley",
+            "role": "Attorney for Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Paul Cassell",
+            "role": "Attorney seeking pro hac vice admission"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Brad Edwards",
+            "role": "Attorney seeking pro hac vice admission"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeff Pagliuca",
+            "role": "Attorney for Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Robert W. Sweet",
+            "role": "District Judge presiding over the case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Virginia Giuffre",
+            "role": "Plaintiff"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This transcript reveals the court's consideration of pro hac vice motions for key attorneys in a high-profile case involving sensitive information and potential conflicts of interest.",
+        "summary": "The transcript captures a court hearing where attorneys argue over pro hac vice motions for Paul Cassell and Brad Edwards, with the defense contesting due to potential witness testimony and confidentiality concerns. The judge denies the motions without prejudice, requesting additional information before reconsidering."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "213",
+      "document_number": "213",
+      "page_count": 8,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Reply Memorandum",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Motion to dismiss Counts One through Four of the superseding indictment for lack of specificity",
+          "Lack of specific details in the indictment regarding alleged victims and crimes",
+          "Government's refusal to provide meaningful discovery"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca",
+            "role": "Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Laura A. Menninger",
+            "role": "Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Christian R. Everdell",
+            "role": "Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Bobbi C. Sternheim",
+            "role": "Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it reveals the defense's argument that the indictment lacks specificity and that the government is not providing sufficient discovery, which could impact the fairness of the trial.",
+        "summary": "Ghislaine Maxwell's attorneys argue that Counts One through Four of the superseding indictment should be dismissed due to lack of specificity, as the indictment fails to provide necessary details about the alleged crimes and victims. The government has not provided meaningful discovery, making it difficult for Maxwell to prepare her defense. The defense cites case law to support their claim that the indictment's lack of specificity is prejudicial."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "214",
+      "document_number": "214",
+      "page_count": 3,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Order",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Arraignment on S2 Superseding Indictment",
+          "COVID-19 protocols for courthouse entry",
+          "Public access arrangements for the proceeding"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislain Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant as it outlines the arrangements for Ghislain Maxwell's arraignment on the S2 Superseding Indictment, including COVID-19 protocols and public access arrangements.",
+        "summary": "The document is a court order scheduling Ghislain Maxwell's arraignment on April 23, 2021, and outlining the COVID-19 protocols and public access arrangements for the proceeding. The court will provide a video feed and a public teleconference line to ensure additional public access. The order also requires the government and defense counsel to inform the court about the attendance plans of alleged victims and the defendant's family members."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "215",
+      "document_number": "215",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Order",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Rule 17(c) subpoena",
+          "Redaction requests",
+          "Document production"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant as it reveals the court's decision regarding the handling of redactions and document production in the Ghislaine Maxwell case, specifically related to Rule 17(c) subpoenas.",
+        "summary": "The court ordered that any redaction requests for documents not already filed on the public docket must be made by April 21, 2021, or the parties may file unredacted versions by that date. The order relates to a dispute over a Rule 17(c) subpoena issued by the defendant, Ghislaine Maxwell. The court had received various filings and responses from the parties regarding the subpoena and related document production."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "216",
+      "document_number": "216",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Order",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Motions to suppress evidence",
+          "Trial scheduling for non-perjury counts",
+          "Use of documents subject to pending motions"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it reveals the court's decision to proceed with the trial of non-perjury counts while deferring consideration of motions to suppress evidence until later, contingent on the government's intention to use certain documents.",
+        "summary": "The court orders the government to inform it whether they intend to use documents subject to pending motions to suppress in the trial of non-perjury counts. If not, consideration of those motions will be deferred until the trial of perjury counts. The court's decision is related to Ghislaine Maxwell's motions to suppress evidence allegedly obtained through subpoenas in violation of her rights."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "217",
+      "document_number": "217",
+      "page_count": 6,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Joint Letter",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Redactions to Omnibus Response and Exhibit 11",
+          "Privacy interests of Ghislaine Maxwell",
+          "Fair trial rights and pretrial publicity"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Court Judge presiding over the case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Laura A. Menninger",
+            "role": "Counsel for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it reveals the arguments made by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team regarding the redactions of certain portions of her deposition testimony and the potential impact on her fair trial rights.",
+        "summary": "The document is a joint letter filed with the court concerning redactions to the Omnibus Response and Exhibit 11 in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team argues that certain portions of her deposition testimony should be redacted to protect her privacy interests and fair trial rights."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "218",
+      "document_number": "218",
+      "page_count": 8,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's Rule 17 subpoena",
+          "Government's standing to challenge the subpoena",
+          "Alleged misconduct by the government in obtaining evidence"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Virginia Giuffre",
+            "role": "Civil litigant and alleged victim"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Court Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca",
+            "role": "Defense attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it reveals alleged misconduct by the government in obtaining evidence and highlights the defense's argument that the government's actions have infringed on Ghislaine Maxwell's constitutional rights.",
+        "summary": "The document is a court filing by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team responding to the government's April 5, 2021 letter regarding Maxwell's Rule 17 subpoena. The defense argues that the government lacks standing to challenge the subpoena and that the subpoena is necessary to vindicate Maxwell's constitutional right to present a defense. The filing also alleges misconduct by the government in obtaining evidence, including misrepresentations to judges and willful blindness to exculpatory evidence."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "219",
+      "document_number": "219",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Request for Extension of Time",
+          "Use of Suppressed Documents at Trial",
+          "United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Audrey Strauss",
+            "role": "United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison Moe",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Maurene Comey",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Lara Pomerantz",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Andrew Rohrbach",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it reveals the government's consideration of using potentially suppressed documents in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell and their request for additional time to respond to the court's inquiry.",
+        "summary": "The United States Attorney's office requests an extension until April 22, 2021, to respond to the court's inquiry about using documents subject to pending suppression motions in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. The government is carefully reviewing its files and considering the potential relevance of the materials to the trial. The court had directed the government to notify it by April 20, 2021, regarding its intentions."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "22",
+      "document_number": "22",
+      "page_count": 31,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court filings and documents",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Bail and detention hearings",
+          "United States v. Epstein and United States v. Maxwell cases",
+          "Legal arguments regarding flight risk and extradition"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Defendant in United States v. Epstein"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislane Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant in United States v. Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Richard M. Berman",
+            "role": "Judge in United States v. Epstein"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison Moe, Alex Rossmiller, Maurene Comey",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorneys in United States v. Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Audrey Strauss",
+            "role": "Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "These documents provide insight into the legal proceedings against Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, highlighting the government's arguments for detention and the defense's counterarguments regarding bail.",
+        "summary": "The documents include court filings related to the cases of United States v. Epstein and United States v. Maxwell, featuring arguments on bail, detention, and the risk of flight, as well as procedural notices from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "2201",
+      "document_number": "2201",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Letter to Judge",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Request for access to legal papers for Ghislaine Maxwell",
+          "U.S. Marshal's policy on inmate possessions in Courthouse cellblocks",
+          "Evidence review in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Bobbi C. Sternheim",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document reveals a dispute between the defense and the U.S. Marshal regarding access to legal materials for Ghislaine Maxwell while she is being held in the Courthouse cellblocks, and the judge's decision on the matter.",
+        "summary": "Defense attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim requests that Judge Alison J. Nathan order the U.S. Marshal to allow Ghislaine Maxwell access to her legal papers while in the cellblock. The judge denies the request after conferring with the District Executive and the U.S. Marshal, citing a generally applicable policy prohibiting inmates from possessing materials in the Courthouse cellblocks."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "221",
+      "document_number": "221",
+      "page_count": 7,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Trial adjournment request",
+          "Bail hearing request",
+          "Superseding indictment implications"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislain Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Audrey Strauss",
+            "role": "United States Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant as it contains the court's order regarding the trial adjournment and bail hearing requests in the Ghislain Maxwell case, and provides insight into the court's reasoning and decisions.",
+        "summary": "The document is a court filing in the Ghislain Maxwell case, where the judge denies Maxwell's request for a renewed bail hearing and addresses the request for a trial adjournment. The court also grants in part the government's request for an extension to respond to a court order."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "222",
+      "document_number": "222",
+      "page_count": 4,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Redactions to court documents",
+          "Sealing of exhibits",
+          "Protection of third-party privacy interests"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Audrey Strauss",
+            "role": "United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Maurene Comey",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison Moe",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Lara Pomerantz",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Andrew Rohrbach",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it reveals the government's efforts to balance the need for transparency in court proceedings with the need to protect the privacy interests of third parties and victims in a high-profile case.",
+        "summary": "The document is a letter from the US Attorney's Office to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding proposed redactions to certain reply briefs and exhibits in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The government requests that certain information be redacted or sealed to protect the privacy interests of third parties and victims. The defense has indicated its position on the proposed redactions, and the government respectfully requests that the Court adopt the proposed redactions."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "22285",
+      "document_number": "22285",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's motion to dismiss superseding indictment",
+          "Grand jury location (White Plains vs Manhattan)",
+          "Mootness of motion due to new superseding indictment"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "U.S. District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Christian R. Everdell",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant as it shows the court's ruling on a motion to dismiss a superseding indictment and highlights the procedural developments in the Ghislaine Maxwell case.",
+        "summary": "The defense and the court agree that Ghislaine Maxwell's motion to dismiss the S1 superseding indictment is moot due to the return of a new S2 superseding indictment by a Manhattan grand jury. The court denies the motion as moot. The document is a letter from defense attorney Christian R. Everdell to Judge Alison J. Nathan."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "223",
+      "document_number": "223",
+      "page_count": 23,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Reply Memorandum",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with Jeffrey Epstein",
+          "Interpretation of co-conspirator immunity provision",
+          "Motion to dismiss superseding indictment against Ghislaine Maxwell"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Individual with whom the NPA was made"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it presents Ghislaine Maxwell's argument that the superseding indictment against her should be dismissed due to the government's alleged breach of the Non-Prosecution Agreement made with Jeffrey Epstein.",
+        "summary": "Ghislaine Maxwell's reply memorandum argues that the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with Jeffrey Epstein applies to her as a co-conspirator and that the government's interpretation of the agreement is incorrect. The memorandum contends that the plain language of the NPA provides immunity to co-conspirators, including Maxwell, and that the government's attempt to add limitations not present in the text is unfounded."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "223-1",
+      "document_number": "223-1",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing Exhibit",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Criminal Case",
+          "Sealed Document",
+          "DOJ Investigation"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Unknown",
+            "role": "The names of individuals involved are not specified in the given document reference."
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it is part of a criminal case filing and is sealed, suggesting it may contain sensitive information relevant to the case.",
+        "summary": "This document is an exhibit filed under seal in a criminal case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE) with the US Department of Justice. The specific content is not described, but it is labeled as 'Exhibit A' and has a DOJ reference number. The document was filed on April 20, 2021."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "224",
+      "document_number": "224",
+      "page_count": 17,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Reply Memorandum",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Joinder of offenses in a criminal trial",
+          "Severance of perjury counts from Mann Act counts",
+          "Prejudicial evidence and its impact on a fair trial"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Associated individual mentioned in the case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant as it presents the defendant's argument for severing two perjury counts from the rest of the charges in the superseding indictment, potentially impacting the trial's outcome.",
+        "summary": "The reply memorandum argues that Counts 5 and 6 (perjury charges) are improperly joined with Counts 1-4 (Mann Act charges) in the superseding indictment and should be severed for a separate trial. The defendant contends that the joinder is improper due to the lack of a logical connection between the counts and the potential for prejudicial evidence."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "22433",
+      "document_number": "22433",
+      "page_count": 4,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Confiscation of confidential legal documents from Ghislaine Maxwell",
+          "Alleged misconduct by MDC guards during a legal visit",
+          "Impact on Maxwell's ability to prepare for trial"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Bobbi C. Sternheim",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Sophia Papapetru",
+            "role": "MDC Legal Counsel"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Leah Saffian",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document reveals a serious incident involving the alleged misconduct of MDC guards and potential violations of attorney-client privilege, which may impact Ghislaine Maxwell's right to a fair trial.",
+        "summary": "The document is a court filing by defense attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim reporting an incident where MDC guards confiscated and reviewed Ghislaine Maxwell's confidential legal documents during a legal visit, and intimidated Maxwell. The court orders MDC legal counsel to show cause why an order directing the MDC to provide information should not be issued."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "22493",
+      "document_number": "22493",
+      "page_count": 3,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing/Legal Letter",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Confiscation of legal documents from Ghislaine Maxwell",
+          "Alleged misconduct by MDC guards",
+          "Preservation of electronic data and documents"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant in a legal case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Bobbi C. Sternheim",
+            "role": "Counsel for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it details alleged misconduct by MDC guards, including confiscation of legal documents and intimidation of Ghislaine Maxwell, which could impact her ability to prepare for trial and maintain attorney-client confidentiality.",
+        "summary": "The letter from Bobbi C. Sternheim to an unspecified recipient details the alleged misconduct by MDC guards, including confiscating legal documents from Ghislaine Maxwell and intimidating her, and requests preservation of relevant documents and electronic data."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "225",
+      "document_number": "225",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell case",
+          "motion to dismiss indictment",
+          "grand jury proceedings"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Christian R. Everdell",
+            "role": "Defense attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it shows the defense's agreement that a motion to dismiss the indictment is moot due to a superseding indictment being returned by a different grand jury.",
+        "summary": "The defense attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell informs the court that the defense agrees that the motion to dismiss the S1 superseding indictment is moot due to the return of the S2 superseding indictment by a grand jury in Manhattan. The letter is in response to the court's Opinion and Order dated April 16, 2021. The case is United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "2256",
+      "document_number": "2256",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's detention conditions",
+          "Sleep deprivation due to flashlight surveillance",
+          "MDC's treatment of Maxwell"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Bobbi C. Sternheim",
+            "role": "Maxwell's attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document reveals concerns about Ghislaine Maxwell's treatment in detention and potential human rights issues, prompting the judge to order the government to respond to specific questions about her detention conditions.",
+        "summary": "The letter from Maxwell's attorney to Judge Nathan details alleged mistreatment of Maxwell at the MDC, including sleep deprivation caused by frequent flashlight checks and a reported bruise. The judge orders the government to respond to questions about Maxwell's detention conditions."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "226",
+      "document_number": "226",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Order",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Redactions to court documents",
+          "Protective order in the case",
+          "Rule 17(c) subpoena objections"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Boies Schiller Flexner LLP (BSF)",
+            "role": "Law firm involved in the case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant as it reveals the court's handling of sensitive information and redactions in a high-profile case involving Ghislaine Maxwell.",
+        "summary": "The court order directs the Defendant (Ghislaine Maxwell) and Boies Schiller Flexner LLP to confer with the Government regarding redactions to certain documents, and sets deadlines for submitting redaction requests and justifications."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "22630",
+      "document_number": "22630",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "letter to the court",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "request for court order",
+          "MDC acceptance of master hard drives",
+          "coordination between defense counsel and government"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Christian R. Everdell",
+            "role": "attorney for the defense"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it reveals a dispute or issue regarding the handling of evidence (master hard drives) between the defense counsel, government, and the MDC (Metropolitan Detention Center).",
+        "summary": "The defense counsel is requesting the court to issue an order directing the MDC to accept master hard drives from either the defense or the government. The letter is copied to all counsel of record and the MDC Legal Department. The matter is being brought to the court's attention for resolution."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "227",
+      "document_number": "227",
+      "page_count": 3,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Suppression Motions",
+          "Evidence Usage at Trial",
+          "Admissibility of Potentially Suppressed Materials"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Audrey Strauss",
+            "role": "United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison Moe",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Maurene Comey",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Lara Pomerantz",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Andrew Rohrbach",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it reveals the Government's position on using potentially suppressed materials at trial and their intention not to use them in their case-in-chief, while reserving the right to use them under certain circumstances.",
+        "summary": "The Government submits a letter to Judge Alison J. Nathan stating they won't use certain materials subject to suppression motions in their case-in-chief at Ghislaine Maxwell's trial, but reserves the right to use them if the defense puts these materials at issue or if the defendant testifies. The Government opposes the suppression motions and argues that even if materials are suppressed, they can still be used for impeachment or other permissible purposes under the Rules of Evidence."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "22743",
+      "document_number": "22743",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Letter to Judge",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Filing of Omnibus Memorandum in Support of Supplemental Pretrial Motions",
+          "Confidential Information and Protective Order",
+          "Sealed Submission and Redactions"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Christian R. Everdell",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "U.S. District Judge"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant as it relates to the pretrial motions in the high-profile case against Ghislaine Maxwell and involves the handling of confidential information under a protective order.",
+        "summary": "The defense attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell informs the court of the filing of an Omnibus Memorandum in support of supplemental pretrial motions under seal due to confidential information. The court orders the government to propose and justify any necessary redactions by May 12, 2021."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "2280",
+      "document_number": "2280",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Request for extension of time",
+          "Pretrial schedule",
+          "United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Audrey Strauss",
+            "role": "United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Maurene Comey",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison Moe",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Lara Pomerantz",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Andrew Rohrbach",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant as it reveals the ongoing pretrial proceedings in the high-profile case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell and demonstrates the court's willingness to grant extensions to facilitate productive discussions between the parties.",
+        "summary": "The document is a joint letter from the prosecution and defense requesting an extension of time to file a response to the court's order regarding the pretrial schedule. The court grants the request, extending the deadline to May 21, 2021. The parties had a productive 45-minute discussion on the topic but required more time to resolve their disagreements."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "229",
+      "document_number": "229",
+      "page_count": 5,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Pretrial schedule",
+          "Discovery and disclosure",
+          "Motions in limine"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Audrey Strauss",
+            "role": "United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Maurene Comey",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is a letter from the prosecution to the judge outlining their proposed pretrial schedule and discovery disclosures in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, revealing the government's strategy and timeline for the trial.",
+        "summary": "The prosecution submits a letter to Judge Alison J. Nathan proposing a pretrial schedule and discovery disclosures in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, including deadlines for expert notices, motions in limine, and witness lists. The letter highlights areas of agreement and disagreement with the defense regarding the pretrial schedule. The government also notes its ongoing disclosure obligations under Brady and its progeny."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "23",
+      "document_number": "23",
+      "page_count": 6,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court filings and documents",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Detention hearing and bail decision for Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislain Maxwell",
+          "Allegations of sex trafficking and related crimes",
+          "Risk of flight and attempts to conceal identity"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Defendant in a sex trafficking case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislain Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant in a related sex trafficking case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge presiding over Maxwell's case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Richard M. Berman",
+            "role": "United States District Judge presiding over Epstein's case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Thomas McKay",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney representing the government"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "These documents reveal details about the detention hearings and bail decisions for Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislain Maxwell, highlighting the government's concerns about their risk of flight and the severity of the allegations against them.",
+        "summary": "The documents include court filings related to the detention hearings of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislain Maxwell, with details about the government's allegations and concerns regarding their risk of flight and attempts to conceal their identities."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "23-1",
+      "document_number": "23-1",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Police Incident Report",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Alleged harassment by a private investigator",
+          "Phone calls between individuals involved in the case",
+          "Potential intimidation of a victim"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Individual under investigation"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jack Goldberger",
+            "role": "Attorney representing Epstein"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "The victim",
+            "role": "Alleged victim in the case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document provides evidence of potential witness intimidation and harassment by a private investigator hired by Epstein, and reveals a possible connection between Epstein's associates and the victim.",
+        "summary": "The document is a Palm Beach Police Department incident report detailing alleged harassment of an individual by a private investigator hired by Jeffrey Epstein. It includes records of phone calls between the victim, the individual being followed, and Epstein's associates. The report suggests potential intimidation of the victim and connections between Epstein's corporations and the individuals involved."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "230",
+      "document_number": "230",
+      "page_count": 3,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Pretrial disclosures schedule",
+          "Pretrial motions practice",
+          "Trial preparation and timeline"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Christian R. Everdell",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document outlines the proposed schedule for pretrial disclosures and motions practice in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, highlighting areas of agreement and disagreement between the parties.",
+        "summary": "The defense and prosecution have conferred on a schedule for pretrial disclosures and motions, with some areas of agreement and disagreement, and have submitted their proposals to Judge Alison J. Nathan. The trial is set to begin on July 12, 2021. The parties have differing opinions on the timing of certain disclosures, including expert witness disclosure and Jencks Act material."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "231",
+      "document_number": "231",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Order",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Trial scheduling",
+          "Motions to suppress",
+          "Perjury counts"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislain Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document reveals the court's plan to defer certain pre-trial motions until after the trial on non-perjury counts, potentially impacting the trial strategy and proceedings.",
+        "summary": "The court orders the deferral of resolving pending motions to suppress until after the trial on non-perjury counts and intends to schedule a trial date for the severed perjury counts after the non-perjury counts trial is completed."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "232",
+      "document_number": "232",
+      "page_count": 4,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Redaction requests for reply briefs and exhibits",
+          "Protection of third-party privacy interests",
+          "Sealing of certain exhibits"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant in the case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Audrey Strauss",
+            "role": "United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Maurene Comey",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison Moe",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Lara Pomerantz",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Andrew Rohrbach",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it reveals the government's efforts to balance the need for transparency in court proceedings with the need to protect the privacy interests of third parties and alleged victims in a high-profile case.",
+        "summary": "The document is a letter from the US Attorney's Office to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding redactions to reply briefs and exhibits in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The government requests redactions to certain documents to protect third-party privacy interests, which the court ultimately grants. The court also orders the parties to propose redactions or file Exhibit L of Reply Brief 6 on the public docket."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "233",
+      "document_number": "233",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Request to bring electronic devices to courthouse",
+          "Compliance with Standing Order M10-468",
+          "Representation of Minor Victim-2"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Sigrid McCawley",
+            "role": "Attorney for Minor Victim-2"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "David Boies",
+            "role": "Attorney for Minor Victim-2"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant in the case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it reveals a request made by Minor Victim-2's attorneys to bring electronic devices to the courthouse for hearings and trial, and demonstrates compliance with court regulations.",
+        "summary": "Sigrid McCawley, attorney for Minor Victim-2, requests permission from Judge Alison J. Nathan to bring electronic devices to the courthouse for scheduled hearings and trial in the United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell case. The request is made in accordance with Standing Order M10-468. The letter is filed via ECF on April 22, 2021."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "233-1",
+      "document_number": "233-1",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Order",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Authorization to bring electronic devices into the courthouse",
+          "United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell case",
+          "SDNY Courtroom WI-FI access"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Sigrid McCawley",
+            "role": "Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "David Boies",
+            "role": "Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Judge (unnamed)",
+            "role": "United States Judge issuing the order"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it reveals the involvement of specific attorneys and their authorization to bring electronic devices into the courthouse for the high-profile case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell.",
+        "summary": "This court order authorizes attorneys Sigrid McCawley and David Boies to bring personal electronic devices and general purpose computing devices into the courthouse for use in the United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell trial. The order specifies the devices allowed and courtrooms where they can be used. The attorneys are required to comply with the restrictions and obligations set forth in Standing Order M10-468, as Revised."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "2333",
+      "document_number": "2333",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Request to bring electronic devices to court",
+          "Compliance with Standing Order M10-468",
+          "Representation of Minor Victim-2"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Sigrid McCawley",
+            "role": "Attorney for Minor Victim-2"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "David Boies",
+            "role": "Attorney for Minor Victim-2"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "U.S. District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant in the case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant as it reveals a request by Minor Victim-2's attorneys to bring electronic devices to court proceedings and the judge's ruling on the matter.",
+        "summary": "Attorneys for Minor Victim-2 requested permission to bring electronic devices to court hearings and trial in the United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell case. The judge partially denied the request for the arraignment but allowed for renewal before future proceedings."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "234",
+      "document_number": "234",
+      "page_count": 5,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Motions to Suppress Evidence",
+          "Due Process and Constitutional Rights",
+          "Evidentiary Hearing"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Court Judge"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it reveals the defense's argument that the government's conduct violated Ghislaine Maxwell's constitutional rights and that the court should resolve her motions to suppress evidence before trial.",
+        "summary": "The document is a court filing by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team responding to the government's letter regarding her motions to suppress evidence. The defense argues that the government's assurances are insufficient to safeguard Maxwell's constitutional rights and that an evidentiary hearing is necessary to determine the admissibility of evidence."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "235",
+      "document_number": "235",
+      "page_count": 10,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell trial adjournment request",
+          "Impact of severing perjury counts on trial length",
+          "Government's opposition to adjournment and proposed trial schedule"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Virginia Roberts Giuffre",
+            "role": "Alleged victim"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it reveals the government's opposition to Ghislaine Maxwell's request to adjourn the trial date and provides insight into the government's strategy for presenting its case.",
+        "summary": "The document is a letter from the US Department of Justice to Judge Alison J. Nathan, opposing Ghislaine Maxwell's request to adjourn the July 12, 2021 trial date. The government argues that the recent severance of perjury counts will shorten the trial and that it has made efforts to streamline its case, focusing on four victims. The government requests that if an adjournment is granted, the trial be scheduled for March 2022."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "23509",
+      "document_number": "23509",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Deposition limits",
+          "Cumulative and duplicative testimony",
+          "Witness testimony in a civil case involving Jeffrey Epstein"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Johanna Sjoberg",
+            "role": "Former Epstein employee and deponent"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Maria Alessi",
+            "role": "Former Epstein household employee and proposed deponent"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Joe Recarey",
+            "role": "Former Palm Beach Detective and proposed deponent"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Michael Reiter",
+            "role": "Former Palm Beach Police Chief and proposed deponent"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "The Plaintiff",
+            "role": "The individual bringing the civil case against Epstein or related parties"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it reveals the plaintiff's strategy in pursuing additional depositions and the defendant's objections to those depositions, which could impact the scope and outcome of the case.",
+        "summary": "The document discusses the plaintiff's request to exceed the presumptive ten deposition limit in a civil case involving Jeffrey Epstein, arguing that the additional depositions are unnecessary and duplicative. The defendant objects, citing the cumulative nature of the testimony and the burden on witnesses and counsel. The court filing provides insight into the case's procedural posture and the parties' litigation strategies."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "236",
+      "document_number": "236",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell case",
+          "Exhibit L of Reply Brief 3",
+          "Public filing"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Audrey Strauss",
+            "role": "United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Maurene Comey",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison Moe",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Lara Pomerantz",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Andrew Rohrbach",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it reveals that both the prosecution and defense agree to the public filing of Exhibit L, potentially making sensitive information publicly available.",
+        "summary": "The US Attorney's office informs Judge Alison J. Nathan that neither the government nor the defense seeks redactions to Exhibit L of Reply Brief 3, and it will be filed publicly. The letter is in response to the court's order regarding potential redactions. The case involves Ghislaine Maxwell."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "239",
+      "document_number": "239",
+      "page_count": 6,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida",
+          "Discovery obligations and Brady material in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell",
+          "Review of files from various investigative agencies for potentially disclosable material"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant in the case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Individual involved in the Non-Prosecution Agreement"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge presiding over the case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Attorney-1",
+            "role": "Assistant U.S. Attorney at SDFL responsible for investigating Jeffrey Epstein"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it provides insight into the Government's discovery obligations and its efforts to comply with those obligations in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, particularly with respect to the Non-Prosecution Agreement between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida.",
+        "summary": "The Government submits a letter to the Court confirming its compliance with discovery obligations related to the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida. The Government states that it has reviewed various files and has not identified any Brady material related to the NPA. The Government continues to review files for potential Giglio and Jencks Act material."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "24",
+      "document_number": "24",
+      "page_count": 12,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Mixed court documents",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Bail request for Jeffrey Epstein",
+          "Waiver of right to be present at criminal proceedings for Ghislaine Maxwell",
+          "Withdrawal of appeal by Jeffrey Epstein"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Defendant in a criminal case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant in a related criminal case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Richard M. Berman",
+            "role": "US District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Christian R. Everdell",
+            "role": "Defense attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Marc Fernich",
+            "role": "Defense attorney for Jeffrey Epstein"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "These documents reveal key details about the criminal cases against Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, including bail requests and waivers of rights.",
+        "summary": "The documents include a letter from Jeffrey Epstein's lawyer arguing for bail, a waiver of right to be present at criminal proceedings signed by Ghislaine Maxwell, and a mandate from the US Court of Appeals withdrawing Epstein's appeal."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "24-1073",
+      "document_number": "24-1073",
+      "page_count": 3,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Certificate of Compliance",
+          "Affidavit of Service",
+          "Supreme Court Case"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Petitioner"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Rina Danielson",
+            "role": "Person serving the Brief of Amicus Curiae"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Mariana Braylovskiy",
+            "role": "Notary Public"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "David Oscar Markus",
+            "role": "Attorney for Petitioner"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "D. John Sauer",
+            "role": "Solicitor General, Attorney for Respondent"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Sara Kropf",
+            "role": "Counsel (likely for Amicus Curiae)"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is a crucial court filing in the Ghislaine Maxwell case, providing proof of service and compliance with Supreme Court rules for an amicus curiae brief.",
+        "summary": "The document contains a Certificate of Compliance and an Affidavit of Service related to a Supreme Court case (No. 24-1073) involving Ghislaine Maxwell. It confirms that the Brief of Amicus Curiae was served on the required parties. The Certificate of Compliance attests that the document contains 3,097 words, as required by Supreme Court Rule 33.1(h)."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "24-3",
+      "document_number": "24-3",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Protective Order",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Confidentiality",
+          "Document Handling",
+          "Protective Order Provisions"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [],
+        "significance": "This document outlines the procedures for handling confidential information in a court case, establishing the rules for designation, disclosure, and protection of sensitive information.",
+        "summary": "This document is a protective order governing the handling of confidential information in a court case. It outlines the procedures for designating documents as confidential, the requirements for handling such documents, and the rules for disclosure during depositions. The order aims to protect sensitive information from unauthorized disclosure."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "240",
+      "document_number": "240",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Redaction requests for documents related to Ghislaine Maxwell's case",
+          "Protection of third-party privacy interests",
+          "Application of the Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga test for redactions"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Audrey Strauss",
+            "role": "United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Maurene Comey",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison Moe",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Lara Pomerantz",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Andrew Rohrbach",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it reveals the government's request to redact certain information from court filings to protect third-party privacy interests, and demonstrates the application of the Lugosch test in a high-profile case.",
+        "summary": "The US Attorney's Office requests the court to permit redactions to certain documents related to Ghislaine Maxwell's case to protect third-party privacy interests. The proposed redactions are narrowly tailored and consistent with the Lugosch test. The defense and Boies Schiller Flexner LLP take no position on the government's redaction requests."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "241",
+      "document_number": "241",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Redaction requests by the Government",
+          "Rule 17(c) subpoena",
+          "Protection of third-party privacy interests"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Audrey Strauss",
+            "role": "United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Maurene Comey",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison Moe",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Lara Pomerantz",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Andrew Rohrbach",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it reveals the Government's efforts to protect the privacy interests of third parties in a high-profile case involving Ghislaine Maxwell, and the Court's ruling on the matter.",
+        "summary": "The Government submitted a letter to the Court requesting redactions to certain documents related to the defense's proposed Rule 17(c) subpoena, citing the need to protect third-party privacy interests. The Court granted the request, ordering the Defendant and Boies Schiller to docket the documents with the proposed redactions."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "242",
+      "document_number": "242",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Order",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's response to court order",
+          "Redactions to court filing",
+          "Presumption of access to judicial documents"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it reveals the court's reasoning for allowing redactions to Ghislaine Maxwell's court filing, balancing the presumption of access against privacy interests and professional obligations.",
+        "summary": "The court grants Ghislaine Maxwell's request to redact parts of her response to a court order, citing the need to protect the privacy interests of defense lawyers' clients and comply with professional obligations. The court applies the three-part test from Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga to reach this decision. Maxwell is ordered to docket the redacted version and the basis for the redaction request."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "243",
+      "document_number": "243",
+      "page_count": 5,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's motions to suppress evidence",
+          "Government's use of potentially tainted evidence",
+          "Due process and constitutional rights"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Court Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Haddon Morgan Foreman",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it reveals the defense's argument that the government's conduct may have violated Ghislaine Maxwell's constitutional rights and that the court should resolve her motions to suppress evidence before trial.",
+        "summary": "The defense responds to the government's letter regarding Ghislaine Maxwell's motions to suppress evidence, arguing that the government's assurances are insufficient to safeguard Maxwell's constitutional rights and that the court should resolve the motions before trial."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "244",
+      "document_number": "244",
+      "page_count": 14,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Response to Letter Motion to Quash Rule 17 Subpoena",
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell case",
+          "Boies Schiller Flexner LLP subpoena"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Pagliuca",
+            "role": "Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Virginia Giuffre",
+            "role": "Alleged victim and potential trial witness"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "David Boies",
+            "role": "Lawyer representing alleged victims"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is a response to a motion to quash a subpoena directed at Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, a law firm representing alleged victims in the Ghislaine Maxwell case, and reveals the defense's argument for why the subpoena should be upheld.",
+        "summary": "The document is a court filing by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team, arguing against Boies Schiller Flexner LLP's motion to quash a Rule 17 subpoena. The subpoena seeks specific communications between the law firm and the government regarding Maxwell. The defense argues that the subpoena is specific and relevant to the case, and that the law firm's objections are unfounded."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "245",
+      "document_number": "245",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Redactions to pleadings",
+          "Rule 17(c) subpoena",
+          "Protective Order and confidentiality"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Laura A. Menninger",
+            "role": "Counsel for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Court Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ms. McCawley",
+            "role": "Counsel from Boies Schiller & Flexner (BSF)"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it reveals the discussion around redactions to pleadings related to a Rule 17(c) subpoena in the Ghislaine Maxwell case, highlighting the balance between the defendant's rights and the privacy rights of third-party witnesses.",
+        "summary": "The letter is from Laura A. Menninger, counsel for Ghislaine Maxwell, to Judge Alison J. Nathan, discussing proposed redactions to pleadings related to a Rule 17(c) subpoena. The redactions are sought to protect the privacy of a third-party witness mentioned in documents marked 'Confidential' by the government. BSF takes no position on the necessity of the proposed redactions."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "246",
+      "document_number": "246",
+      "page_count": 13,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Request for adjournment of trial",
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's trial schedule conflict",
+          "Complexity of the case due to new indictment and discovery"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Laura A. Menninger",
+            "role": "Defense Counsel for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Court Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Pagliuca",
+            "role": "Defense Counsel for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Bobbi C. Sternheim",
+            "role": "Defense Counsel for Ghislaine Maxwell and counsel in another case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Lara Pomerantz",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it reveals the complexity of the Ghislaine Maxwell case and the challenges faced by her defense team in preparing for trial, including issues with discovery and conflicting trial schedules.",
+        "summary": "The defense team for Ghislaine Maxwell requests a continuance of the trial due to the complexity of the case, the expanded scope of the second superseding indictment, and conflicts with other trial schedules. They propose January 10, 2022, as the earliest firm trial date or November 8, 2021, if another trial before Judge Furman is postponed."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "247",
+      "document_number": "247",
+      "page_count": 17,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Rule 17(c) subpoena",
+          "Discovery obligations",
+          "Specificity requirement for subpoenas"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Sigrid S. McCawley",
+            "role": "Attorney for Boies Schiller Flexner LLP"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it reveals a dispute between Ghislaine Maxwell and Boies Schiller Flexner LLP regarding a Rule 17(c) subpoena and highlights the specificity requirements for subpoenas in criminal cases.",
+        "summary": "Boies Schiller Flexner LLP objects to Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for an order authorizing a subpoena, arguing that it is an improper attempt to obtain discovery beyond what is required under Rule 16 and Brady. The law firm contends that Maxwell's requests lack specificity as required by United States v. Nixon."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "248",
+      "document_number": "248",
+      "page_count": 9,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Confiscation of confidential legal documents from Ghislaine Maxwell",
+          "Intimidation and humiliation of Ghislaine Maxwell by MDC guards",
+          "Impact on attorney-client communication and Maxwell's ability to prepare for trial"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Bobbi C. Sternheim",
+            "role": "Defense attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Leah Saffian",
+            "role": "Co-counsel for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Sophia Papapetru",
+            "role": "MDC legal counsel"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge presiding over the case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it alleges misconduct by MDC guards, including confiscation of confidential legal documents and intimidation of the defendant, which could impact the defendant's ability to prepare for trial and potentially compromise attorney-client privilege.",
+        "summary": "The document is a letter from defense attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim to Judge Alison J. Nathan reporting an incident where MDC guards confiscated and reviewed Ghislaine Maxwell's confidential legal documents and intimidated her. The incident allegedly occurred after a legal conference with Maxwell and her attorneys."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "25",
+      "document_number": "25",
+      "page_count": 3,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court filings and order",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Bail submission for Jeffrey Epstein",
+          "Discovery schedule for Ghislaine Maxwell case",
+          "Court proceedings"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Reid Weingarten",
+            "role": "Attorney for Jeffrey Epstein"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Richard M. Berman",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "These documents reveal court proceedings related to high-profile cases involving Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, providing insight into the legal process and key events in these cases.",
+        "summary": "The documents include a letter from Reid Weingarten to Judge Richard M. Berman regarding Jeffrey Epstein's bail submission, and a court order from Judge Alison J. Nathan setting a discovery schedule for the Ghislaine Maxwell case."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "25-1",
+      "document_number": "25-1",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Letter",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Sex Offender Registration",
+          "Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act",
+          "New Mexico State Law (NMSA 29-11A)"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffery E. Epstein",
+            "role": "Recipient of the letter, individual with a 2008 Florida conviction"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Regina Chacon",
+            "role": "Assistant Bureau Chief, Law Enforcement Records Bureau, NM Department of Public Safety"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Teresa Hernandez",
+            "role": "Contact person for further questions regarding registration"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it relates to Jeffery E. Epstein's legal obligations regarding sex offender registration in New Mexico following a 2008 Florida conviction. It clarifies his registration status under both state and federal law at the time.",
+        "summary": "The letter, dated August 19, 2010, from the New Mexico Department of Public Safety, informs Jeffery E. Epstein that he is not required to register as a sex offender in New Mexico under state law for his 2008 Florida conviction, but may be required to register under federal law."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "25-2",
+      "document_number": "25-2",
+      "page_count": 8,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Exhibit",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Jeffrey Epstein's travel plans and locations",
+          "Emails sent by Jeffrey Epstein to Deborah Anaya and Darren Indyke",
+          "Confidentiality and potential attorney-client privilege"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Sender of emails and subject of the court case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Deborah Anaya",
+            "role": "Recipient of emails from Jeffrey Epstein"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Darren Indyke",
+            "role": "Cc'd recipient of emails from Jeffrey Epstein, potentially Epstein's attorney or associate"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "These emails reveal Jeffrey Epstein's travel plans and locations over several years, potentially relevant to the criminal case against him. The emails also highlight Epstein's emphasis on confidentiality and potential attorney-client privilege.",
+        "summary": "This document is an exhibit in a court case, comprising a series of emails sent by Jeffrey Epstein to Deborah Anaya and Darren Indyke between 2012 and 2015. The emails primarily discuss Epstein's travel plans, particularly his visits to New Mexico. The emails contain confidentiality notices and claims of attorney-client privilege."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "250",
+      "document_number": "250",
+      "page_count": 3,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Order",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Pretrial disclosures schedule",
+          "Pretrial motions practice",
+          "Trial commencement date"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislain Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document establishes the pretrial schedule and deadlines for disclosures and motions in the case against Ghislain Maxwell, providing insight into the court's management of the trial preparation process.",
+        "summary": "The court issues an order setting the schedule for pretrial disclosures and motions practice in the case against Ghislain Maxwell, with various deadlines for the government and defense, and a presumed trial commencement date of July 12, 2021. The order also addresses the submission of witness statements and jury questionnaire proposals. The court requires the parties to meet and confer on certain issues and submit a joint letter outlining their positions."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "252",
+      "document_number": "252",
+      "page_count": 9,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Order",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's subpoena request to Boies, Schiller and Flexner LLP",
+          "Rule 17(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure",
+          "Government's request for notice of pending and future subpoenas"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Boies, Schiller and Flexner LLP",
+            "role": "Law firm subject to subpoena request"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it reveals the court's decision on Ghislaine Maxwell's subpoena request and the government's request for notice of pending and future subpoenas, providing insight into the pre-trial proceedings in a high-profile criminal case.",
+        "summary": "The court denies Ghislaine Maxwell's motion to authorize a subpoena to Boies, Schiller and Flexner LLP for most of the requested documents, citing lack of specificity and relevance. The court also denies the government's request for notice of pending and future subpoenas, but will consider the government's views on certain remaining requests."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "253",
+      "document_number": "253",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Letter to Judge",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Violation of Ghislaine Maxwell's 6th Amendment rights",
+          "Confiscation of confidential legal documents by MDC staff",
+          "Request for relief and accountability from the MDC"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Bobbi C. Sternheim",
+            "role": "Defense attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge presiding over the case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Sophia Papapetru",
+            "role": "MDC Legal Staff/Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it highlights a significant issue regarding the violation of Ghislaine Maxwell's constitutional rights and attorney-client privilege, and requests the court to intervene and hold the MDC accountable.",
+        "summary": "The letter, written by defense attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim, responds to the MDC's justification for confiscating Ghislaine Maxwell's confidential legal documents, arguing that it was unjustified and violated Maxwell's 6th Amendment rights. The letter requests the court to deny the MDC's request and order relief, including summoning the responsible guards to court and providing a copy of the video recording to defense counsel. The MDC is accused of failing to provide a legitimate explanation for the violation."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "254",
+      "document_number": "254",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's legal visit at MDC Brooklyn",
+          "Alleged incident involving document handover during the visit",
+          "MDC Brooklyn policies on inmate visiting and legal materials"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge presiding over the case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Sophia Papapetru",
+            "role": "Staff Attorney at MDC Brooklyn, author of the letter"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it provides the government's response to an alleged incident involving Ghislaine Maxwell and clarifies the policies and procedures followed by MDC Brooklyn during legal visits.",
+        "summary": "The document is a letter from Sophia Papapetru, Staff Attorney at MDC Brooklyn, to Judge Alison J. Nathan, responding to an alleged incident during Ghislaine Maxwell's legal visit on April 24, 2021. The letter explains MDC Brooklyn's policies on inmate visiting and legal materials, and describes the actions taken by staff during and after the visit. The government requests the court to deny defense counsel's proposed order."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "255",
+      "document_number": "255",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Order",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Seizure of Ghislaine Maxwell's legal materials",
+          "Confidentiality of lawyer-client communications",
+          "Procedures at Metropolitan Detention Center"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it addresses a critical issue regarding the defendant's access to legal materials and confidentiality of lawyer-client communications while in detention.",
+        "summary": "The court orders the Metropolitan Detention Center to provide an inventory of seized materials and information on steps taken to ensure confidentiality of Ghislaine Maxwell's lawyer-client communications. The order partially grants and partially denies defense counsel's requests. The court requires the MDC to provide specific information by April 30, 2021."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "256",
+      "document_number": "256",
+      "page_count": 3,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Letter to Judge",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's detention conditions",
+          "Sleep deprivation due to MDC's flashlight surveillance",
+          "Alleged mistreatment and retaliation by MDC staff"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Bobbi C. Sternheim",
+            "role": "Defense attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge presiding over the case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it highlights alleged mistreatment of Ghislaine Maxwell by MDC staff, including sleep deprivation and retaliation, which could impact her health, well-being, and ability to prepare for trial.",
+        "summary": "Defense attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim writes to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding Ghislaine Maxwell's detention conditions, specifically the alleged sleep deprivation caused by MDC's 15-minute flashlight surveillance. The letter requests the Court to direct the MDC to cease this practice or justify its necessity. The letter also reports a recent incident where Maxwell was confronted by MDC staff about a bruise on her face, allegedly resulting from her attempts to shield her eyes from the flashlight."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "2562",
+      "document_number": "2562",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's detention conditions",
+          "Special Housing Unit (SHU) placement",
+          "Surveillance methods at the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC)"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant in the case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Bobbi C. Sternheim",
+            "role": "Defense attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it reveals concerns about Ghislaine Maxwell's treatment in detention and may indicate potential issues with her safety or human rights.",
+        "summary": "The document is a letter from Bobbi C. Sternheim, Ghislaine Maxwell's attorney, to the court, discussing Maxwell's detention conditions and requesting that the court address issues related to her placement in the Special Housing Unit (SHU) and the use of 15-minute light surveillance."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "25621",
+      "document_number": "25621",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court of Appeals Order",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal for bail pending trial",
+          "Denial of bail by the District Court",
+          "Appellant's sleeping conditions while incarcerated"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant-Appellant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe",
+            "role": "Clerk of Court"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Pierre N. Leval",
+            "role": "Circuit Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Raymond J. Lohier, Jr.",
+            "role": "Circuit Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Richard J. Sullivan",
+            "role": "Circuit Judge"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant as it reveals the Court of Appeals' decision to affirm the District Court's denial of Ghislaine Maxwell's bail requests and highlights concerns about her sleeping conditions while incarcerated.",
+        "summary": "The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court's orders denying Ghislaine Maxwell's requests for bail pending trial. The court also denied her motion for bail or temporary pretrial release and suggested that concerns about her sleeping conditions be addressed to the District Court."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "258",
+      "document_number": "258",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Letter to the Judge",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Alleged violation of MDC Brooklyn's legal visit procedures",
+          "Confiscation of Ghislaine Maxwell's confidential legal documents",
+          "Request for the Court to direct MDC to provide a copy of the video recording"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Bobbi C. Sternheim",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it reveals a dispute between the defense and the MDC regarding alleged misconduct and violation of Ghislaine Maxwell's rights, potentially impacting her right to a fair trial.",
+        "summary": "The letter from Bobbi C. Sternheim to Judge Alison J. Nathan disputes the MDC's allegations of misconduct by Maxwell's counsel during a legal visit, and highlights the MDC's alleged confiscation and reading of Maxwell's confidential legal materials, requesting the Court to direct the MDC to provide a copy of the video recording."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "259",
+      "document_number": "259",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Letter",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's legal visit incident at MDC Brooklyn",
+          "Confiscation of materials during the visit",
+          "Confidentiality of lawyer-client communications"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Sophia Papapetru",
+            "role": "Staff Attorney at MDC Brooklyn"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it clarifies the circumstances surrounding an incident involving Ghislaine Maxwell at MDC Brooklyn and addresses concerns about the confidentiality of her lawyer-client communications.",
+        "summary": "The letter, written by Sophia Papapetru, Staff Attorney at MDC Brooklyn, responds to Judge Nathan's inquiry about an incident involving Ghislaine Maxwell during a legal visit. It states that no materials were seized or retained by MDC Brooklyn staff and outlines the procedures in place to ensure the confidentiality of Maxwell's lawyer-client communications."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "26",
+      "document_number": "26",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Orders",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Court procedure",
+          "Case management",
+          "Non-party submissions"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Richard M. Berman",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislain Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "These court orders reveal the court's approach to managing non-party submissions and rescheduling court conferences in high-profile cases involving Ghislain Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein.",
+        "summary": "Two court orders are included: one from the case against Ghislain Maxwell, where the court declines to consider non-party submissions, and another from the case against Jeffrey Epstein, rescheduling a court conference."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "260",
+      "document_number": "260",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Request to allow hard drives containing non-Highly Confidential discovery materials to be sent to Ghislaine Maxwell at the MDC",
+          "Organization and formatting of discovery materials on the hard drives",
+          "MDC policy on accepting hard drives"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Christian R. Everdell",
+            "role": "Defense attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it reveals a procedural issue in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell and highlights the challenges of managing large volumes of discovery materials in a custodial setting.",
+        "summary": "Defense attorney Christian R. Everdell requests that the court order the MDC to accept two hard drives containing non-Highly Confidential discovery materials for Ghislaine Maxwell's use. The hard drives are organized in a user-friendly format, and the government does not object to the request. The MDC Legal Department has expressed concerns and is given the opportunity to note objections."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "261",
+      "document_number": "261",
+      "page_count": 9,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Arraignment of Ghislaine Maxwell",
+          "Disclosure obligations under Brady v. Maryland",
+          "Scheduling of trial and pretrial matters"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Maurene Comey",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Bobbi C. Sternheim",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is a transcript of Ghislaine Maxwell's arraignment, where she pleaded not guilty to the superseding indictment. It reveals the court's handling of preliminary matters, including disclosure obligations and scheduling issues.",
+        "summary": "The transcript records Ghislaine Maxwell's arraignment, where she waived the public reading of the indictment and pleaded not guilty. The court discussed disclosure obligations under Brady v. Maryland and addressed scheduling issues, including the defense's request for a continuance and the parties' proposed schedules for pretrial disclosures and motions."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "26114674",
+      "document_number": "26114674",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "bail and pretrial release",
+          "risk of flight",
+          "prior investigations and convictions"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Epstein",
+            "role": "defendant in a criminal case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Government (U.S. Attorney's Office)",
+            "role": "prosecutor"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it reveals details about Epstein's past crimes, his prior investigations, and the government's argument against his pretrial release.",
+        "summary": "The document discusses the government's opposition to Epstein's pretrial release, citing his wealth, international ties, and risk of flight. It also provides background on Epstein's prior investigations and convictions, including a non-prosecution agreement in 2007 and a guilty plea in 2008."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "2614674",
+      "document_number": "2614674",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Jeffrey Epstein's sex offender registration compliance",
+          "Epstein's alleged misconduct while on work release",
+          "Relevance to Epstein's current detention and release arguments"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Judge Pickholz",
+            "role": "judge who issued an order related to Epstein's sex offender status"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Brad Edwards",
+            "role": "attorney to one of Epstein's victims"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it highlights Epstein's alleged non-compliance with sex offender registration requirements and misconduct while on work release, which could be relevant to his current detention and release arguments.",
+        "summary": "The document discusses Jeffrey Epstein's alleged failure to comply with New York sex offender registration requirements and his alleged misconduct while on work release in Florida. It cites news articles and court records to support these claims. The document argues that these facts undermine Epstein's defense counsel's argument that he should be released due to his 'perfect compliance' with sex offender registration obligations."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "261474",
+      "document_number": "261474",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Defendant's foreign passport",
+          "Risk of flight",
+          "Defendant's financial assets"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Epstein",
+            "role": "Defendant in the case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it reveals details about the defendant's alleged possession of a foreign passport under an alias and his significant financial assets, which are relevant to the court's assessment of his risk of flight.",
+        "summary": "The document discusses the defendant's alleged possession of a foreign passport issued under an alias and his financial assets, with the government arguing that these factors contribute to a serious risk of flight, while the defense contests the government's claims and provides explanations for the passport's existence and the defendant's financial situation."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "262",
+      "document_number": "262",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Notice of Filing of Official Transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Filing of transcript",
+          "Redaction responsibilities",
+          "Transcript availability"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislane Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document notifies the filing of an official transcript of a conference held on April 23, 2021, in the case against Ghislane Maxwell and outlines the procedures for redacting sensitive information.",
+        "summary": "The court reporter has filed an official transcript of a conference held on April 23, 2021. The parties have 7 days to request redactions, and if none are requested, the transcript will be made publicly available after 90 days. The redactions are limited to specific personal data identifiers."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "264",
+      "document_number": "264",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Order",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Privacy protections",
+          "Anonymity for alleged victim",
+          "Sealing of court documents"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant in the case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document reveals the court's handling of a request for anonymity by a non-party alleged victim in the Ghislaine Maxwell case, demonstrating the court's consideration of privacy interests.",
+        "summary": "The court received a letter from counsel for a non-party requesting anonymity for their client, an alleged victim of a sexual crime. The court forwarded the letter to the parties, received a response from the Government, and decided to file the letter under seal to protect the non-party's privacy interests."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "265",
+      "document_number": "265",
+      "page_count": 3,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Order",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Attorney-client confidentiality",
+          "Incident at MDC involving Ghislaine Maxwell",
+          "Access to video tapes of attorney-client visit"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant as it addresses a critical issue regarding attorney-client confidentiality and access to evidence in a high-profile case involving Ghislaine Maxwell.",
+        "summary": "The court order addresses an incident at the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) where Ghislaine Maxwell is being detained, involving allegations that her lawyers violated Bureau of Prisons rules during an in-person attorney-client visit. The court declines to take further action but orders the government to ensure Maxwell's access to confidential attorney-client communications."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "2651",
+      "document_number": "2651",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's bail application",
+          "Court jurisdiction over bail application during appeal",
+          "Risk of flight assessment"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it reveals the government's opposition to Ghislaine Maxwell's third bail application and highlights the court's previous findings that she poses a serious flight risk.",
+        "summary": "The U.S. Department of Justice filed a letter opposing Ghislaine Maxwell's third bail application, arguing that the court lacks jurisdiction due to a pending appeal and that Maxwell still poses an extreme risk of flight. The government requests that the court deny the motion for substantially the same reasons as the previous denials."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "266",
+      "document_number": "266",
+      "page_count": 3,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Order",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's trial date",
+          "S2 Superseding Indictment",
+          "Request for continuance due to new charges and COVID-19 pandemic"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it reveals the court's decision to grant a continuance of Ghislaine Maxwell's trial date due to the late filing of the S2 Superseding Indictment and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the defense's preparation.",
+        "summary": "The court grants Ghislaine Maxwell's request for a continuance of her trial date from July 12, 2021, to fall 2021 due to the filing of the S2 Superseding Indictment, which added new charges and required the defense to review additional discovery and conduct new investigations. The court balances the need for a continuance with the interests of justice, the defendant's pre-trial detention, and the public's interest in a timely trial."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "267",
+      "document_number": "267",
+      "page_count": 7,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Disclosure of defense witness statements under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 26.2",
+          "Timing of disclosure of witness statements",
+          "Defense objections to government's proposal for pretrial disclosure"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Court Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it reveals the defense's position on the disclosure of witness statements and highlights the legal arguments surrounding the interpretation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 26.2.",
+        "summary": "The document is a joint letter filed by the defense and prosecution in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, discussing the timing of defense witness disclosures under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 26.2. The defense argues that pretrial disclosure of witness statements is not required and would infringe on Ms. Maxwell's Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights. The defense proposes producing non-public Rule 26.2 witness statements after the government closes its evidence and after the conclusion of the first defense Rule 29(a) motion."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "268",
+      "document_number": "268",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Order",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's access to discovery materials",
+          "Request for hard drives to be accepted by MDC",
+          "Coordination between defense counsel and MDC"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it resolves a logistical issue related to the defendant's access to discovery materials in a high-profile criminal case.",
+        "summary": "The court order addresses a request by defense counsel to allow Ghislaine Maxwell to receive hard drives containing non-Highly Confidential discovery materials. The MDC does not oppose the request, rendering it moot. The court directs defense counsel to raise any further issues within two weeks."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "269",
+      "document_number": "269",
+      "page_count": 9,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Rule 17(c) subpoena",
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's request for evidence",
+          "Relevance and admissibility of Minor Victim-2's diary"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Minor Victim-2",
+            "role": "Alleged victim and witness"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it reveals the government's opposition to Ghislaine Maxwell's request for certain evidence, specifically Minor Victim-2's diary, and provides insight into the legal arguments surrounding the admissibility of evidence in a high-profile criminal case.",
+        "summary": "The document is a letter from the U.S. Department of Justice to Judge Alison J. Nathan, arguing against Ghislaine Maxwell's request for a subpoena to obtain certain records, including Minor Victim-2's diary, under Rule 17(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The government contends that the diary is not relevant or admissible and that Maxwell's request is an improper 'fishing expedition'."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "27",
+      "document_number": "27",
+      "page_count": 8,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Request for order prohibiting extrajudicial statements",
+          "Pretrial publicity and fair trial rights",
+          "Local Criminal Rule 23.1"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Audrey Strauss",
+            "role": "Acting U.S. Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Co-conspirator"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is a court filing by Ghislaine Maxwell's lawyers requesting a court order to prevent the government and its agents from making public statements that could prejudice her right to a fair trial.",
+        "summary": "Ghislaine Maxwell's lawyers request that the court enter an order prohibiting the government and its agents from making extrajudicial statements concerning her case, citing prejudicial pretrial publicity and the need to protect her Sixth Amendment rights. The government, including Acting U.S. Attorney Audrey Strauss, has made public statements that Maxwell's lawyers argue are prejudicial and violate Local Criminal Rule 23.1. The court filing references relevant case law and the local rule to support Maxwell's request."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "270",
+      "document_number": "270",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's incarceration conditions",
+          "Use of flashlights in security checks at MDC",
+          "Defendant's housing assignment and safety concerns"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Audrey Strauss",
+            "role": "United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, Lara Pomerantz",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorneys"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document provides insight into Ghislaine Maxwell's incarceration conditions and the security measures taken by the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC), potentially relevant to her trial or pre-trial proceedings.",
+        "summary": "The US Attorney's Office responds to a court order regarding the use of flashlights in security checks at MDC, explaining the procedures and the defendant's enhanced security schedule. The letter also addresses the defendant's housing assignment and the availability of eye covering for her."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "271",
+      "document_number": "271",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's subpoena request to Boies Schiller Flexner LLP",
+          "Production of photographs as part of the evidence",
+          "Interpretation of Rule 17 subpoena"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Audrey Strauss",
+            "role": "United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Maurene Comey",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison Moe",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Lara Pomerantz",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Andrew Rohrbach",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant as it reveals the government's position on the defendant's subpoena request and the production of evidence in the Ghislaine Maxwell case.",
+        "summary": "The government responds to Ghislaine Maxwell's subpoena request for photographs, stating that some original photographs are available for inspection, while others are not in their possession and thus not subject to a Rule 17 subpoena. The government argues that Request 11 should be denied for the photographs not in their possession."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "272",
+      "document_number": "272",
+      "page_count": 3,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Letter to Judge",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's detention conditions",
+          "MDC's treatment and surveillance of Maxwell",
+          "Allegations of MDC's misconduct and abuse towards Maxwell"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Bobbi C. Sternheim",
+            "role": "Maxwell's Lawyer"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "William Barr",
+            "role": "Attorney General"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it highlights the allegedly harsh and unjustified detention conditions of Ghislaine Maxwell, raising concerns about her health, well-being, and ability to prepare for trial.",
+        "summary": "The letter, written by Bobbi C. Sternheim, Maxwell's lawyer, to Judge Alison J. Nathan, disputes the government's claims about Maxwell's detention and highlights the MDC's alleged misconduct, including excessive surveillance, physical abuse, and failure to provide adequate care. The letter argues that Maxwell's detention conditions are detrimental to her health and ability to prepare for trial."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "273",
+      "document_number": "273",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Letter to the Judge",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Filing of Omnibus Memorandum in Support of Supplemental Pretrial Motions",
+          "Handling of Confidential Information under Protective Order",
+          "Procedure for submitting sealed documents"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Christian R. Everdell",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant as it reveals the defense's strategy in handling confidential information related to the case and their approach to filing sensitive documents under seal.",
+        "summary": "The letter informs Judge Nathan that the defense will be filing an Omnibus Memorandum in Support of Ghislaine Maxwell's Supplemental Pretrial Motions under seal due to the presence of Confidential Information. The defense will submit the documents to the Court and the government via email, allowing the government to propose redactions as necessary."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "275",
+      "document_number": "275",
+      "page_count": 5,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Trial date for Ghislaine Maxwell case",
+          "Continuity of Government counsel",
+          "Pre-trial schedule adjustments"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "AUSA Pomerantz",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "AUSA Comey",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant as it reveals the government's proposed trial date and pre-trial schedule for the Ghislaine Maxwell case, and highlights the importance of continuity of Government counsel in a complex case.",
+        "summary": "The US Government respectfully requests that the trial for Ghislaine Maxwell start on November 29, 2021, citing the importance of continuity of Government counsel. The defense had proposed November 8, 2021, as their preferred date. The Government also proposes adjustments to the pre-trial schedule and requests exclusion of time under the Speedy Trial Act."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "276",
+      "document_number": "276",
+      "page_count": 4,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Letter to Judge",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Trial start date for Ghislaine Maxwell's case",
+          "Disagreement between defense and prosecution on trial date",
+          "Impact of delayed trial on defendant's detention and defense preparation"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Bobbi C. Sternheim",
+            "role": "Defense attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge presiding over the case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Assistant U.S. Attorneys (AUSAs)",
+            "role": "Prosecutors handling the case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant as it reveals the dispute between the defense and prosecution regarding the trial start date and highlights the potential impact on the defendant's rights and the trial's proceedings.",
+        "summary": "The defense attorney, Bobbi C. Sternheim, writes to Judge Alison J. Nathan objecting to the government's proposed trial start date of November 29, 2021, and advocating for a start date of November 8, 2021, citing conflicts with other trials and the detrimental effect of prolonged detention on Ghislaine Maxwell."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "277",
+      "document_number": "277",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Order",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Trial scheduling",
+          "Speedy Trial Act exclusion",
+          "COVID-19 protocols"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant as it sets the trial date for Ghislaine Maxwell and excludes time under the Speedy Trial Act, allowing the defense more time to prepare.",
+        "summary": "The Court orders the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell to commence on November 29, 2021, with jury selection to occur during the week of November 15, 2021. The Court grants the Government's motion to exclude time under the Speedy Trial Act until November 29, 2021, citing the need for the defense to review discovery materials and prepare for trial."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "278",
+      "document_number": "278",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Redaction requests for defendant's memorandum",
+          "Protection of victims' and third parties' privacy interests",
+          "Sealing of certain exhibits"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Audrey Strauss",
+            "role": "United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Maurene Comey",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison Moe",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Lara Pomerantz",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Andrew Rohrbach",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it reveals the government's efforts to balance the public's right to access court documents with the need to protect the privacy interests of victims and third parties in a high-profile case.",
+        "summary": "The government submits a letter to Judge Alison J. Nathan requesting limited redactions to the defendant's memorandum and seeking to file certain exhibits under seal to protect the privacy interests of victims and third parties. The proposed redactions are justified under the three-part test articulated in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga. The government is submitting proposed redactions to the Court by email."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "279",
+      "document_number": "279",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Order",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Sealing of documents",
+          "Redaction request",
+          "Public docket filing"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant as it relates to the handling of sensitive information in a high-profile case involving Ghislaine Maxwell, specifically regarding the sealing or redaction of her submission.",
+        "summary": "The court orders the Government to notify by May 14, 2021, whether it requests redaction or sealing of Ghislaine Maxwell's submission, filed under temporary seal on May 12, 2021. The Government must justify any such request according to the Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. test. The order is issued by Judge Alison J. Nathan."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "28",
+      "document_number": "28",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Motion to restrict extrajudicial statements",
+          "Compliance with local rules and professional responsibility",
+          "Fair trial by impartial jury"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "James L. Brochin",
+            "role": "Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant as it reveals the court's stance on extrajudicial statements in a high-profile case involving Ghislaine Maxwell and highlights the importance of compliance with local rules and professional responsibility.",
+        "summary": "The court denies Ghislaine Maxwell's motion to restrict extrajudicial statements, expecting counsel to comply with local rules and professional responsibility. The court warns that it will take action against any violations. The document also includes a notice of appearance for James L. Brochin as counsel for Jeffrey Epstein in a related case."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "280",
+      "document_number": "280",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Request for extension of time",
+          "Pretrial schedule",
+          "United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Audrey Strauss",
+            "role": "United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Maurene Comey",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison Moe",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Lara Pomerantz",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Andrew Rohrbach",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is a joint request by the prosecution and defense to extend the deadline for submitting a joint letter regarding the pretrial schedule in the United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell case, indicating ongoing discussions and disagreements between the parties.",
+        "summary": "The prosecution and defense jointly request a one-week extension to file a letter regarding the pretrial schedule in the Ghislaine Maxwell case, citing ongoing productive discussions and the need for more time to resolve disagreements. The original deadline was May 14, 2021, and the requested new deadline is May 21, 2021. The request is made to Judge Alison J. Nathan."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "282",
+      "document_number": "282",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Order",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's sleeping conditions in prison",
+          "Flashlight checks by prison guards",
+          "Security protocols for pre-trial detainees"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it reveals the court's decision regarding Ghislaine Maxwell's complaint about her sleeping conditions in prison and the prison's security protocols.",
+        "summary": "The court denies Ghislaine Maxwell's request to override the prison's security protocols, which include flashlight checks every 30 minutes, but urges the prison to consider reducing sleep disruption for pre-trial detainees. The court finds that the current protocols do not interfere with Maxwell's ability to prepare for trial. The Government is ordered to provide a copy of the Order to the Warden and General Counsel for the MDC."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "283",
+      "document_number": "283",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Request for Redaction",
+          "Sealing of Exhibits",
+          "Privacy Interests"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Audrey Strauss",
+            "role": "United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Maurene Comey",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison Moe",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Lara Pomerantz",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Andrew Rohrbach",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it reveals the government's request to seal certain exhibits in the Ghislaine Maxwell case, citing privacy interests of a victim and third party.",
+        "summary": "The US Attorney's Office requests that Exhibits A and B be filed under seal in the Ghislaine Maxwell case, citing the need to protect the privacy interests of a victim and third party. The request is made in response to the court's order and is justified under the three-part test articulated in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga. The government argues that sealing the exhibits is narrowly tailored to protect these interests."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "284",
+      "document_number": "284",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Redaction requests by the Government",
+          "Sealing of exhibits in a court case",
+          "Privacy interests of victims and third parties"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Audrey Strauss",
+            "role": "United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Maurene Comey",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison Moe",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Lara Pomerantz",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Andrew Rohrbach",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it reveals the Government's efforts to protect the privacy interests of victims and third parties in the Ghislaine Maxwell case, and the Court's ruling on the matter.",
+        "summary": "The Government requested redactions and sealing of certain exhibits in the Ghislaine Maxwell case to protect the privacy interests of victims and third parties. The Court granted the requests in part, ordering the Government to confer with defense counsel on proposed redactions to one exhibit. The Court's decision was guided by the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "285",
+      "document_number": "285",
+      "page_count": 34,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Reply Memorandum",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Motion to suppress evidence obtained from a subpoena to Boies Schiller",
+          "Allegations of government misconduct and false statements",
+          "Request to dismiss Counts Five and Six of the indictment"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Laura A. Menninger",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Christian R. Everdell",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Bobbi C. Sternheim",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it reveals allegations of government misconduct and false statements in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, which could impact the validity of the evidence and the indictment.",
+        "summary": "Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team files a reply memorandum in support of her motion to suppress evidence obtained from a subpoena to Boies Schiller and to dismiss Counts Five and Six of the indictment, alleging government misconduct and false statements."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "285-1",
+      "document_number": "285-1",
+      "page_count": 10,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing Exhibit",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking and abuse of minors",
+          "Virginia Roberts' involvement with Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell",
+          "Investigation and prosecution of Epstein"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Virginia Roberts",
+            "role": "Victim of Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Defendant accused of sex trafficking and abuse of minors"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Alleged co-conspirator and recruiter for Epstein"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Brad Edwards",
+            "role": "Attorney representing Virginia Roberts"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Stan Pottinger",
+            "role": "Attorney representing Virginia Roberts"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document provides detailed information about Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking operation, including the involvement of Ghislaine Maxwell and the experiences of victim Virginia Roberts. It sheds light on the investigation and prosecution of Epstein, and potentially reveals new evidence and insights into the case.",
+        "summary": "This court filing exhibit contains notes and summaries of Virginia Roberts' testimony and experiences with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, detailing their sex trafficking operation and abuse of minors. The document highlights the involvement of various individuals and law enforcement agencies in the investigation and prosecution of Epstein. It provides new insights into the case and potentially significant evidence."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "285-2",
+      "document_number": "285-2",
+      "page_count": 7,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Deposition Transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Meeting between Amanda Kramer (AK) and attorneys representing Virginia Roberts",
+          "Discussion of Jeffrey Epstein case and potential investigation",
+          "Civil litigation involving Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Amanda Kramer",
+            "role": "Assistant U.S. Attorney, Human Trafficking Coordinator"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Pete Skinner",
+            "role": "Attorney at Boies Schiller, representing Virginia Roberts"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Brad Edwards",
+            "role": "Attorney representing Virginia Roberts"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Lara Pomerantz",
+            "role": "Assistant U.S. Attorney, questioning AK during deposition"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Subject of potential investigation"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Associate of Epstein, mentioned during meeting"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document provides insight into a meeting between prosecutors and attorneys representing a victim of Jeffrey Epstein, and the subsequent discussions within the SDNY USAO. It sheds light on the handling of the Epstein case and potential investigations.",
+        "summary": "The document is a deposition transcript of Amanda Kramer, a former Assistant U.S. Attorney, discussing a meeting with attorneys representing Virginia Roberts regarding the Jeffrey Epstein case. Kramer recounts the discussion, her understanding of the case, and her subsequent actions, including emailing her supervisor, Dan Stein, to discuss the matter."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "285-3",
+      "document_number": "285-3",
+      "page_count": 3,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Email chain exhibit",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Jeffrey Epstein case",
+          "Virginia Giuffre (Jane Doe) case",
+          "Communication between DOJ and lawyers representing Virginia Giuffre"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Amanda Kramer",
+            "role": "US Attorney's Office, Southern District of New York"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Peter Skinner",
+            "role": "Lawyer representing Virginia Giuffre"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Sigrid McCawley",
+            "role": "Lead attorney on Virginia Giuffre's case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Virginia Giuffre",
+            "role": "Plaintiff in a defamation case against Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Individual involved in the case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document reveals communication between the US Department of Justice and lawyers representing Virginia Giuffre, a key witness in the Jeffrey Epstein case, potentially indicating coordination or information sharing between the parties.",
+        "summary": "The document is an email chain exhibit showing communication between Amanda Kramer of the US Attorney's Office and Peter Skinner, a lawyer representing Virginia Giuffre, regarding the Giuffre case and Jeffrey Epstein's activities. The emails discuss sharing documents and information related to the case."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "285-4",
+      "document_number": "285-4",
+      "page_count": 3,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Email chain exhibit",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking case",
+          "Meeting to discuss the case",
+          "Non-prosecution agreement from 2007"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "The subject of a sex trafficking case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Virginia Roberts",
+            "role": "Alleged victim represented by lawyers pitching the case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Pete Skinner",
+            "role": "Lawyer who pitched the case along with two other lawyers"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document reveals discussions within the US Attorney's Office regarding a potential sex trafficking case against Jeffrey Epstein in 2016, and shows awareness of his 2007 non-prosecution agreement.",
+        "summary": "This email chain from March 2016 discusses a meeting to consider a sex trafficking case against Jeffrey Epstein, involving Virginia Roberts as a potential witness. The case was pitched by lawyers, including Pete Skinner, and involved complicated facts and multiple civil cases. The email chain indicates awareness of Epstein's 2007 non-prosecution agreement with the SDFL USAO."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "285-5",
+      "document_number": "285-5",
+      "page_count": 4,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Exhibit - Email Chain",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Jeffrey Epstein Case",
+          "Virginia Giuffre",
+          "DOJ Investigation"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Peter Skinner",
+            "role": "Attorney representing Virginia Giuffre"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Amanda Kramer",
+            "role": "DOJ Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Virginia Giuffre",
+            "role": "Victim in the Jeffrey Epstein case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Sigrid McCawley",
+            "role": "Lead attorney on the case alongside Peter Skinner"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document reveals communication between DOJ attorneys and attorneys representing Virginia Giuffre, potentially indicating cooperation or information sharing between the parties regarding the Jeffrey Epstein case.",
+        "summary": "The document is an email chain between attorneys representing Virginia Giuffre and DOJ attorneys, discussing the sharing of documents and information related to the Jeffrey Epstein case. The emails show that the attorneys provided the DOJ with various documents, including a complaint in a defamation case against Ghislaine Maxwell and declarations filed in a CVRA case. The chain indicates a level of cooperation between the parties."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "285-6",
+      "document_number": "285-6",
+      "page_count": 3,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Exhibit",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Jeffrey Epstein's alleged recruitment of girls/women",
+          "Communication between Stan Pottinger and US Attorney's Office",
+          "Contact information for an individual allegedly involved with Epstein"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Stan Pottinger",
+            "role": "Sender of email to Amanda Kramer with information about Epstein's alleged recruiter"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Amanda Kramer",
+            "role": "US Attorney's Office recipient of email from Stan Pottinger"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Alleged perpetrator involved in the recruitment of girls/women"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison Moe",
+            "role": "US Attorney's Office recipient of forwarded email from Amanda Kramer"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alexander Rossmiller",
+            "role": "US Attorney's Office recipient of forwarded email from Amanda Kramer"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document potentially reveals new information about Jeffrey Epstein's alleged recruitment network and the involvement of various individuals. It may be significant in understanding the scope of Epstein's alleged crimes and the knowledge of certain individuals or organizations.",
+        "summary": "This court exhibit is an email chain involving Stan Pottinger and the US Attorney's Office, discussing an individual who allegedly acted as a 'scout' or recruiter for Jeffrey Epstein. The email includes contact information for this individual. The document was filed as part of a criminal case against an unspecified defendant."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "285-7",
+      "document_number": "285-7",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Exhibit",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Law enforcement investigation",
+          "Privilege logging",
+          "Discovery objections"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Virginia Giuffre",
+            "role": "Involved party in the law enforcement investigation"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "David Boies",
+            "role": "Attorney involved in the matter"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Stan Pottinger",
+            "role": "Attorney involved in the matter"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Sigrid McCawley",
+            "role": "Attorney involved in the matter"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Paul Cassell",
+            "role": "Attorney involved in the matter"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Brad Edwards",
+            "role": "Attorney involved in the matter"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it relates to a criminal investigation and highlights a dispute over the discovery of privileged information in a court case.",
+        "summary": "This document is an exhibit filed in a court case, detailing a categorical log entry for approximately 57 documents withheld due to public interest privilege, related to an ongoing criminal investigation. The plaintiff objected to the defendant's discovery requests as overly broad and burdensome. The log entry covers email and letter communications regarding the law enforcement investigation."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "285-8",
+      "document_number": "285-8",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing Exhibit",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Criminal Case",
+          "Evidence",
+          "DOJ Investigation"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Unknown/Not Specified",
+            "role": "The specific individuals involved are not identified in the provided snippet"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it is an exhibit in a federal criminal case, possibly containing evidence or information relevant to the investigation or prosecution.",
+        "summary": "This document is labeled as Exhibit Q in a federal criminal case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE) and appears to be part of the evidence or supporting documentation filed by the Department of Justice."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "2859",
+      "document_number": "2859",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Deposition Limit",
+          "Motion to Exceed",
+          "Defendant's Response"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Virginia L. Giuffre",
+            "role": "Plaintiff"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Laura A. Menninger",
+            "role": "Defendant's Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca",
+            "role": "Defendant's Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is a response by the defendant, Ghislaine Maxwell, to a motion filed by the plaintiff, Virginia L. Giuffre, to exceed the presumptive ten deposition limit in their ongoing lawsuit.",
+        "summary": "The document is a court filing in the case Virginia L. Giuffre v. Ghislaine Maxwell, where the defendant responds to the plaintiff's motion to exceed the deposition limit. The defendant's attorneys, Laura A. Menninger and Jeffrey S. Pagliuca, argue against the motion. The case is being heard in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "286",
+      "document_number": "286",
+      "page_count": 14,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Reply Memorandum",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Motion to Strike Surplusage from Superseding Indictment",
+          "Relevance and admissibility of allegations regarding Accuser-3",
+          "Prejudicial effect of allegations regarding Accuser-3"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Co-conspirator"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Accuser-3 (Minor Victim-3)",
+            "role": "Alleged victim"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it reveals the defense's argument that certain allegations in the indictment are prejudicial and should be stricken, and the government's concessions regarding the limitations of their case.",
+        "summary": "Ghislaine Maxwell's reply memorandum argues that allegations regarding Accuser-3 should be stricken from the superseding indictment because they are irrelevant and prejudicial. The government concedes that it cannot charge Maxwell with a substantive offense against Accuser-3 due to the statute of limitations and lack of evidence."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "287",
+      "document_number": "287",
+      "page_count": 15,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Reply Memorandum",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Motion for a Bill of Particulars",
+          "Pretrial Disclosures",
+          "Disclosure of Witness Identities and Evidence"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Christian R. Everdell",
+            "role": "Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca",
+            "role": "Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Laura A. Menninger",
+            "role": "Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Bobbi C. Sternheim",
+            "role": "Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant as it reveals new allegations against Ghislaine Maxwell not mentioned in the Superseding Indictment and highlights the defense's argument for needing a bill of particulars and pretrial disclosures to prepare for trial.",
+        "summary": "Ghislaine Maxwell's reply memorandum argues that the court should grant her motion for a bill of particulars and pretrial disclosures due to the government's failure to provide sufficient information about the charges and witnesses. The government's opposition reveals new allegations not in the indictment, emphasizing the need for more disclosure."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "287-1",
+      "document_number": "287-1",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Criminal Case",
+          "Sealed Exhibit",
+          "DOJ Investigation"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Unknown",
+            "role": "Defendant(s) or subject(s) of the DOJ investigation"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it is a sealed exhibit in a federal criminal case, suggesting it may contain sensitive information relevant to the investigation or prosecution.",
+        "summary": "This is a court filing labeled as Exhibit A in a federal criminal case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed under seal, indicating it contains confidential or sensitive information."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "288",
+      "document_number": "288",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Proposed redactions to Exhibit C",
+          "Privacy interests of victims and third parties",
+          "Sealing of court documents"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Audrey Strauss",
+            "role": "United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Maurene Comey",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison Moe",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Lara Pomerantz",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Andrew Rohrbach",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it reveals the government's efforts to protect the privacy interests of victims and third parties in the Ghislaine Maxwell case, and demonstrates the collaboration between the government and defense counsel on proposed redactions.",
+        "summary": "The document is a letter from the US Attorney's Office to Judge Alison J. Nathan, proposing redactions to Exhibit C of the defendant's pre-trial motions to protect victim and third-party privacy, with no objection from the defense."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "289",
+      "document_number": "289",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Request to unseal Exhibits A and B to Ms. Maxwell's May 12, 2021 Letter",
+          "Public access rights to judicial documents",
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's Sixth Amendment right to a public trial"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge presiding over the case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca",
+            "role": "Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Accuser-2",
+            "role": "Witness in the case, victim of alleged misconduct by Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it reveals a dispute between the government and Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team over the sealing of certain exhibits, and it highlights the tension between the need for public access to judicial documents and the government's interest in maintaining secrecy.",
+        "summary": "This is a court filing by Ghislaine Maxwell's attorney, Jeffrey S. Pagliuca, responding to the government's request to keep Exhibits A and B to Maxwell's May 12, 2021 letter sealed. Maxwell's team argues that the exhibits are 'judicial documents' subject to public access rights and should be unsealed. The exhibits relate to a journal entry produced by Accuser-2 in civil discovery."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "29",
+      "document_number": "29",
+      "page_count": 5,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Protective Order",
+          "Discovery Materials",
+          "Restrictions on Disclosure"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Related defendant in a previous case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is a court filing in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, requesting a protective order to govern the use of discovery materials. It highlights the ongoing dispute between the defense and prosecution regarding the scope of the protective order.",
+        "summary": "The defense counsel for Ghislaine Maxwell requests a protective order to govern the use of discovery materials, with specific provisions to restrict the use of such materials by potential government witnesses and their counsel. The parties have reached an agreement on most provisions but remain in dispute over key issues, including restrictions on disclosure of alleged victims' and potential witnesses' identities."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "29-1",
+      "document_number": "29-1",
+      "page_count": 12,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Protective Order",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Handling of discovery materials",
+          "Confidentiality and non-disclosure",
+          "Protection of victim and witness identities"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "The Defendant",
+            "role": "The accused in the criminal case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Defense Counsel",
+            "role": "The defendant's legal representation"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "The Government",
+            "role": "The prosecution in the criminal case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is a protective order governing the handling of sensitive discovery materials in a high-profile criminal case, ensuring confidentiality and protection of victim and witness identities.",
+        "summary": "The protective order outlines the terms for handling discovery materials, including restrictions on disclosure, copying, and transmission, as well as requirements for protecting confidential information and victim/witness identities. It applies to the defendant, defense counsel, and other authorized persons. The order aims to safeguard sensitive information while allowing the defense to prepare for trial."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "290",
+      "document_number": "290",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell case",
+          "Proposed redactions to Exhibit C",
+          "Sealing of court documents"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Audrey Strauss",
+            "role": "United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Maurene Comey",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison Moe",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Lara Pomerantz",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Andrew Rohrbach",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant as it reveals the government's efforts to protect the privacy interests of victims and third parties in the Ghislaine Maxwell case by proposing redactions to a court document.",
+        "summary": "The US Attorney's office submitted a letter to Judge Alison J. Nathan proposing redactions to Exhibit C of Ghislaine Maxwell's supplemental pre-trial motions, which was accepted by the court. The proposed redactions aim to protect the privacy interests of victims and third parties. The defense had no objection to the proposed redactions."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "291",
+      "document_number": "291",
+      "page_count": 13,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Pretrial disclosure schedule",
+          "Disclosure of victim identities",
+          "Production of Giglio and Jencks Act material"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is a joint letter submitted by the prosecution and defense in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, outlining their agreements and disagreements regarding the pretrial disclosure schedule. It provides insight into the discovery process and the parties' positions on sensitive topics such as victim identities and Giglio material.",
+        "summary": "The document is a joint letter filed with the court by the prosecution and defense in the Ghislaine Maxwell case, detailing their discussions on the pretrial disclosure schedule. The parties have reached agreements on certain dates, such as filing motions in limine and proposed jury questionnaires, but disagree on other matters, including the disclosure of victim identities and the production of Giglio and Jencks Act material."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "292",
+      "document_number": "292",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's pretrial motions",
+          "S2 Superseding Indictment",
+          "Request for oral argument"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Christian R. Everdell",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Laura A. Menninger",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Bobbi C. Sternheim",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is a formal request by Ghislaine Maxwell's legal team for the court to consider her supplemental pretrial motions related to the S2 Superseding Indictment, indicating an important step in her legal proceedings.",
+        "summary": "Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team filed a notice of motion requesting the court to consider the relief specified in her supplemental pretrial motions related to the S2 Superseding Indictment. The motion was filed on May 7, 2021, and oral argument was requested. The document lists the attorneys representing Maxwell."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "293",
+      "document_number": "293",
+      "page_count": 32,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Omnibus Memorandum",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Challenging the S2 Superseding Indictment",
+          "Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) and its implications",
+          "Double Jeopardy and Statute of Limitations issues"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Christian R. Everdell",
+            "role": "Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca",
+            "role": "Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Laura A. Menninger",
+            "role": "Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Bobbi C. Sternheim",
+            "role": "Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant as it outlines Ghislaine Maxwell's legal arguments challenging the S2 Superseding Indictment, including claims of immunity under a Non-Prosecution Agreement, double jeopardy, and statute of limitations issues.",
+        "summary": "Ghislaine Maxwell's attorneys submit an omnibus memorandum challenging the S2 Superseding Indictment on multiple grounds, including the Non-Prosecution Agreement, double jeopardy, and statute of limitations. The memorandum argues that certain counts should be dismissed due to these issues and requests a bill of particulars and production of certain evidence."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "293-1",
+      "document_number": "293-1",
+      "page_count": 346,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility Report",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's criminal conduct",
+          "Non-prosecution agreement (NPA) and its implications",
+          "Victims' rights and the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA)"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Subject of the investigation"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "R. Alexander Acosta",
+            "role": "U.S. Attorney at the time of the investigation"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jane Doe",
+            "role": "Victim who filed an emergency petition alleging CVRA violations"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it reveals the details of the DOJ's investigation into the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case and the negotiation of the non-prosecution agreement, shedding light on potential misconduct by prosecutors and the treatment of victims.",
+        "summary": "The report investigates allegations that prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida improperly resolved a federal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's criminal conduct by negotiating a non-prosecution agreement. The report details the investigation, the NPA, and the interactions with victims, including the subsequent CVRA petition filed by Jane Doe."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "293-2",
+      "document_number": "293-2",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Exhibit",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Criminal Case",
+          "Evidence",
+          "DOJ Investigation"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Unknown",
+            "role": "Defendant(s) or subject(s) of the DOJ investigation"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it is an exhibit in a federal criminal case, possibly containing evidence or supporting documentation relevant to the investigation or prosecution.",
+        "summary": "This document is an exhibit filed in a federal criminal case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), labeled as Exhibit B, with a specific DOJ reference number (DOJ-OGR-00004647). It is part of a larger filing (Document 293-2) submitted on May 25, 2021. The content of the exhibit is not described, but it is likely relevant to the case."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "293-3",
+      "document_number": "293-3",
+      "page_count": 26,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Grand Jury Testimony Transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Investigation into Jeffrey Epstein and associates",
+          "Subpoenas issued and documents received",
+          "Evidence being presented to the grand jury"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Special Agent [REDACTED]",
+            "role": "Witness testifying before the grand jury"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "A. Marie Villafana",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney examining the witness"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is a transcript of grand jury testimony related to the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein and his associates. It provides insight into the evidence being presented and the investigation's progress.",
+        "summary": "The document is a transcript of the testimony of a Special Agent before a federal grand jury on March 18, 2008. The agent discusses subpoenas issued and documents received as part of 'Operation Leap Year', an investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. The testimony includes details about the evidence being presented to the grand jury, including records from various companies and a chart summarizing the indictment."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "293-4",
+      "document_number": "293-4",
+      "page_count": 5,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Declaration",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Jeffrey Epstein investigation",
+          "Crime Victims' Rights Act",
+          "Deferred federal prosecution agreement"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "A. Marie Villafaña",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Target of the investigation"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Bradley Edwards",
+            "role": "Attorney for victims T.M., C.W., and S.R."
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "James Eisenberg",
+            "role": "Attorney for victim T.M."
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document provides insight into the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein investigation and the negotiations surrounding the deferred federal prosecution agreement, highlighting the considerations given to the victims' rights and interests.",
+        "summary": "The declaration of A. Marie Villafaña details her role as the Assistant United States Attorney in the Jeffrey Epstein investigation, the notification of victims, and the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, including provisions for preserving federal remedies for Epstein's victims."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "293-5",
+      "document_number": "293-5",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Exhibit",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Criminal Case",
+          "Sealed Filing",
+          "DOJ Investigation"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Unknown",
+            "role": "The names of key individuals are not specified in the provided document snippet"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it is a sealed exhibit in a federal criminal case, suggesting it contains sensitive information relevant to the investigation or proceedings.",
+        "summary": "This document is an exhibit filed under seal in a federal criminal case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), marked as 'DOJ-OGR-00004702', indicating it is part of a larger investigation or evidence collection by the Department of Justice."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "293-6",
+      "document_number": "293-6",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Exhibit",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Criminal Case",
+          "Sealed Filing",
+          "DOJ Investigation"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Unknown",
+            "role": "The names of individuals involved are not specified in the provided document snippet"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it is a sealed exhibit in a criminal case, suggesting it contains sensitive information relevant to the investigation or proceedings.",
+        "summary": "The document is an exhibit filed under seal in a criminal case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE) with the US Department of Justice (DOJ). It is labeled as 'Exhibit F' and has a specific document ID 'DOJ-OGR-00004703'. The content of the exhibit is not described in the provided snippet."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "293-7",
+      "document_number": "293-7",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Exhibit",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Criminal Case",
+          "Sealed Filing",
+          "DOJ Investigation"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Unknown",
+            "role": "The defendant or subject of the investigation is not specified in the provided snippet"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it is a sealed exhibit in a federal criminal case, suggesting it contains sensitive information relevant to the investigation or prosecution.",
+        "summary": "This is a court filing labeled as Exhibit G in a criminal case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed under seal, indicating it contains confidential or sensitive information."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "293-8",
+      "document_number": "293-8",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Exhibit",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Criminal Case",
+          "Sealed Filing",
+          "DOJ Investigation"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Unknown",
+            "role": "The names of individuals involved are not specified in the provided document snippet"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it is a sealed exhibit in a criminal case, suggesting it contains sensitive information relevant to the investigation or proceedings.",
+        "summary": "The document is an exhibit filed under seal in a criminal case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE) with the US Department of Justice (DOJ). It is labeled as 'Exhibit H' and has a specific document ID 'DOJ-OGR-00004705'. The content is not disclosed due to being sealed."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "293-9",
+      "document_number": "293-9",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Exhibit",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Criminal Case",
+          "Sealed Filing",
+          "DOJ Investigation"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "None explicitly mentioned",
+            "role": "N/A"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it is a sealed exhibit in a federal criminal case, suggesting it contains sensitive information relevant to the investigation or prosecution.",
+        "summary": "This is a court filing labeled as Exhibit I, filed under seal in a federal criminal case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The document is identified as DOJ-OGR-00004706 and was filed on May 25, 2021."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "294",
+      "document_number": "294",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Affidavit",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Disclosure requests",
+          "Pretrial motions",
+          "Criminal case proceedings"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Christian R. Everdell",
+            "role": "Attorney for defendant Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant in the criminal case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This affidavit certifies that the defense counsel has conferred with government counsel but failed to reach an agreement on disclosure requests, potentially impacting the case's progression.",
+        "summary": "Christian R. Everdell, attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell, certifies under penalty of perjury that defense counsel conferred with government counsel but couldn't agree on disclosure requests related to the S2 Superseding Indictment. This affidavit is filed pursuant to Local Criminal Rule 16.1. The document is dated May 7, 2021."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "295",
+      "document_number": "295",
+      "page_count": 26,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement",
+          "Double Jeopardy Clause",
+          "Statute of Limitations and Pre-Trial Delay"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Individual mentioned in relation to a Non-Prosecution Agreement"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Audrey Strauss",
+            "role": "United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is a government memorandum in opposition to Ghislaine Maxwell's pre-trial motions, addressing various legal arguments and defenses raised by the defendant in a high-profile criminal case.",
+        "summary": "The document is the government's response to Ghislaine Maxwell's supplemental pre-trial motions, arguing against the dismissal of charges based on Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement, double jeopardy, statute of limitations, and other grounds. It includes legal arguments and citations to relevant case law. The government's memorandum aims to establish that the charges against Maxwell are valid and should proceed to trial."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "296",
+      "document_number": "296",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Letter to the Judge",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Filing of Omnibus Reply Memorandum",
+          "Confidential Information and Protective Order",
+          "Sealed Submission"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Christian R. Everdell",
+            "role": "Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it reveals the defense's strategy in handling confidential information related to the case and their intention to file a sealed reply memorandum.",
+        "summary": "The letter, written by Christian R. Everdell, informs Judge Alison J. Nathan that the defense will be filing a sealed Omnibus Reply Memorandum due to the presence of confidential information governed by a Protective Order. The memorandum will be submitted via email to the Court and the government, allowing the government to propose redactions. The letter follows prior practice in handling sensitive information in the case."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "297",
+      "document_number": "297",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Order",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Disclosure schedule",
+          "Pre-trial motions and deadlines",
+          "Evidence disclosure"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document establishes the pre-trial disclosure schedule and deadlines for the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, outlining the timeline for evidence disclosure and motions.",
+        "summary": "The court order sets forth a disclosure schedule and deadlines for pre-trial motions and evidence disclosure in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The order establishes specific dates for the government and defense to disclose various materials, including witness lists and evidence. The order also notes the parties' continuing obligation to update their disclosures."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "298",
+      "document_number": "298",
+      "page_count": 6,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Order",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's request for subpoena",
+          "Relevance of Minor Victim-2's diary",
+          "Production of evidence under Rule 17(c)"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Co-conspirator"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant as it reveals the court's decision on Ghislaine Maxwell's request for a subpoena and provides insight into the relevance of certain evidence in her trial.",
+        "summary": "The court denies Ghislaine Maxwell's request for a subpoena to obtain Minor Victim-2's diary, a pair of boots, and certain photographs. The court rules that the requests are not relevant or are premature under Rule 17(c)."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "2:20-cv-00839-jes-mrm",
+      "document_number": "2:20-cv-00839-JES-MRM",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Discovery disputes",
+          "Claims of privilege by the Plaintiff",
+          "Motion to compel or stay proceedings"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ms. Villafana",
+            "role": "Person whose response is referenced regarding an investigation"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ms. Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant in the case, filing a motion to compel or stay proceedings"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Plaintiff",
+            "role": "The party claiming an 'investigative privilege' and 'public interest privilege'"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it reveals ongoing discovery disputes and the defendant's efforts to obtain information from the plaintiff, which could impact the progression of the case.",
+        "summary": "The document discusses the defendant's motion to compel the plaintiff to provide discovery information or, alternatively, to stay the proceedings due to the plaintiff's failure to comply with discovery obligations. The plaintiff is claiming a non-existent 'investigative privilege' related to an alleged ongoing criminal investigation. The defendant argues that the information is necessary for adequate preparation for the plaintiff's deposition and other discovery matters."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "3",
+      "document_number": "3",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Indictment Unsealing",
+          "Defendant Transfer",
+          "Court Orders"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Defendant in the case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Geoffrey S. Berman",
+            "role": "United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alex Rossmiller",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Henry Pitman",
+            "role": "United States Magistrate Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Andrea K. Johnstone",
+            "role": "United States Magistrate Judge"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it relates to the indictment and transfer of Jeffrey Epstein, a high-profile defendant. It reveals the court's orders regarding the unsealing of the indictment and the transfer of Epstein to another district.",
+        "summary": "The document contains two court orders: one unsealing the indictment against Jeffrey Epstein in 2019 and another in 2020 regarding his transfer to another district. The orders were made by different magistrate judges in the Southern District of New York. The document highlights the procedural steps taken in Epstein's case."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "3-1",
+      "document_number": "3-1",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Notice of Record on Appeal Filed",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "United States v. Maxwell",
+          "Record on Appeal",
+          "Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Debra Ann Livingston",
+            "role": "Chief Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe",
+            "role": "Clerk of Court"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Judge Nathan",
+            "role": "District Court Judge"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document indicates that the Record on Appeal has been filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, marking a significant step in the appeals process for the case United States v. Maxwell.",
+        "summary": "The document is a notice from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that the Record on Appeal, specifically an Electronic Index, has been filed in the case United States v. Maxwell (Docket # 21-770). The case is an appeal from the SDNY court, presided over by Judge Nathan. The notice is dated March 29, 2021."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "3-2",
+      "document_number": "3-2",
+      "page_count": 20,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Notice of Electronic Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "USA v. Maxwell case",
+          "Appeal Record Sent to USCA",
+          "Docket entries for the case"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Christian R. Everdell",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Laura A. Menninger",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Mark Stewart Cohen",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Bobbi C Sternheim",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Lara Elizabeth Pomerantz",
+            "role": "Assistant US Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison Gainfort Moe",
+            "role": "Assistant US Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alex Rossmiller",
+            "role": "Assistant US Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Maurene Ryan Comey",
+            "role": "Assistant US Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Andrew Rohrbach",
+            "role": "Assistant US Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is a notice of electronic filing indicating that the appeal record for Ghislaine Maxwell's case has been sent to the US Court of Appeals. It provides details about the case, including the charges against Maxwell and the attorneys involved.",
+        "summary": "The document is a notice of electronic filing for the USA v. Maxwell case, indicating that the appeal record has been sent to the US Court of Appeals. It includes docket entries and lists the attorneys involved in the case. The case involves charges against Ghislaine Maxwell related to conspiracy, enticement, and transportation of minors for illegal sex acts."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "30",
+      "document_number": "30",
+      "page_count": 8,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court filings and letters",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Discovery materials and protective order in United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell",
+          "Jeffrey Epstein's foreign passport and its relevance to his case",
+          "Disclosure of alleged victims' identities in the Ghislaine Maxwell case"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Defendant in a related case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Richard M. Berman",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison Moe",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Christian R. Everdell",
+            "role": "Counsel for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "These documents reveal the legal proceedings and arguments surrounding the cases of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, highlighting issues related to discovery, protective orders, and the disclosure of alleged victims' identities.",
+        "summary": "The documents include a letter from the U.S. Attorney's Office regarding Jeffrey Epstein's foreign passport and court filings related to Ghislaine Maxwell's case, focusing on disputes over discovery materials and the disclosure of alleged victims' identities."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "300",
+      "document_number": "300",
+      "page_count": 32,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's conditions of detention",
+          "Issues with attorney-client communication and confidentiality",
+          "Problems with the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC)"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Bobbi C. Sternheim",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Colleen McMahon",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document highlights the unacceptable conditions faced by Ghislaine Maxwell while in detention, including issues with sanitation, over-surveillance, and interference with attorney-client communication, which may impact her ability to prepare for trial.",
+        "summary": "The defense attorney, Bobbi C. Sternheim, writes to Judge Alison J. Nathan to respond to the government's update on Ghislaine Maxwell's detention conditions, highlighting various problems and requesting that future updates be limited to changed circumstances. The letter details issues such as raw sewage in Maxwell's cell, vermin droppings, and restrictions on attorney-client communication."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "301",
+      "document_number": "301",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Order",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's conditions of confinement",
+          "Redactions to government submission",
+          "Public docketing of redacted document"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant as it reveals the court's decision regarding the redactions to the government's submission about Ghislaine Maxwell's conditions of confinement and orders the public docketing of the redacted document.",
+        "summary": "The court adopts the defendant's proposed redactions to the government's June 7, 2021 letter regarding her conditions of confinement and orders the government to publicly docket the redacted version by June 17, 2021."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "302",
+      "document_number": "302",
+      "page_count": 3,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's conditions of confinement at the Metropolitan Detention Center",
+          "Access to discovery materials and communication with attorneys",
+          "Search procedures and monitoring at the MDC"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Audrey Strauss",
+            "role": "United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, Lara Pomerantz, Andrew Rohrbach",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorneys"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document provides insight into the conditions of Ghislaine Maxwell's confinement and her access to legal resources while in detention, which may be relevant to her trial preparation and potentially impact her defense.",
+        "summary": "The US Attorney's Office submitted a letter to Judge Alison J. Nathan updating the court on Ghislaine Maxwell's conditions of confinement at the Metropolitan Detention Center. The letter details Maxwell's access to discovery materials, communication with her attorneys, and the search procedures in place at the MDC. The Government reports that Maxwell is receiving extensive accommodations, including 13 hours a day, 7 days a week to review discovery, and 25 hours a week of video-teleconference calls with her counsel."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "303",
+      "document_number": "303",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Order",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Motion to suppress evidence",
+          "Unsealing of court documents",
+          "Redactions to court documents"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it reveals the court's decision on Ghislaine Maxwell's motions to suppress evidence and orders the unsealing of certain court documents related to her case.",
+        "summary": "The court denies Ghislaine Maxwell's motions to suppress evidence and orders the unsealing of certain documents related to her case, while allowing the parties to propose redactions to protect sensitive information. The court's reasoning is provided in a separate opinion filed under temporary seal. The order is issued by Judge Alison J. Nathan on June 25, 2021."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "304",
+      "document_number": "304",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Order",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's conditions of confinement",
+          "Government filing requirements",
+          "Court procedure"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document reveals the court's decision regarding the government's filing requirements related to Ghislaine Maxwell's conditions of confinement, potentially impacting the defendant's rights and the court's oversight.",
+        "summary": "The court grants Ghislaine Maxwell's request that the government only file updates on her conditions of confinement if there are material changes. The court will take no further action without a specific application from the defendant. The order is issued by Judge Alison J. Nathan on June 25, 2021."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "305",
+      "document_number": "305",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Order/Opinion",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Redactions to court documents",
+          "Unsealing of documents",
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell case"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge presiding over the case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant in the case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is a court order setting deadlines for proposed redactions to court documents related to Ghislaine Maxwell's motions to suppress evidence, indicating the court's process for handling sensitive information.",
+        "summary": "The court order, issued by Judge Alison J. Nathan, sets deadlines for the parties to propose redactions to the court's opinion on Maxwell's motions to suppress evidence and other documents ordered unsealed. The parties are required to file a joint letter by the specified dates if no redactions are sought."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "306",
+      "document_number": "306",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell case",
+          "Redactions to court documents",
+          "Public filing of court documents"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Audrey Strauss",
+            "role": "United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Maurene Comey",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison Moe",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Lara Pomerantz",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Andrew Rohrbach",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it indicates that the parties involved in the Ghislaine Maxwell case have agreed not to redact certain court documents, potentially making sensitive information publicly available.",
+        "summary": "The document is a letter from the United States Attorney's office to Judge Alison J. Nathan, stating that the parties in the Ghislaine Maxwell case do not propose any redactions to the court's June 25, 2021 Opinion and Order or certain exhibits. The parties have no objection to the public filing of these documents without redactions."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "3065978",
+      "document_number": "3065978",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's bail motions",
+          "Redactions to court documents",
+          "Application of the Lugosch test for judicial documents"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Judge Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "Presiding Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Maurene Comey",
+            "role": "Assistant U.S. Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Christian R. Everdell",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Bobbi C. Sternheim",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it reveals the court's handling of Ghislaine Maxwell's bail motions and the application of the Lugosch test for determining the presumption of access to judicial documents.",
+        "summary": "The document contains court filings related to Ghislaine Maxwell's bail motions, including the court's orders on redactions to court documents and the government's opposition to her bail motions. The court applies the Lugosch test to determine the presumption of access to judicial documents and grants the government's and defendant's proposed redactions. The document also includes a series of filings and orders related to Maxwell's third motion for bond."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "307",
+      "document_number": "307",
+      "page_count": 21,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Opinion & Order",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Motion to suppress evidence obtained through a grand jury subpoena",
+          "Protective order in civil litigation and its modification",
+          "Alleged false statements by Ghislaine Maxwell in depositions"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant in the criminal case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "District Judge presiding over the case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Virginia Giuffre",
+            "role": "Plaintiff in the civil case against Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Associated individual in the alleged crimes"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Judge McMahon",
+            "role": "Chief Judge who ruled on the Government's application to modify the protective order"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it addresses the defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained through a grand jury subpoena, which is crucial to the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The court's decision on this matter could impact the admissibility of key evidence.",
+        "summary": "The document is an Opinion & Order by Judge Alison J. Nathan denying Ghislaine Maxwell's motion to suppress evidence obtained through a grand jury subpoena to her former civil litigation law firm. The court ruled that the evidence should not be suppressed despite Maxwell's claims that it was obtained in violation of her rights. The decision is based on the court's analysis of the protective order in the civil case and its modification by another judge."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "308",
+      "document_number": "308",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Order",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "unsealing court documents",
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell case",
+          "motions to suppress evidence"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it lifts the temporary seal on certain court documents related to Ghislaine Maxwell's case, making them publicly available.",
+        "summary": "The court order, issued by Judge Alison J. Nathan, lifts the temporary seal on the court's June 25, 2021 opinion on Maxwell's motions to suppress evidence and unseals certain documents related to the Government's application to modify a protective order in a previous case."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "309",
+      "document_number": "309",
+      "page_count": 3,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Violation of Local Rule 23.1 by David Markus",
+          "Extrajudicial statements by counsel in the Ghislaine Maxwell case",
+          "Request for court order to comply with Local Rule 23.1"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "David Markus",
+            "role": "Appellate counsel for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant in the criminal case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Audrey Strauss",
+            "role": "United States Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it highlights a potential violation of Local Rule 23.1 by defense counsel David Markus and requests the court to intervene to prevent prejudice to the trial.",
+        "summary": "The US Attorney's office filed a letter with the court alleging that David Markus, appellate counsel for Ghislaine Maxwell, violated Local Rule 23.1 by making extrajudicial statements to the media, including an opinion piece in the New York Daily News. The government requests the court to order Markus to comply with the rule to prevent interference with a fair trial."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "31",
+      "document_number": "31",
+      "page_count": 4,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Mixed court filings and letters",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Protective order in United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell",
+          "Defective filing in United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit",
+          "Jeffrey Epstein's passport and citizenship status"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant in a criminal case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Defendant in a related criminal case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Richard M. Berman",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Audrey Strauss",
+            "role": "Acting United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alex Rossmiller",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Marc Fernich",
+            "role": "Defense attorney for Jeffrey Epstein"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "These documents reveal details about the legal proceedings against Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein, including disputes over protective orders and the handling of court filings.",
+        "summary": "The documents include a letter from the US Attorney's office requesting time to respond to a defense motion for a protective order in United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, a notice of defective filing in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, and a letter from Jeffrey Epstein's attorney explaining the circumstances surrounding Epstein's possession of a passport with a non-Jewish name."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "310",
+      "document_number": "310",
+      "page_count": 3,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Letter to Judge",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) and its implications",
+          "Due Process and fundamental fairness in prosecution",
+          "Comparison with Commonwealth v. Cosby case"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant in the case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Christian R. Everdell",
+            "role": "Defense attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge presiding over the case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "William Henry Cosby Jr.",
+            "role": "Defendant in the referenced Commonwealth v. Cosby case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Bruce Castor",
+            "role": "Former District Attorney who made a promise not to prosecute Cosby"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it brings to the court's attention a recent Supreme Court of Pennsylvania decision in Commonwealth v. Cosby, which the defense argues is relevant to Ghislaine Maxwell's case regarding the government's failure to abide by its promise not to prosecute her under the Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement.",
+        "summary": "The defense attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell submits a letter to Judge Alison J. Nathan, drawing parallels between Maxwell's case and the recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision in Commonwealth v. Cosby, arguing that the government reneged on its promise not to prosecute Maxwell, similar to the Cosby case. The letter requests the court to consider this new precedent in deciding on the pending motion to dismiss certain counts of the indictment against Maxwell."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "310-1",
+      "document_number": "310-1",
+      "page_count": 80,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Opinion",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "William Cosby's criminal trial and appeal",
+          "Prosecutorial discretion and the decision not to prosecute Cosby in 2005",
+          "Admissibility of prior bad act evidence"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "William Henry Cosby Jr.",
+            "role": "Appellant and defendant in the criminal trial"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Bruce Castor",
+            "role": "Montgomery County District Attorney who decided not to prosecute Cosby in 2005"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Andrea Constand",
+            "role": "Alleged victim of Cosby's sexual assault"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Justice Wecht",
+            "role": "Author of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania's opinion"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it reveals the reasoning behind the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania's decision to overturn Cosby's conviction, based on the decision by the former District Attorney not to prosecute Cosby in 2005.",
+        "summary": "The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania considered Cosby's appeal, focusing on whether the District Attorney's 2005 decision not to prosecute Cosby should be enforced, given that it led to Cosby's incriminating testimony in a civil deposition. The court ultimately decided that the decision not to prosecute must be enforced, which disposed of the appeal."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "311",
+      "document_number": "311",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Letter to Judge",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell",
+          "Motion to Suppress",
+          "Exhibit Filing"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Christian R. Everdell",
+            "role": "Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant as it relates to the filing of exhibits in a high-profile criminal case, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, and demonstrates compliance with a court order.",
+        "summary": "This letter, filed on July 2, 2021, by Christian R. Everdell, attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell, attaches unsealed exhibits (D, E, F, and G) related to Maxwell's first motion to suppress, as ordered by Judge Alison J. Nathan."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "311-1",
+      "document_number": "311-1",
+      "page_count": 23,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Grand Jury Proceedings",
+          "Protective Order",
+          "Sealed Documents"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Hon. Colleen McMahon",
+            "role": "District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alex Rossmiller",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Geoffrey S. Berman",
+            "role": "United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it reveals a discussion between the judge and the prosecutor about the handling of a grand jury subpoena and a protective order, which may be relevant to a larger case.",
+        "summary": "The transcript records a sealed court proceeding where Judge Colleen McMahon questions Assistant US Attorney Alex Rossmiller about the government's application on behalf of a third party (law firm Boies Schiller) to be relieved from a protective order. The judge expresses concerns about the procedure and the potential impact of a Second Circuit decision on the protective order."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "311-2",
+      "document_number": "311-2",
+      "page_count": 4,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Transcript of a sealed court conference",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Grand Jury Subpoena",
+          "Contacts between the United States Attorney's Office and Boies Schiller firm",
+          "Investigation and potential victims or witnesses"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Alex Rossmiller",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Hon. Colleen McMahon",
+            "role": "Chief District Judge"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document reveals the interaction between the US Attorney's Office and the court regarding a grand jury subpoena and potential contacts with a law firm representing victims or witnesses, which may be relevant to understanding the investigation's process and potential legal issues.",
+        "summary": "The transcript records a sealed conference between Judge Colleen McMahon and Assistant US Attorney Alex Rossmiller regarding a grand jury subpoena. Rossmiller explains the investigation's timeline and contacts with Boies Schiller law firm, representing potential victims or witnesses. The judge seeks assurance that there were no improper contacts prior to the subpoena's issuance."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "311-3",
+      "document_number": "311-3",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Order",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Protective Order",
+          "Sealing of Court Order",
+          "Disclosure of Materials"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Colleen McMahon",
+            "role": "Chief United States District Judge, Southern District of New York"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it reveals a court order related to a protective order and the sealing of certain materials in a criminal case.",
+        "summary": "The document is a court order issued by Judge Colleen McMahon on April 1, 2019, allowing certain materials to be disclosed to the government despite a protective order, and ordering that the court order itself be sealed pending further court order."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "311-4",
+      "document_number": "311-4",
+      "page_count": 27,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "SEALED MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Modification of a protective order in the Giuffre v. Maxwell case",
+          "Disclosure of confidential materials to a grand jury",
+          "Sealing and unsealing of court documents"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Virginia L. Giuffre",
+            "role": "Plaintiff in the Giuffre v. Maxwell case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant in the Giuffre v. Maxwell case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Alleged perpetrator of sex crimes mentioned in the Giuffre v. Maxwell case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Hon. Robert W. Sweet",
+            "role": "Judge who entered the original protective order"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "McMahon, C.J.",
+            "role": "Judge who granted the government's application to modify the protective order"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alan Dershowitz",
+            "role": "Third-party who moved to unseal certain documents"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it reveals the reasoning behind the court's decision to modify a protective order, allowing the disclosure of confidential materials to a grand jury, and sheds light on the Giuffre v. Maxwell case and its related proceedings.",
+        "summary": "The document is a sealed memorandum decision and order granting the government's application to modify a protective order in the Giuffre v. Maxwell case, allowing Boies Schiller Flexner LLP to comply with a grand jury subpoena. The protective order was originally entered to protect confidential materials produced during discovery. The court granted the modification despite the pending appeal regarding the unsealing of certain documents."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "312",
+      "document_number": "312",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Order",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Response to Government's letter motion",
+          "Case scheduling",
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell case proceedings"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "David Markus",
+            "role": "Defense counsel for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is a court order that sets a deadline for the defense to respond to a government motion, indicating ongoing legal proceedings in the Ghislaine Maxwell case.",
+        "summary": "The court orders defense counsel to respond to the government's July 1, 2021 letter motion by July 9, 2021. The order is issued by Judge Alison J. Nathan in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The case involves Ghislaine Maxwell as the defendant."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "313",
+      "document_number": "313",
+      "page_count": 3,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Letter to the Judge",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Local Criminal Rule 23.1 and its alleged violations",
+          "Public statements by the government and accusers' counsel",
+          "Request for the court to consider the double standard in applying Rule 23.1"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Bobbi C. Sternheim",
+            "role": "Counsel for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Audrey Strauss",
+            "role": "Acting U.S. Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "David Oscar Markus",
+            "role": "Not counsel of record, mentioned in the government's complaint"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it highlights the alleged double standard in the application of Local Criminal Rule 23.1 and raises concerns about the impact of public statements on the defendant's right to a fair trial.",
+        "summary": "The letter, submitted by Ghislaine Maxwell's counsel, responds to the court's order regarding alleged violations of Local Criminal Rule 23.1. It argues that the government's complaints about certain public statements are unfounded and highlights the government's own violations of the rule, as well as those of the accusers' counsel. The letter requests the court to consider the double standard in applying the rule."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "314",
+      "document_number": "314",
+      "page_count": 6,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Gag Order Request",
+          "Local Rule 23.1(h) Application",
+          "First Amendment Rights of Lawyers"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant in the criminal case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge presiding over the case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Markus/Moss PLLC",
+            "role": "Law firm representing the interests of the author of the Op-Ed piece"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it reveals a dispute between the Government and a lawyer who wrote an Op-Ed piece about Ghislaine Maxwell's case, with the Government seeking a gag order against the lawyer.",
+        "summary": "The document is a court filing by a lawyer responding to the Government's request for a gag order under Local Rule 23.1(h). The lawyer argues that the rule does not apply to them as they do not currently represent Ghislaine Maxwell in any proceeding and have not entered an appearance in the trial court. The lawyer also contends that the Op-Ed piece did not violate the local rule as it did not disclose confidential information and raised the same argument as Maxwell's trial lawyers in a public pleading."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "315",
+      "document_number": "315",
+      "page_count": 3,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Local Criminal Rule 23.1",
+          "Extrajudicial statements by lawyers associated with a case",
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's legal representation"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "David Markus",
+            "role": "Appellate counsel for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant in the case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge presiding over the case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document establishes that lawyers associated with a case, even if not formally representing a defendant, are subject to Local Criminal Rule 23.1 and must avoid making extrajudicial statements that could prejudice the trial.",
+        "summary": "The court rules that David Markus, as appellate counsel for Ghislaine Maxwell, is subject to Local Criminal Rule 23.1 and must comply with its provisions regarding extrajudicial statements. The court emphasizes that all lawyers associated with the case must avoid making statements that could interfere with a fair trial or prejudice the due administration of justice."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "317",
+      "document_number": "317",
+      "page_count": 14,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Opinion & Order",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's pretrial motions to dismiss charges",
+          "Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement",
+          "Double Jeopardy Clause and statute of limitations"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Individual involved in a non-prosecution agreement"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant as it outlines the court's decision on Ghislaine Maxwell's pretrial motions, including her claims related to Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement and Double Jeopardy Clause. The court's rulings have implications for the progression of the case against Maxwell.",
+        "summary": "The court denies Ghislaine Maxwell's pretrial motions to dismiss charges in the superseding indictment, rejecting her arguments related to Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement and Double Jeopardy Clause. The court also denies her motions to compel discovery and for a bill of particulars."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "318",
+      "document_number": "318",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Order",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for subpoenas under Rule 17(c)(3)",
+          "Sealing and redactions of court documents",
+          "Application of the Nixon and Lugosch tests"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it reveals the court's decision on Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for subpoenas and sets out the procedure for determining whether certain documents should be sealed or redacted.",
+        "summary": "The court denies Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for subpoenas under Rule 17(c)(3) without prejudice, citing the Nixon test. The court also orders Maxwell to inform it whether she seeks sealing or redactions of the court's opinion and her original motion papers by August 18, 2021."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "319",
+      "document_number": "319",
+      "page_count": 3,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Letter to Judge",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Interference with attorney-client communication",
+          "Change in VTC platform from WebEx to Zoom",
+          "Concerns about confidentiality and potential recording of VTCs"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Bobbi C. Sternheim",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "MDC Legal",
+            "role": "Representatives of the Metropolitan Detention Center"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document highlights potential breaches of Ghislaine Maxwell's constitutional rights and attorney-client privilege due to interference with her video teleconferences (VTCs) with her counsel, potentially impacting her ability to prepare for trial.",
+        "summary": "Defense attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim writes to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the Metropolitan Detention Center's (MDC) interference with Ghislaine Maxwell's attorney-client communication, specifically the change from WebEx to Zoom for VTCs and concerns about confidentiality. The letter requests the Court to direct MDC Legal to show cause for their actions and provide a sworn statement regarding potential interference or recording of VTCs."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "32",
+      "document_number": "32",
+      "page_count": 34,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Bail hearing and remand decision for Jeffrey Epstein",
+          "Protective order request in Ghislaine Maxwell case",
+          "Sex trafficking charges under 18 U.S.C. § 1591"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Defendant in sex trafficking case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant in related sex trafficking case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Audrey Strauss",
+            "role": "Acting United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alex Rossmiller",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison Moe",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Maurene Comey",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document contains a court filing related to the bail hearing of Jeffrey Epstein and a separate letter motion in the Ghislaine Maxwell case regarding a protective order. The Epstein section provides insight into the legal arguments surrounding his detention and the charges against him.",
+        "summary": "The document includes a letter from the U.S. Attorney's Office requesting time to respond to a defense motion for a protective order in the Ghislaine Maxwell case, and a court decision regarding Jeffrey Epstein's bail, discussing the charges against him and the reasoning behind the court's decision to remand him."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "32-1",
+      "document_number": "32-1",
+      "page_count": 4,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Email chain",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Plea agreement discussions between Assistant U.S. Attorney Ann Marie Villafana and defense attorney Jay Lefkowitz",
+          "Potential charges and statutes related to a case involving Mr. Epstein",
+          "Drafting a factual proffer and non-prosecution agreement"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ann Marie Villafana",
+            "role": "Assistant U.S. Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jay Lefkowitz",
+            "role": "Defense attorney for Mr. Epstein"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Mr. Epstein",
+            "role": "Defendant in the case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This email chain reveals discussions between the prosecution and defense regarding a potential plea agreement and non-prosecution agreement for Mr. Epstein, and provides insight into the charges and statutes being considered.",
+        "summary": "The email chain between Ann Marie Villafana and Jay Lefkowitz discusses the potential charges and agreements related to Mr. Epstein's case, including a plea agreement and non-prosecution agreement, and the need for factual basis to support the charges."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "320",
+      "document_number": "320",
+      "page_count": 5,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Disclosure of co-conspirators' identities",
+          "Bill of particulars",
+          "Jencks Act material"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Co-conspirator mentioned in the S2 Indictment"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it reveals the government's position on disclosing the identities of Ghislaine Maxwell's co-conspirators and its intention to introduce co-conspirator statements at trial.",
+        "summary": "The document is a letter from the U.S. Department of Justice to Judge Alison J. Nathan, responding to the court's footnote regarding the disclosure of Ghislaine Maxwell's co-conspirators. The government objects to providing an exhaustive list of co-conspirators and intends to introduce statements from only two individuals, Jeffrey Epstein and an employee of Epstein's, at trial."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "321",
+      "document_number": "321",
+      "page_count": 3,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Interference with attorney-client communication",
+          "Change in VTC platform from WebEx to Zoom",
+          "Concerns about confidentiality and security of VTCs"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Bobbi C. Sternheim",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it raises concerns about the potential breach of attorney-client privilege and the impact on the defendant's ability to prepare for trial.",
+        "summary": "The defense attorney, Bobbi C. Sternheim, writes to the court to report issues with the Metropolitan Detention Center's (MDC) interference with attorney-client communication between Ghislaine Maxwell and her counsel, including a change in the VTC platform and concerns about confidentiality and security. The court orders the government to respond to the defendant's concerns."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "3220",
+      "document_number": "3220",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Bill of Particulars",
+          "Disclosure of Co-Conspirators",
+          "Admissibility of Co-Conspirator Statements"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "Judge presiding over the case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Audrey Strauss",
+            "role": "United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison Moe",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Maurene Comey",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Lara Pomerantz",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Andrew Rohrbach",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it reveals the Government's argument against disclosing a comprehensive list of co-conspirators to the defendant, citing potential harm to their case and referencing relevant case law.",
+        "summary": "The Government opposes the defendant's request for a bill of particulars that includes an exhaustive list of co-conspirators, arguing it is not required by law and could harm their case. The Government cites case law and asserts that the defendant is not entitled to such specific information about the conspiracy."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "323",
+      "document_number": "323",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Redactions to court documents",
+          "Protective Order in the case",
+          "Disclosure of accusers' and witnesses' names"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Christian R. Everdell",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it reveals the defense's position on redactions to court documents and the Protective Order, and it may impact the disclosure of sensitive information in the case.",
+        "summary": "The defense attorney, Christian R. Everdell, informs Judge Alison J. Nathan that Ghislaine Maxwell does not seek redactions to the Court's sealed Opinion and Order or the underlying motion papers. The defense argues that it is not their burden to justify redactions and that the government should bear the burden under the Lugosch test. The defense has no objection to redacting personal email addresses of certain individuals."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "324",
+      "document_number": "324",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Sealing and redactions of court documents",
+          "Rule 17(c)(3) subpoenas",
+          "Disclosure of victim and witness information"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Audrey Strauss",
+            "role": "United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison Moe",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Maurene Comey",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Lara Pomerantz",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Andrew Rohrbach",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it reveals a dispute between the prosecution and defense regarding the sealing and redaction of court documents related to Rule 17(c)(3) subpoenas in the Ghislaine Maxwell case.",
+        "summary": "The Government requests the limited unsealing of the Court's August 13, 2021 opinion and underlying motion papers to review and propose redactions, as the defense has declined to provide copies without a further court order. The Government is concerned about potential disclosure of victim and witness information. The defense believes the burden to justify redactions lies with the Government."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "325",
+      "document_number": "325",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Order",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Sealing and unsealing of court documents",
+          "Subpoenas and related court orders",
+          "Procedural instructions for government and defense counsel"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislainc Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant in the case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge presiding over the case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it reveals the court's decision regarding the sealing and unsealing of certain documents in the Ghislainc Maxwell case, and provides instructions to the government and defense counsel on how to proceed with related subpoenas and potential redactions.",
+        "summary": "The court orders defense counsel to provide a temporarily sealed Opinion and Order to intended subpoena recipients and grants the government's request for limited unsealing of certain documents. The government and subpoena recipients are instructed to inform the court by September 1, 2021, whether they seek sealing or redactions, justifying their requests according to the Lugosch test."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "326",
+      "document_number": "326",
+      "page_count": 3,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's access to counsel",
+          "Security concerns with VTC connections",
+          "MDC's handling of defendant's VTC meetings"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Audrey Strauss",
+            "role": "United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Maurene Comey",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison Moe",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Lara Pomerantz",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Andrew Rohrbach",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it addresses concerns about Ghislaine Maxwell's access to her counsel and the security measures taken by the MDC to ensure secure VTC meetings.",
+        "summary": "The Government responds to the defense's letter regarding issues with Ghislaine Maxwell's VTC meetings with her attorneys, explaining that the MDC has resolved the technical issues and implemented a more secure BOP-generated VTC virtual room for the defendant's exclusive use."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "327",
+      "document_number": "327",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Letter to the Judge",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's access to legal materials",
+          "Restrictions at the Metropolitan Detention Center",
+          "Mischaracterization of facts by the government"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant in the case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Bobbi C. Sternheim",
+            "role": "Defense attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge presiding over the case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document highlights a dispute between the defense and the government regarding the conditions of Ghislaine Maxwell's detention and access to legal materials, potentially impacting her ability to prepare for trial.",
+        "summary": "The letter, written by defense attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim, disputes the government's characterization of Ghislaine Maxwell's use of a cart and highlights the restrictions on Maxwell's access to legal materials at the Metropolitan Detention Center, which may be impacting her ability to prepare for trial."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "328",
+      "document_number": "328",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Compliance with Court Order",
+          "Disclosure of Court Documents",
+          "Subpoena Recipients"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Christian R. Everdell",
+            "role": "Defense Counsel for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document demonstrates compliance with a court order regarding the disclosure of certain court documents to subpoena recipients or their counsel in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell.",
+        "summary": "Defense counsel Christian R. Everdell informs Judge Alison J. Nathan that they have provided copies of the Court's August 23rd Order and August 13th Opinion and Order to the intended subpoena recipients or their counsel via email on August 24 and 25, 2021, as per the Court's Order dated August 23, 2021."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "329",
+      "document_number": "329",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Order",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "attorney-client video teleconferences",
+          "communication disruptions",
+          "defendant's access to counsel"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislain Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "District Judge"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it addresses the defendant's concerns about disruptions to her attorney-client communications and confirms that the issues have been resolved.",
+        "summary": "The court received a letter from defendant Ghislain Maxwell regarding disruptions to her attorney-client video teleconferences. After conferring with MDC Legal and the Government, the court found that the issues had been resolved and that Maxwell's communications were not being interfered with. The court remains confident that Maxwell can communicate with her counsel and prepare for trial."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "33",
+      "document_number": "33",
+      "page_count": 9,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Protective Order",
+          "Victim Privacy",
+          "Disclosure of Victim Identities"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Associated individual mentioned in the context of the case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it reveals the government's efforts to protect the identities of victims in a high-profile case involving Ghislaine Maxwell, and the legal arguments surrounding the proposed protective order.",
+        "summary": "The document is a court filing by the U.S. Department of Justice in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, discussing the proposed protective order and the government's objections to the defendant's requests to publicly disclose victim identities. The government argues that protecting victim identities is essential due to significant privacy interests and established law in the Circuit. The filing highlights the ongoing dispute between the government and the defendant regarding the terms of the protective order."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "33-1",
+      "document_number": "33-1",
+      "page_count": 11,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Protective Order",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Handling of discovery materials",
+          "Confidentiality and non-disclosure",
+          "Protection of victim and witness identities"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "The Defendant",
+            "role": "The accused in the criminal case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Defense Counsel",
+            "role": "The defendant's legal representation"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "The Government",
+            "role": "The prosecuting authority in the criminal case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This Protective Order governs the handling of sensitive discovery materials in a criminal case, ensuring confidentiality and protecting the identities of victims and witnesses.",
+        "summary": "The court issues a Protective Order outlining the terms for handling discovery materials in a criminal case, including restrictions on disclosure, use, and sharing of confidential information. The order aims to protect the identities of victims and witnesses while allowing the defendant to prepare their defense. The order also establishes procedures for designating and challenging the confidentiality of certain materials."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "330",
+      "document_number": "330",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Trial Scheduling",
+          "Jury Selection",
+          "Pretrial Conference"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislain Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document confirms the trial date for Ghislain Maxwell and outlines the schedule for pretrial proceedings, including jury selection and motions in limine.",
+        "summary": "The court confirms a firm trial date of November 29, 2021, for Ghislain Maxwell and sets deadlines for pretrial filings and conferences, including a telephone conference on October 21, 2021, and an in-person pretrial conference on November 1, 2021."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "331",
+      "document_number": "331",
+      "page_count": 5,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Disclosure of co-conspirators' identities",
+          "Disclosure of co-conspirator statements",
+          "Government's motion for reconsideration"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Pagliuca",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it reveals the ongoing disputes between the prosecution and defense in the Ghislaine Maxwell case, particularly regarding the disclosure of co-conspirators' identities and statements.",
+        "summary": "The document is a court filing by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team, responding to the government's letter dated August 18, 2021. The defense argues that the government is attempting to reconsider previous court orders regarding the disclosure of co-conspirators' identities and statements, and urges the court to confirm its previous orders."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "332",
+      "document_number": "332",
+      "page_count": 4,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Redaction requests for court documents",
+          "Protection of victim and third-party privacy",
+          "Sealing and unsealing of court documents"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant in the case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Audrey Strauss",
+            "role": "United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Maurene Comey",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison Moe",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Lara Pomerantz",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Andrew Rohrbach",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it reveals the government's efforts to balance the need for transparency in court proceedings with the need to protect the privacy of victims and third parties involved in the Ghislaine Maxwell case.",
+        "summary": "The document is a letter from the US Attorney's Office to Judge Alison J. Nathan, requesting redactions to certain court documents to protect the privacy of victims and third parties. The government proposes narrowly tailored redactions to specific exhibits and argues that they are consistent with the Second Circuit's test in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "33332",
+      "document_number": "33332",
+      "page_count": 3,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Redaction requests for court documents",
+          "Protection of victim and third-party privacy",
+          "Sealing and unsealing of court documents"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Audrey Strauss",
+            "role": "United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Maurene Comey",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison Moe",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Lara Pomerantz",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Andrew Rohrbach",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it reveals the government's efforts to balance the need for transparency in court proceedings with the need to protect the privacy of victims and third parties in a high-profile case.",
+        "summary": "The document is a letter from the US Attorney's Office to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the redaction of certain court documents in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The government proposes redactions to protect victim and third-party privacy, which the court ultimately orders. The court unseals the August 13 Opinion and orders the defendant to file redacted versions of certain documents."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "334",
+      "document_number": "334",
+      "page_count": 10,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Rule 17(c) subpoena",
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for subpoena authorization",
+          "Relevance and admissibility of evidence"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "District Judge"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it reveals the court's decision on Ghislaine Maxwell's motion to authorize subpoenas, which is a crucial aspect of her defense strategy. The ruling provides insight into the court's interpretation of Rule 17(c) and its application to the case.",
+        "summary": "The court denies Ghislaine Maxwell's motion to authorize subpoenas to four individuals, citing failure to meet the Nixon test for relevance, admissibility, and specificity. The court finds that the requested materials are not evidentiary or are otherwise procurable, and that the subpoenas would amount to a 'fishing expedition'."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "335",
+      "document_number": "335",
+      "page_count": 3,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Disclosure of unnamed co-conspirators",
+          "Government's objection to disclosure",
+          "Trial preparation and evidence disclosure"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it reveals the court's decision regarding the disclosure of unnamed co-conspirators in the Ghislaine Maxwell case, potentially impacting trial preparation and strategy.",
+        "summary": "The court orders the Government to disclose the identities of unnamed co-conspirators alleged in the S2 indictment to the Defendant at the same time as Jencks Act materials are disclosed. The Government had previously objected to this disclosure, but the court found the objection to be untimely and unpersuasive. The court balances the risk of surprise to the Defendant against legitimate law enforcement concerns."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "33530",
+      "document_number": "33530",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Delivery of legal mail to Ghislaine Maxwell at MDC",
+          "Procedures for handling legal mail at MDC",
+          "Response to Court Order regarding Maxwell's complaint"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge presiding over the case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document provides insight into the procedures for handling legal mail at the Metropolitan Detention Center and addresses a specific complaint raised by the defendant, Ghislaine Maxwell.",
+        "summary": "The U.S. Attorney's Office responds to a Court Order regarding Ghislaine Maxwell's complaint about the delivery of her legal mail at the MDC, explaining the procedures for handling legal mail and the reasons for any delays."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "3354",
+      "document_number": "3354",
+      "page_count": 3,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Federal Rule of Evidence 412",
+          "Motion Filing Deadline",
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell Trial"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it reveals the court's decision to set an earlier deadline for filing a motion under Federal Rule of Evidence 412, which is crucial in a high-profile case like Ghislaine Maxwell's.",
+        "summary": "The document is a court filing in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, where the court sets a deadline of October 27, 2021, for filing a motion under Federal Rule of Evidence 412, and schedules a hearing for November 5, 2021. The court's decision is based on the need to resolve significant issues in advance of trial and to provide sufficient notice to the nonmovant and victims. The government's early disclosure of materials and the complex nature of the case are cited as reasons for setting an earlier deadline."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "336",
+      "document_number": "336",
+      "page_count": 10,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Subpoena request under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17(c)",
+          "Evidence related to alleged victims Annie Farmer and Maria Farmer",
+          "Representation by attorneys Brad Edwards and Stanley Pottinger"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Annie Farmer",
+            "role": "Alleged victim"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Maria Farmer",
+            "role": "Alleged victim and witness"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Brad Edwards",
+            "role": "Attorney for Virginia Giuffre"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Stanley Pottinger",
+            "role": "Attorney for Virginia Giuffre"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant as it reveals the defense's strategy to obtain evidence from alleged victims and their representatives, potentially impacting the trial's outcome.",
+        "summary": "Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team files a motion requesting the court to authorize subpoenas to Annie Farmer, Maria Farmer, Brad Edwards, and Stanley Pottinger for specific evidence related to the allegations. The motion is made ex parte and in camera, citing policy reasons and the need to protect investigative and trial strategy."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "336-1",
+      "document_number": "336-1",
+      "page_count": 38,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects in a Criminal Case",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Subpoena issued to Annie Farmer",
+          "Request for documents related to Ghislaine Maxwell's criminal case",
+          "Specific documents requested include journal, black boots, photographs, contingent fee agreement, and EVCP material"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Annie Farmer",
+            "role": "Recipient of the subpoena"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant in the criminal case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca",
+            "role": "Attorney representing Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This subpoena is potentially important as it reveals the defense's strategy in Ghislaine Maxwell's criminal trial and may contain relevant evidence or testimony from Annie Farmer.",
+        "summary": "This document is a subpoena issued to Annie Farmer, requiring her to produce specific documents related to Ghislaine Maxwell's criminal case, including a journal, black boots, photographs, and other materials. The subpoena was requested by Ghislaine Maxwell's attorney, Jeffrey S. Pagliuca."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "336-2",
+      "document_number": "336-2",
+      "page_count": 21,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Subpoena to Produce Documents in a Criminal Case",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's criminal case",
+          "Subpoena to Maria Farmer to produce documents and evidence",
+          "Requests for specific documents and physical evidence related to Epstein and Maxwell"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant in the criminal case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Maria Farmer",
+            "role": "Witness and recipient of the subpoena"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca",
+            "role": "Attorney representing Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This subpoena is potentially important as it reveals the defense's efforts to gather evidence for Ghislaine Maxwell's criminal trial, specifically seeking documents and physical evidence from Maria Farmer that may be relevant to the case.",
+        "summary": "This document is a subpoena issued to Maria Farmer, requiring her to produce specific documents and physical evidence related to Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. The subpoena is part of Ghislaine Maxwell's criminal case in the Southern District of New York. The requested materials include envelopes with alleged DNA and fingerprints, physical evidence, and documents related to Farmer's interactions with Epstein and Maxwell."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "336-3",
+      "document_number": "336-3",
+      "page_count": 22,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Subpoena to Produce Documents in a Criminal Case",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's criminal case",
+          "Subpoena to Brad Edwards and Edwards Pottinger LLC",
+          "Production of documents related to Annie Farmer, Maria Farmer, and Epstein Victim's Compensation Program"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant in the criminal case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Brad Edwards",
+            "role": "Recipient of the subpoena, attorney for victims of Jeffrey Epstein"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca",
+            "role": "Attorney representing Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This subpoena is potentially important as it reveals the defense's strategy in Ghislaine Maxwell's criminal trial and may contain information relevant to the case, such as documents related to the Epstein Victim's Compensation Program and communications between Edwards Pottinger LLC and the United States Attorney's office.",
+        "summary": "This document is a subpoena issued to Brad Edwards and Edwards Pottinger LLC, requiring them to produce documents related to their representation of Annie Farmer and Maria Farmer, as well as their involvement in the Epstein Victim's Compensation Program. The subpoena is part of the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The requested documents include communications with the United States Attorney's office and materials related to the EVCP."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "336-4",
+      "document_number": "336-4",
+      "page_count": 22,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Subpoena to Produce Documents in a Criminal Case",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's criminal case",
+          "Subpoena to Stanley Pottinger and Edwards Pottinger LLC",
+          "Request for documents related to Annie Farmer, Maria Farmer, and Epstein Victim's Compensation Program"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant in the criminal case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Stanley Pottinger",
+            "role": "Recipient of the subpoena, attorney at Edwards Pottinger LLC"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca",
+            "role": "Attorney representing Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This subpoena is potentially important as it reveals the defense's efforts to gather evidence for Ghislaine Maxwell's criminal trial, specifically related to the alleged victims and their interactions with Jeffrey Epstein.",
+        "summary": "This document is a subpoena issued to Stanley Pottinger and Edwards Pottinger LLC, requesting the production of documents related to Annie Farmer, Maria Farmer, and the Epstein Victim's Compensation Program. The subpoena is part of the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The requested documents include communications, contingent fee agreements, and materials related to the Epstein Victim's Compensation Program."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "336019",
+      "document_number": "336019",
+      "page_count": 6,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Confidential documents",
+          "Sealed exhibits",
+          "Court case proceedings"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [],
+        "significance": "This document appears to be a collection of pages from a court filing in a high-profile case, potentially involving confidential or sealed information.",
+        "summary": "The document consists of multiple pages from a court filing, labeled as confidential and filed under seal, with various case numbers and exhibit numbers referenced throughout."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "337",
+      "document_number": "337",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Order",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Trial Logistics",
+          "Trial Timeline",
+          "Jury Deliberations"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislainc Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document reveals the court's planning for the trial of Ghislainc Maxwell and provides insight into the expected trial timeline.",
+        "summary": "The court is planning the trial logistics and requests the parties to provide their estimate of when the jury is likely to begin deliberations. The trial is expected to start on November 29, and the court is assessing whether it may continue after the Christmas holiday. The parties are ordered to submit a joint letter with their estimate by October 12, 2021."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "338",
+      "document_number": "338",
+      "page_count": 22,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Motion to Intervene",
+          "Statute of Limitations (18 U.S.C. §3283)",
+          "Interpretation of 'offense involving' in 18 U.S.C. §3283"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "David A. Diehl",
+            "role": "Movant seeking to intervene in the case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant in the main case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "U.S. District Judge who denied the motion to intervene"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it reveals a third-party attempt to intervene in a high-profile case (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) and challenges the interpretation of a specific statute (18 U.S.C. §3283) related to the statute of limitations for certain offenses.",
+        "summary": "David A. Diehl filed a motion to intervene in the Ghislaine Maxwell case, arguing that his interests were not adequately represented regarding the statute of limitations argument under 18 U.S.C. §3283. The motion was denied by Judge Alison J. Nathan. Diehl's filing includes a detailed analysis of the legislative history and interpretation of §3283."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "339",
+      "document_number": "339",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell",
+          "Juror questionnaire and voir dire",
+          "Request to file documents under seal"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Court Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Damian Williams",
+            "role": "United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison Moe",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Lara Pomerantz",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Andrew Rohrbach",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it relates to the pre-trial proceedings in the high-profile case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, specifically regarding the jury selection process.",
+        "summary": "The document is a letter from the United States Attorney's office to Judge Alison J. Nathan, submitting a joint proposed juror questionnaire and voir dire in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense requests that these documents be filed under seal to avoid media coverage prejudicing the jury selection process."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "34",
+      "document_number": "34",
+      "page_count": 4,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal",
+          "Protective order in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell",
+          "Related cases involving Jeffrey Epstein"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "David Oscar Markus",
+            "role": "Lead Counsel for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alex Rossmiller",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Defendant in a related case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Reid Weingarten",
+            "role": "Counsel for Jeffrey Epstein"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant as it relates to the appeal of Ghislaine Maxwell and provides insight into the legal proceedings against her, including disputes over a protective order and its implications.",
+        "summary": "The document is a compilation of court filings related to Ghislaine Maxwell's case, including an acknowledgment and notice of appearance by her lead counsel, David Oscar Markus, and a certification regarding a protective order in the case. It also includes a notice of appeal in a related case involving Jeffrey Epstein."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "340",
+      "document_number": "340",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Trial timeline",
+          "Jury deliberation",
+          "Case updates"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Damian Williams",
+            "role": "United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison Moe",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Lara Pomerantz",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Andrew Rohrbach",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant as it provides an update on the trial timeline and the parties' estimates for the duration of the trial, which is crucial for jury selection and scheduling.",
+        "summary": "The document is a letter submitted by the Government to the Court, estimating the trial duration and requesting that the Court seat jurors with availability beyond the Christmas holiday. The Government anticipates resting its case within four weeks, while the defense estimates its case will last approximately two weeks. The parties jointly request that jurors be available beyond the Christmas holiday."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "341",
+      "document_number": "341",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Notice of Motion",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Request for individual sequestered juror voir dire",
+          "Request for limited counsel-conducted voir dire",
+          "Pre-trial motion in a criminal case"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Bobbi C. Sternheim",
+            "role": "Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Christian R. Everdell",
+            "role": "Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca",
+            "role": "Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Laura A. Menninger",
+            "role": "Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is a pre-trial motion filed by Ghislaine Maxwell's attorneys, requesting the court to grant individual sequestered juror voir dire and limited counsel-conducted voir dire, which could impact the jury selection process in her trial.",
+        "summary": "Ghislaine Maxwell's attorneys filed a notice of motion requesting the court to grant individual sequestered juror voir dire and limited counsel-conducted voir dire. The motion was filed with the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The request is related to the jury selection process in Maxwell's criminal trial."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "342",
+      "document_number": "342",
+      "page_count": 17,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Memorandum of Law",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Jury Selection Process",
+          "Pretrial Publicity and Media Coverage",
+          "Voir Dire Procedure"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Co-conspirator/associated individual"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Christian R. Everdell",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Laura A. Menninger",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Bobbi C. Sternheim",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it highlights the defense's concerns about the impact of pretrial publicity on the jury selection process and requests a specific voir dire procedure to ensure a fair trial.",
+        "summary": "The document is a memorandum of law in support of Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for individual sequestered juror voir dire and limited counsel-conducted voir dire. It argues that due to extensive pretrial publicity and sensitive subject matter, a standard voir dire is insufficient and that individual sequestered voir dire is necessary to root out potential juror bias."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "343",
+      "document_number": "343",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Juror Voir Dire",
+          "Defendant's Motion",
+          "Trial Proceedings"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislain Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document reveals the court's decision to request a response from the Government regarding the Defendant's motion for individual sequestered juror voir dire, indicating an ongoing trial or pre-trial proceedings.",
+        "summary": "The court received a motion from Defendant Ghislain Maxwell requesting individual sequestered juror voir dire and limited counsel-conducted voir dire. The court ordered the Government to respond by October 18, 2021. The order was made by Judge Alison J. Nathan on October 13, 2021."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "344",
+      "document_number": "344",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Order",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Trial logistics",
+          "COVID-19 protocols",
+          "Victim and family access"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Wendy Olson",
+            "role": "Coordinator, Victim Witness Unit"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Joseph Pecorino",
+            "role": "District Executive's Office"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant as it outlines the court's preparations for the upcoming trial of Ghislaine Maxwell, including arrangements for public access and victim coordination.",
+        "summary": "The court received a letter from a lawyer representing an alleged victim and will file it under seal. The court will ensure public access to the trial through live feeds in overflow rooms and coordinate access for alleged victims and the defendant's family members."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "345",
+      "document_number": "345",
+      "page_count": 3,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Federal Rule of Evidence 412",
+          "Motion filing deadline",
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell trial"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it clarifies the deadline for filing a motion under Federal Rule of Evidence 412 in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial and highlights the defense's need for sufficient time to review the government's disclosures.",
+        "summary": "The defense attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell confirms that November 15, 2021, is the deadline for filing a motion under Federal Rule of Evidence 412, citing the need for time to review the government's recent disclosures and consult with Maxwell."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "346",
+      "document_number": "346",
+      "page_count": 3,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Letter to Judge",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Delays in delivery of legal mail to Ghislaine Maxwell",
+          "MDC's handling of legal materials",
+          "Impact on Maxwell's right to effective assistance of counsel"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Bobbi C. Sternheim",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document highlights the issues with the Metropolitan Detention Center's (MDC) handling of legal mail and materials for defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, potentially compromising her right to a fair trial and effective assistance of counsel.",
+        "summary": "Defense attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim requests that the Court order the MDC to deliver legal mail to Ghislaine Maxwell within one day of receipt, citing delays and mishandling of critical trial materials. The MDC's inefficiency has interfered with Maxwell's ability to prepare for trial, compromising her constitutional rights. The Court's intervention is necessary to prevent further erosion of Maxwell's rights and potential delay of the trial."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "347",
+      "document_number": "347",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Order",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Federal Rule of Evidence 412 motion",
+          "filing deadline",
+          "response to defendant's letter"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislain Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is a court order responding to the defendant's letter regarding a motion under Federal Rule of Evidence 412, indicating an ongoing legal proceeding.",
+        "summary": "The court, presided over by Judge Alison J. Nathan, orders the government to respond to the defendant's letter about a Federal Rule of Evidence 412 motion filing deadline by October 15, 2021. The defendant is Ghislain Maxwell. The order is related to a criminal case in the Southern District of New York."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "348",
+      "document_number": "348",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Order",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Delivery of defendant's legal mail",
+          "Response from the Government",
+          "Court proceedings"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document reveals a court order related to an issue with the defendant's legal mail delivery at MDC and requires the Government to respond by a specific deadline.",
+        "summary": "The Court received a letter from Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell regarding issues with her legal mail delivery at MDC. The Court ordered the Government to respond by October 15, 2021, at 5:00 p.m. The order was issued by Judge Alison J. Nathan."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "35",
+      "document_number": "35",
+      "page_count": 6,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Letter to Judge",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Protective Order in United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell",
+          "Referencing Individuals Who Have Publicly Identified Themselves",
+          "Privacy Interests of Alleged Victims"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Related individual in previous case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Mark S. Cohen",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Christian R. Everdell",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it reveals the ongoing legal dispute between Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team and the government regarding the terms of a protective order, particularly concerning the referencing of individuals who have publicly identified themselves in relation to Maxwell or Epstein.",
+        "summary": "The letter is from Ghislaine Maxwell's defense attorneys to Judge Alison J. Nathan, arguing against the government's proposed language for a protective order, specifically regarding referencing individuals who have publicly identified themselves. Maxwell's defense team asserts that individuals who have publicly spoken about their allegations against Maxwell or Epstein should not be considered to have privacy interests that need protection."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "350",
+      "document_number": "350",
+      "page_count": 3,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Delivery of legal mail to Ghislaine Maxwell at the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC)",
+          "Procedures for handling legal mail at the MDC",
+          "Request for expedited delivery of legal mail"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Damian Williams",
+            "role": "United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison Moe",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Lara Pomerantz",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Andrew Rohrbach",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it reveals the procedures for handling legal mail at the MDC and the Government's response to the defendant's request for expedited delivery of legal mail.",
+        "summary": "The Government responds to the Court's Order regarding the delivery of Ghislaine Maxwell's legal mail at the MDC, explaining the standard procedures for handling legal mail and opposing the defendant's request for expedited delivery. The Government reports that the MDC received a hard drive containing Court-ordered disclosures on October 12, 2021, and it was delivered to Maxwell on October 14, 2021, after an institutional emergency on October 13, 2021. The Government argues that expedited delivery would be burdensome and not practicable."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "351",
+      "document_number": "351",
+      "page_count": 4,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Federal Rule of Evidence 412",
+          "Motion filing deadline",
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell trial"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Damian Williams",
+            "role": "United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison Moe",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it reveals the government's argument for setting an earlier deadline for the defense to file a motion under Federal Rule of Evidence 412, which is crucial in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial.",
+        "summary": "The document is a letter from the US Attorney's Office to Judge Alison J. Nathan, arguing that the court should set an earlier deadline for the defense to file a motion under Federal Rule of Evidence 412. The government proposes a deadline of October 18 or October 25, 2021, instead of November 15, 2021, citing the need for timely resolution of sensitive issues before the trial."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "352",
+      "document_number": "352",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Letter to Judge",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Delayed delivery of Ghislaine Maxwell's legal mail",
+          "MDC's handling of legal mail and its impact on Maxwell's trial preparation",
+          "Reconsideration of Maxwell's detention due to unmet constitutional rights"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Bobbi C. Sternheim",
+            "role": "Defense attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge presiding over the case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document highlights issues with the handling of Ghislaine Maxwell's legal mail and raises concerns about her constitutional rights, potentially impacting her trial preparation and detention status.",
+        "summary": "Defense attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim writes to Judge Alison J. Nathan, criticizing the government's response to delayed delivery of Ghislaine Maxwell's legal mail and arguing that the situation is untenable and violates Maxwell's constitutional rights. Sternheim requests the court to reconsider Maxwell's detention."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "355",
+      "document_number": "355",
+      "page_count": 5,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Voir dire procedure",
+          "Attorney-conducted voir dire",
+          "Individual sequestered voir dire"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is a government response to a defendant's motion regarding voir dire procedures in a high-profile criminal case, providing insight into the legal arguments and precedents relevant to jury selection.",
+        "summary": "The US Government responds to Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for attorney-conducted voir dire and individual sequestered voir dire, arguing that the court-led voir dire is the well-established practice in the Southern District of New York and should be followed in this case."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "3550",
+      "document_number": "3550",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "delivery of legal mail to defendant",
+          "MDC's legal department responsibilities",
+          "expedited delivery request"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "defendant",
+            "role": "recipient of legal mail"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "defense counsel",
+            "role": "requesting expedited delivery"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it provides insight into the procedures and challenges of delivering legal mail to inmates at the MDC, and may impact the court's decision on the defendant's request for expedited delivery.",
+        "summary": "The Government responds to the Court's Order regarding the delivery of legal mail to the defendant, explaining that expedited delivery is not practicable and that the MDC's legal department has various responsibilities for 1,700 inmates. The Government details the delivery of a hard drive containing Court-ordered disclosures and explains that an institutional emergency impacted delivery on one day."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "3554",
+      "document_number": "3554",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Rule 412 motion deadline",
+          "in limine deadline",
+          "sensitive issues"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Damian Williams",
+            "role": "United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison Moe",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Lara Pomerantz",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Andrew Rohrbach",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it reveals the government's position on the deadline for the defense to file a motion under Rule 412, which concerns sensitive issues.",
+        "summary": "The government respectfully requests that the court maintain or adjust the deadline for the defense to file a motion under Rule 412, citing the need for flexibility in handling sensitive issues. The government suggests an alternative deadline of October 25, 2021. The document is a court filing in a criminal case."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "356",
+      "document_number": "356",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Letter to the Judge",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Jury selection process",
+          "Voir dire procedure",
+          "Fair and impartial jury"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Bobbi C. Sternheim",
+            "role": "Defense attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it reveals the defense's argument for a specific jury selection process in a high-profile case, highlighting concerns about juror bias and the need for a fair trial.",
+        "summary": "The letter, written by defense attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim, argues that the court should grant the defense's request for individual sequestered voir dire and limited counsel-conducted voir dire to ensure a fair and impartial jury in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense contends that the government's opposition to this request is standard procedure and that the court has the power to ensure a fair jury selection process. The letter highlights the high-profile nature of the case and the potential for juror bias due to extensive media coverage."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "357",
+      "document_number": "357",
+      "page_count": 4,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Motions in limine to exclude certain evidence",
+          "Trial preparation and evidentiary disputes",
+          "Defense strategy in Ghislaine Maxwell's criminal trial"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Laura A. Menninger",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Christian R. Everdell",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Bobbi C. Sternheim",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison Moe",
+            "role": "Prosecutor"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Maurene Comey",
+            "role": "Prosecutor"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Andrew Rohrbach",
+            "role": "Prosecutor"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Lara Pomerantz",
+            "role": "Prosecutor"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Alleged co-conspirator"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant as it outlines the defense's strategy to exclude certain evidence from being presented during Ghislaine Maxwell's trial, highlighting key evidentiary disputes and the defense's efforts to limit the prosecution's case.",
+        "summary": "Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team filed a notice of motions in limine to exclude various pieces of evidence from her upcoming trial, including alleged co-conspirator statements, certain testimony, and specific exhibits. The motions aim to limit the government's evidence and shape the trial's evidentiary landscape. The document showcases the defense's efforts to challenge the prosecution's case and prepare for trial."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "358",
+      "document_number": "358",
+      "page_count": 4,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Motions in limine filed by Ghislaine Maxwell's counsel",
+          "Request for temporary sealing of certain documents",
+          "Reservation of rights to file additional motions in limine due to recent government disclosures"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant as it reveals the defense's strategy in the Ghislaine Maxwell case, specifically the motions in limine filed and the challenges faced due to the government's recent disclosures.",
+        "summary": "This court filing is a letter from Ghislaine Maxwell's counsel to Judge Alison J. Nathan, detailing the 13 motions in limine filed on behalf of Maxwell, requesting temporary sealing of certain documents, and reserving the right to file additional motions in limine due to the government's recent disclosures."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "359",
+      "document_number": "359",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Motions in limine",
+          "Redaction requests",
+          "Sealing of court documents"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Damian Williams",
+            "role": "United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison Moe",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Lara Pomerantz",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Andrew Rohrbach",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it reveals the government's request to redact certain information from its motions in limine to protect the privacy interests of victims and third parties in the Ghislaine Maxwell case.",
+        "summary": "The US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York submits a motion to file its motions in limine with proposed redactions to protect victim and third-party privacy. The redactions are justified under the Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga test. The government requests the court to permit the filing with redactions."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "36",
+      "document_number": "36",
+      "page_count": 84,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court transcript and protective order",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Bail hearing for Jeffrey Epstein",
+          "Protective order for discovery materials",
+          "Conditions for pretrial release"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Richard M. Berman",
+            "role": "District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Geoffrey S. Berman",
+            "role": "United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alexander Rossmiller",
+            "role": "Assistant United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Reid Weingarten",
+            "role": "Defense Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "David Boies",
+            "role": "Attorney for alleged victims"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant as it contains a transcript of the bail hearing for Jeffrey Epstein and a protective order governing the handling of discovery materials in the case.",
+        "summary": "The document includes a transcript of a bail hearing for Jeffrey Epstein, where the judge discusses the pretrial services report and sets a date for a decision on bail. It also includes a protective order outlining the terms for handling discovery materials in the case."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "360",
+      "document_number": "360",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Jury selection",
+          "Telephone conference",
+          "Court proceedings access"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is a court order scheduling a telephone conference to discuss jury selection in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial and providing details on how to access the live audio feed.",
+        "summary": "The court is holding a telephone conference on October 21, 2021, to discuss jury selection in the Ghislaine Maxwell case. The public can access the live audio feed by calling a specified number. The court has prohibited recording or rebroadcasting of the proceedings."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "361",
+      "document_number": "361",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Order",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Jury selection",
+          "Sealing request for juror questionnaire and voir dire",
+          "Court's draft questionnaire and voir dire"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it reveals the court's process for handling sensitive information related to jury selection in a high-profile case.",
+        "summary": "The court is scheduling a telephone conference to discuss jury selection and will consider a request to seal the joint proposed juror questionnaire and voir dire. The court will also share its draft questionnaire and voir dire with the parties for discussion."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "362",
+      "document_number": "362",
+      "page_count": 4,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court filing - Letter to the Judge",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Request to seal juror questionnaire and voir dire",
+          "Public access to criminal proceedings",
+          "First Amendment right of access"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Katie Townsend",
+            "role": "Counsel for Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant because it highlights the tension between the defendant's right to a fair trial and the public's right to access criminal proceedings, particularly during the voir dire process.",
+        "summary": "The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and 17 news media organizations urge the court to deny Ghislaine Maxwell's request to file the juror questionnaire and voir dire under seal, citing the First Amendment right of access to criminal proceedings and the presumption of openness in voir dire."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "363",
+      "document_number": "363",
+      "page_count": 2,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Non-Prosecution Agreement",
+          "Jeffrey Epstein's compliance",
+          "Clarifications to the agreement"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "R. Alexander Acosta",
+            "role": "United States Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "A. Marie Villapania/Villafana Fausa",
+            "role": "Assistant U.S. Attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Gerald Lefcourt",
+            "role": "Counsel to Jeffrey Epstein"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Lilly Ann Sanchez",
+            "role": "Attorney for Jeffrey Epstein"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it appears to be an Addendum to a Non-Prosecution Agreement involving Jeffrey Epstein, providing insight into the terms and conditions of the agreement.",
+        "summary": "The document is an Addendum to a Non-Prosecution Agreement signed by Jeffrey Epstein, his attorneys, and the U.S. Attorney's office, certifying that Epstein understands and agrees to comply with clarifications to the original agreement. The document is filed in two separate court cases. The signatures and dates suggest that the agreement was signed in 2007."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "364",
+      "document_number": "364",
+      "page_count": 3,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Order",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Jury selection procedures",
+          "Voir dire process",
+          "Sealing of court documents"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document outlines the procedures for jury selection in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial, taking into account COVID-19 protocols and media interest. It also denies a request to seal certain court documents.",
+        "summary": "The court order, issued by Judge Alison J. Nathan, details the procedures for jury selection in the Ghislaine Maxwell case, including the use of a screening questionnaire and one-on-one voir dire. The court also denies a request to seal the parties' proposed questionnaire and voir dire. The order aims to balance juror safety, impartiality, and public access to the trial."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "365",
+      "document_number": "365",
+      "page_count": 40,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Jury Questionnaire",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Ghislaine Maxwell trial",
+          "Jury selection process",
+          "Criminal charges against Ghislaine Maxwell"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+            "role": "Co-conspirator mentioned in the indictment"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant as it provides insight into the jury selection process for the Ghislaine Maxwell trial and outlines the charges against her.",
+        "summary": "The document is a court filing that includes a draft jury questionnaire for the Ghislaine Maxwell trial, detailing the charges against her and the jury selection process. The charges stem from allegations of conspiring with Jeffrey Epstein to entice minors into criminal sexual activity. The trial is set to commence on November 29, 2021."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "366",
+      "document_number": "366",
+      "page_count": 6,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Court Filing - Order with Preliminary Remarks for Jury Selection",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Jury selection process for Ghislaine Maxwell's trial",
+          "COVID-19 safety protocols in the courtroom",
+          "Instructions to potential jurors regarding the case and media coverage"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Alison J. Nathan",
+            "role": "United States District Judge presiding over the case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+            "role": "Defendant in the criminal case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is significant as it outlines the preliminary remarks to be played for potential jurors in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial, providing insight into the jury selection process and the court's instructions regarding the case.",
+        "summary": "The document is an order from Judge Alison J. Nathan attaching preliminary remarks to be recorded and played for potential jurors in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. The remarks outline the jury selection process, the charges against Maxwell, and instructions to jurors regarding media coverage and their conduct during the process."
+      }
+    }
+  ]
+}

analyze_documents.py

@@ -0,0 +1,289 @@
+#!/usr/bin/env python3
+"""
+Document analysis script using LLM to generate summaries and key insights.
+Groups pages into documents (like .eleventy.js) and analyzes each one.
+"""
+
+import os
+import json
+import re
+from pathlib import Path
+from typing import Dict, List, Optional
+from collections import defaultdict
+from openai import OpenAI
+from tqdm import tqdm
+from dotenv import load_dotenv
+
+
+class DocumentAnalyzer:
+    """Analyze grouped documents using LLM"""
+
+    def __init__(self, api_url: str, api_key: str, model: str = "gpt-4o"):
+        self.client = OpenAI(api_key=api_key, base_url=api_url)
+        self.model = model
+        self.results_dir = Path("./results")
+        self.analyses_file = Path("./analyses.json")
+
+    def normalize_doc_num(self, doc_num: Optional[str]) -> Optional[str]:
+        """Normalize document number to handle LLM variations"""
+        if not doc_num:
+            return None
+        return str(doc_num).lower().replace(r'[^a-z0-9-]', '-').replace(r'-+', '-').strip('-')
+
+    def load_and_group_documents(self) -> List[Dict]:
+        """Load all JSON files and group into documents (matching .eleventy.js logic)"""
+        pages = []
+
+        # Recursively read all JSON files
+        for json_file in self.results_dir.glob("**/*.json"):
+            try:
+                with open(json_file, 'r', encoding='utf-8') as f:
+                    content = json.load(f)
+
+                    relative_path = json_file.relative_to(self.results_dir)
+                    pages.append({
+                        'path': str(relative_path),
+                        'filename': json_file.stem,
+                        'folder': str(relative_path.parent) if relative_path.parent != Path('.') else 'root',
+                        **content
+                    })
+            except Exception as e:
+                print(f"Warning: Could not load {json_file}: {e}")
+
+        print(f"Loaded {len(pages)} pages")
+
+        # Group by normalized document number
+        document_map = defaultdict(list)
+
+        for page in pages:
+            doc_num = page.get('document_metadata', {}).get('document_number')
+
+            if not doc_num:
+                # Use filename as fallback
+                normalized = self.normalize_doc_num(page['filename']) or page['filename']
+            else:
+                normalized = self.normalize_doc_num(doc_num)
+
+            document_map[normalized].append(page)
+
+        # Helper to extract numeric page number
+        def get_page_num(page):
+            page_num = page.get('document_metadata', {}).get('page_number', 0) or 0
+            if isinstance(page_num, int):
+                return page_num
+            # Handle formats like "24 of 66" or "24/66"
+            if isinstance(page_num, str):
+                # Extract first number
+                match = re.search(r'(\d+)', page_num)
+                if match:
+                    return int(match.group(1))
+            return 0
+
+        # Convert to sorted documents
+        documents = []
+        for normalized_num, doc_pages in document_map.items():
+            # Sort pages by page number
+            doc_pages.sort(key=get_page_num)
+
+            # Get metadata
+            first_page = doc_pages[0]
+            raw_doc_nums = list(set(
+                p.get('document_metadata', {}).get('document_number')
+                for p in doc_pages
+                if p.get('document_metadata', {}).get('document_number')
+            ))
+
+            # Combine full text from all pages
+            full_text = '\n\n--- PAGE BREAK ---\n\n'.join(
+                p.get('full_text', '') for p in doc_pages
+            )
+
+            # Collect all entities
+            all_entities = {
+                'people': set(),
+                'organizations': set(),
+                'locations': set(),
+                'dates': set(),
+                'reference_numbers': set()
+            }
+
+            for page in doc_pages:
+                if 'entities' in page:
+                    for key in all_entities.keys():
+                        if key in page['entities']:
+                            all_entities[key].update(page['entities'][key])
+
+            documents.append({
+                'unique_id': normalized_num,
+                'document_number': raw_doc_nums[0] if len(raw_doc_nums) == 1 else normalized_num,
+                'page_count': len(doc_pages),
+                'full_text': full_text,
+                'document_metadata': first_page.get('document_metadata', {}),
+                'entities': {k: sorted(list(v)) for k, v in all_entities.items()}
+            })
+
+        print(f"Grouped into {len(documents)} documents")
+        return sorted(documents, key=lambda d: d['document_number'])
+
+    def get_analysis_prompt(self) -> str:
+        """Get the system prompt for document analysis"""
+        return """You are an expert legal document analyst specializing in court documents, depositions, and legal filings.
+
+Analyze the provided document and return a concise summary with key insights.
+
+Your analysis should include:
+1. **Document Type**: What kind of document is this? (deposition, court filing, letter, email, affidavit, etc.)
+2. **Key Topics**: What are the main subjects/topics discussed? (2-3 bullet points)
+3. **Key People**: Who are the most important people mentioned and their roles?
+4. **Significance**: Why is this document potentially important? What does it reveal or establish?
+5. **Summary**: A 2-3 sentence summary of the document's content
+
+Be factual, concise, and focus on what makes this document notable or significant.
+
+Return ONLY valid JSON in this format:
+{
+  "document_type": "string",
+  "key_topics": ["topic1", "topic2", "topic3"],
+  "key_people": [
+    {"name": "person name", "role": "their role or significance in this doc"}
+  ],
+  "significance": "Why this document matters (1-2 sentences)",
+  "summary": "Brief summary (2-3 sentences)"
+}"""
+
+    def analyze_document(self, document: Dict) -> Optional[Dict]:
+        """Analyze a single document using LLM"""
+        try:
+            # Limit text length for API (keep first ~8000 chars if too long)
+            full_text = document['full_text']
+            if len(full_text) > 8000:
+                full_text = full_text[:8000] + "\n\n[... document continues ...]"
+
+            response = self.client.chat.completions.create(
+                model=self.model,
+                messages=[
+                    {
+                        "role": "system",
+                        "content": self.get_analysis_prompt()
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "role": "user",
+                        "content": f"Analyze this document:\n\n{full_text}"
+                    }
+                ],
+                temperature=0.2,
+                max_tokens=1000
+            )
+
+            content = response.choices[0].message.content.strip()
+
+            # Extract JSON
+            json_match = re.search(r'```(?:json)?\s*\n(.*?)\n```', content, re.DOTALL)
+            if json_match:
+                content = json_match.group(1).strip()
+            else:
+                json_match = re.search(r'\{.*\}', content, re.DOTALL)
+                if json_match:
+                    content = json_match.group(0).strip()
+
+            analysis = json.loads(content)
+
+            return {
+                'document_id': document['unique_id'],
+                'document_number': document['document_number'],
+                'page_count': document['page_count'],
+                'analysis': analysis
+            }
+
+        except Exception as e:
+            print(f"Error analyzing document {document['document_number']}: {e}")
+            return None
+
+    def analyze_all(self, limit: Optional[int] = None) -> List[Dict]:
+        """Analyze all documents"""
+        print("=" * 60)
+        print("DOCUMENT ANALYSIS")
+        print("=" * 60)
+
+        # Load existing analyses to resume
+        existing_analyses = {}
+        if self.analyses_file.exists():
+            try:
+                with open(self.analyses_file, 'r', encoding='utf-8') as f:
+                    data = json.load(f)
+                    existing_analyses = {a['document_id']: a for a in data.get('analyses', [])}
+                print(f"Found {len(existing_analyses)} existing analyses")
+            except Exception as e:
+                print(f"Could not load existing analyses: {e}")
+
+        documents = self.load_and_group_documents()
+
+        if limit:
+            documents = documents[:limit]
+            print(f"Limited to {limit} documents for this run")
+
+        analyses = []
+        skipped = 0
+
+        for doc in tqdm(documents, desc="Analyzing documents"):
+            # Skip if already analyzed
+            if doc['unique_id'] in existing_analyses:
+                analyses.append(existing_analyses[doc['unique_id']])
+                skipped += 1
+                continue
+
+            analysis = self.analyze_document(doc)
+            if analysis:
+                analyses.append(analysis)
+                # Save incrementally
+                self.save_analyses(analyses)
+
+        print(f"\n✅ Analyzed {len(analyses) - skipped} new documents")
+        print(f"   Skipped {skipped} already-analyzed documents")
+        print(f"   Total analyses: {len(analyses)}")
+
+        return analyses
+
+    def save_analyses(self, analyses: List[Dict]):
+        """Save analyses to JSON file"""
+        output = {
+            'total': len(analyses),
+            'analyses': analyses
+        }
+
+        with open(self.analyses_file, 'w', encoding='utf-8') as f:
+            json.dump(output, f, indent=2, ensure_ascii=False)
+
+
+def main():
+    load_dotenv()
+
+    import argparse
+    parser = argparse.ArgumentParser(description="Analyze documents using LLM")
+    parser.add_argument("--api-url", help="OpenAI-compatible API base URL")
+    parser.add_argument("--api-key", help="API key")
+    parser.add_argument("--model", help="Model name")
+    parser.add_argument("--limit", type=int, help="Limit number of documents to analyze")
+    parser.add_argument("--force", action="store_true", help="Re-analyze all documents (ignore existing)")
+
+    args = parser.parse_args()
+
+    api_url = args.api_url or os.getenv("OPENAI_API_URL")
+    api_key = args.api_key or os.getenv("OPENAI_API_KEY")
+    model = args.model or os.getenv("OPENAI_MODEL", "gpt-4o")
+
+    analyzer = DocumentAnalyzer(api_url, api_key, model)
+
+    # Clear existing if force flag
+    if args.force and analyzer.analyses_file.exists():
+        analyzer.analyses_file.unlink()
+        print("Removed existing analyses (--force mode)")
+
+    analyses = analyzer.analyze_all(limit=args.limit)
+    analyzer.save_analyses(analyses)
+
+    print(f"\n✅ Saved analyses to {analyzer.analyses_file}")
+
+
+if __name__ == "__main__":
+    main()

cleanup_failed.py

@@ -0,0 +1,226 @@
+#!/usr/bin/env python3
+"""
+Cleanup script for failed OCR processing.
+Finds files marked as processed but with no valid JSON output, and optionally removes them from the index.
+"""
+
+import os
+import json
+from pathlib import Path
+import argparse
+from typing import Set, List, Dict
+
+
+class FailureCleanup:
+    """Clean up failed processing attempts"""
+
+    def __init__(self, index_file: str = "processing_index.json", downloads_dir: str = "./downloads", results_dir: str = "./results"):
+        self.index_file = Path(index_file)
+        self.downloads_dir = Path(downloads_dir)
+        self.results_dir = Path(results_dir)
+
+    def load_index(self) -> Dict:
+        """Load the processing index"""
+        if not self.index_file.exists():
+            print(f"❌ Index file not found: {self.index_file}")
+            return {"processed_files": [], "failed_files": []}
+
+        with open(self.index_file, 'r') as f:
+            return json.load(f)
+
+    def get_relative_path(self, file_path: Path) -> str:
+        """Get relative path from downloads directory"""
+        try:
+            return str(file_path.relative_to(self.downloads_dir))
+        except ValueError:
+            return str(file_path)
+
+    def check_json_exists(self, relative_path: str) -> bool:
+        """Check if JSON output exists for this file"""
+        # Convert image path to JSON path
+        json_path = self.results_dir / Path(relative_path).with_suffix('.json')
+        return json_path.exists()
+
+    def check_json_valid(self, relative_path: str) -> bool:
+        """Check if JSON output is valid"""
+        json_path = self.results_dir / Path(relative_path).with_suffix('.json')
+        if not json_path.exists():
+            return False
+
+        try:
+            with open(json_path, 'r') as f:
+                json.load(f)
+            return True
+        except Exception:
+            return False
+
+    def find_failures(self) -> Dict[str, List[str]]:
+        """Find all types of failures"""
+        index_data = self.load_index()
+        processed_files = set(index_data.get('processed_files', []))
+        explicit_failures = index_data.get('failed_files', [])
+
+        failures = {
+            'no_json': [],           # Marked processed but no JSON exists
+            'invalid_json': [],      # JSON exists but is invalid/corrupt
+            'explicit_failed': [],   # Listed in failed_files
+            'orphaned_json': []      # JSON exists but not in processed list (shouldn't happen)
+        }
+
+        print("🔍 Scanning for failures...\n")
+
+        # Check each processed file
+        for relative_path in processed_files:
+            if not self.check_json_exists(relative_path):
+                failures['no_json'].append(relative_path)
+            elif not self.check_json_valid(relative_path):
+                failures['invalid_json'].append(relative_path)
+
+        # Add explicit failures
+        for failure in explicit_failures:
+            filename = failure.get('filename') if isinstance(failure, dict) else failure
+            failures['explicit_failed'].append(filename)
+
+        # Find orphaned JSON files (exist but not marked as processed)
+        if self.results_dir.exists():
+            for json_file in self.results_dir.glob("**/*.json"):
+                relative_path = str(json_file.relative_to(self.results_dir).with_suffix(''))
+                # Add back the original extension (assuming .jpg, could be others)
+                for ext in ['.jpg', '.jpeg', '.png', '.gif', '.bmp', '.tiff', '.webp']:
+                    potential_path = relative_path + ext
+                    if potential_path in processed_files:
+                        break
+                else:
+                    # Not found with any extension
+                    failures['orphaned_json'].append(str(json_file.relative_to(self.results_dir)))
+
+        return failures
+
+    def show_report(self, failures: Dict[str, List[str]]):
+        """Display failure report"""
+        print("=" * 70)
+        print("FAILURE REPORT")
+        print("=" * 70)
+
+        total_failures = sum(len(v) for k, v in failures.items() if k != 'orphaned_json')
+
+        if failures['no_json']:
+            print(f"\n❌ NO JSON OUTPUT ({len(failures['no_json'])} files)")
+            print("   Files marked as processed but no JSON result exists:")
+            for f in failures['no_json'][:10]:
+                print(f"   - {f}")
+            if len(failures['no_json']) > 10:
+                print(f"   ... and {len(failures['no_json']) - 10} more")
+
+        if failures['invalid_json']:
+            print(f"\n⚠️  INVALID JSON ({len(failures['invalid_json'])} files)")
+            print("   JSON file exists but is corrupt/invalid:")
+            for f in failures['invalid_json'][:10]:
+                print(f"   - {f}")
+            if len(failures['invalid_json']) > 10:
+                print(f"   ... and {len(failures['invalid_json']) - 10} more")
+
+        if failures['explicit_failed']:
+            print(f"\n📋 EXPLICITLY FAILED ({len(failures['explicit_failed'])} files)")
+            print("   Listed in failed_files in the index:")
+            for f in failures['explicit_failed'][:10]:
+                print(f"   - {f}")
+            if len(failures['explicit_failed']) > 10:
+                print(f"   ... and {len(failures['explicit_failed']) - 10} more")
+
+        if failures['orphaned_json']:
+            print(f"\n👻 ORPHANED JSON ({len(failures['orphaned_json'])} files)")
+            print("   JSON files exist but not marked as processed (shouldn't happen):")
+            for f in failures['orphaned_json'][:10]:
+                print(f"   - {f}")
+            if len(failures['orphaned_json']) > 10:
+                print(f"   ... and {len(failures['orphaned_json']) - 10} more")
+
+        print("\n" + "=" * 70)
+        print(f"TOTAL FAILURES: {total_failures}")
+        print("=" * 70)
+
+    def cleanup(self, failures: Dict[str, List[str]], delete_invalid_json: bool = False):
+        """Remove failed files from processed list"""
+        index_data = self.load_index()
+        processed_files = set(index_data.get('processed_files', []))
+
+        files_to_remove = set()
+
+        # Files to remove from processed list (so they can be retried)
+        files_to_remove.update(failures['no_json'])
+        files_to_remove.update(failures['invalid_json'])
+        files_to_remove.update(failures['explicit_failed'])
+
+        # Remove from processed list
+        original_count = len(processed_files)
+        processed_files -= files_to_remove
+        removed_count = original_count - len(processed_files)
+
+        # Update index
+        index_data['processed_files'] = sorted(list(processed_files))
+        index_data['failed_files'] = []  # Clear failed files list
+
+        # Save updated index
+        with open(self.index_file, 'w') as f:
+            json.dump(index_data, f, indent=2)
+
+        print(f"\n✅ Removed {removed_count} files from processed list")
+        print(f"   These files will be retried on next run")
+
+        # Optionally delete invalid JSON files
+        if delete_invalid_json and failures['invalid_json']:
+            deleted = 0
+            for relative_path in failures['invalid_json']:
+                json_path = self.results_dir / Path(relative_path).with_suffix('.json')
+                if json_path.exists():
+                    json_path.unlink()
+                    deleted += 1
+            print(f"🗑️  Deleted {deleted} invalid JSON files")
+
+
+def main():
+    parser = argparse.ArgumentParser(description="Clean up failed OCR processing attempts")
+    parser.add_argument("--doit", action="store_true", help="Actually perform cleanup (default: dry run)")
+    parser.add_argument("--delete-invalid-json", action="store_true", help="Also delete invalid JSON files")
+    parser.add_argument("--index", default="processing_index.json", help="Index file path")
+    parser.add_argument("--downloads-dir", default="./downloads", help="Downloads directory")
+    parser.add_argument("--results-dir", default="./results", help="Results directory")
+
+    args = parser.parse_args()
+
+    cleanup = FailureCleanup(
+        index_file=args.index,
+        downloads_dir=args.downloads_dir,
+        results_dir=args.results_dir
+    )
+
+    # Find failures
+    failures = cleanup.find_failures()
+
+    # Show report
+    cleanup.show_report(failures)
+
+    # Check if there's anything to clean
+    total_failures = sum(len(v) for k, v in failures.items() if k != 'orphaned_json')
+    if total_failures == 0:
+        print("\n✨ No failures found - everything looks good!")
+        return
+
+    # Perform cleanup if requested
+    if args.doit:
+        print("\n🚨 PERFORMING CLEANUP...")
+        response = input("Are you sure? This will remove failed files from the processed list. (yes/no): ")
+        if response.lower() == 'yes':
+            cleanup.cleanup(failures, delete_invalid_json=args.delete_invalid_json)
+            print("\n✅ Cleanup complete!")
+        else:
+            print("❌ Cleanup cancelled")
+    else:
+        print("\n💡 This was a DRY RUN - no changes made")
+        print("   Run with --doit to actually remove failed files from the processed list")
+        print("   Add --delete-invalid-json to also delete corrupt JSON files")
+
+
+if __name__ == "__main__":
+    main()

deduplicate.py

@@ -0,0 +1,375 @@
+#!/usr/bin/env python3
+"""
+Entity deduplication script using LLM to identify and merge duplicate entities.
+Processes all JSON files from ./results/ and creates a dedupe.json mapping file.
+"""
+
+import os
+import json
+import re
+from pathlib import Path
+from typing import Dict, List, Set
+from collections import defaultdict
+from openai import OpenAI
+from tqdm import tqdm
+from dotenv import load_dotenv
+
+
+class EntityDeduplicator:
+    """Deduplicate entities using LLM assistance"""
+
+    def __init__(self, api_url: str, api_key: str, model: str = "gpt-4o"):
+        self.client = OpenAI(api_key=api_key, base_url=api_url)
+        self.model = model
+        self.results_dir = Path("./results")
+        self.dedupe_file = Path("./dedupe.json")
+
+    def load_all_entities(self) -> Dict[str, Set[str]]:
+        """Load all unique entities from all JSON files"""
+        entities = {
+            "people": set(),
+            "organizations": set(),
+            "locations": set()
+        }
+
+        json_files = list(self.results_dir.glob("**/*.json"))
+        print(f"Found {len(json_files)} JSON files to process")
+
+        for json_file in tqdm(json_files, desc="Loading entities"):
+            try:
+                with open(json_file, 'r', encoding='utf-8') as f:
+                    data = json.load(f)
+
+                    if "entities" in data:
+                        for entity_type in ["people", "organizations", "locations"]:
+                            if entity_type in data["entities"]:
+                                entities[entity_type].update(data["entities"][entity_type])
+            except Exception as e:
+                print(f"Warning: Could not load {json_file}: {e}")
+
+        return {k: sorted(list(v)) for k, v in entities.items()}
+
+    def get_deduplication_prompt(self, entity_type: str) -> str:
+        """Get the system prompt for deduplication"""
+
+        if entity_type == "people":
+            examples = """Examples:
+{
+  "Jeffrey Epstein": ["Jeffrey Epstein", "JEFFREY EPSTEIN", "Epstein", "EPSTEIN", "J. Epstein", "Jeffrey E. Epstein", "J Epstein", "Jeffery Epstein", "Mr. Epstein", "Jeffrey E.", "Epstein's"],
+  "Ghislaine Maxwell": ["Ghislaine Maxwell", "GHISLAINE MAXWELL", "Maxwell", "G. Maxwell", "Ghislane Maxwell", "Ghislain Maxwell", "Ms. Maxwell"],
+  "Bill Clinton": ["Bill Clinton", "BILL CLINTON", "Clinton", "William Clinton", "William J. Clinton", "President Clinton", "William Jefferson Clinton"],
+  "Prince Andrew": ["Prince Andrew", "PRINCE ANDREW", "Andrew", "Duke of York", "HRH Prince Andrew", "Prince Andrew, Duke of York"]
+}
+
+WRONG EXAMPLES (DO NOT DO THIS):
+{
+  "Mr. Epstein's brother": ["Jeffrey Epstein", "Epstein"] // WRONG - use actual name
+  "The President": ["Bill Clinton"] // WRONG - use actual name
+  "Plaintiff's attorney": ["John Smith"] // WRONG - use actual name
+}"""
+        elif entity_type == "organizations":
+            examples = """Examples:
+{
+  "Federal Bureau of Investigation": ["Federal Bureau of Investigation", "FBI", "F.B.I.", "FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION", "Federal Bureau Of Investigation"],
+  "United States District Court": ["United States District Court", "U.S. District Court", "USDC", "District Court"],
+  "Victoria's Secret": ["Victoria's Secret", "VICTORIA'S SECRET", "Victorias Secret", "Victoria Secret"]
+}"""
+        else:  # locations
+            examples = """Examples:
+{
+  "New York City": ["New York City", "NEW YORK CITY", "NYC", "New York", "New York, NY", "New York City, NY", "Manhattan"],
+  "Little Saint James": ["Little Saint James", "LITTLE SAINT JAMES", "Little St. James", "Little St James", "LSJ"],
+  "Palm Beach": ["Palm Beach", "PALM BEACH", "Palm Beach, Florida", "Palm Beach, FL"]
+}"""
+
+        return f"""You are an expert at identifying and merging duplicate entities in legal documents.
+
+Given a list of {entity_type}, identify which names refer to the same entity and group them under their canonical name.
+
+CRITICAL RULES FOR CANONICAL NAMES:
+
+**What makes a GOOD canonical name:**
+- Actual proper names (e.g., "Jeffrey Epstein", not "Mr. Epstein's brother")
+- Full first name + last name (e.g., "Jeffrey Epstein", not just "Epstein")
+- Include middle initial if commonly used (e.g., "William J. Clinton")
+- Use the most formal/complete version of the actual name
+
+**What is a BAD canonical name (NEVER USE THESE):**
+- Descriptive phrases (e.g., "Mr. Epstein's brother", "The defendant", "Plaintiff's attorney")
+- Titles alone (e.g., "The President", "The Judge")
+- Possessive forms (e.g., "Epstein's", "Maxwell's")
+- Roles or relationships (e.g., "co-conspirator", "witness", "victim")
+- Generic references (e.g., "he", "she", "defendant")
+
+**Deduplication Rules:**
+1. **Use Proper Names Only**: The canonical name MUST be an actual person's name
+2. **Case Insensitive**: "EPSTEIN", "Epstein", "epstein" are all the same
+3. **Prefer Full Names**: "Jeffrey Epstein" not "Epstein" or "J. Epstein"
+4. **Merge Variants**:
+   - Last name only → Full name (e.g., "Epstein" → "Jeffrey Epstein")
+   - Initials → Full name (e.g., "J. Epstein" → "Jeffrey Epstein")
+   - Titles with same person (e.g., "Mr. Epstein" → "Jeffrey Epstein")
+   - Honorifics (Dr., Mr., Ms., President, Judge, etc.) → actual name
+5. **OCR Errors**: Merge spelling variations (e.g., "Jeffery" = "Jeffrey")
+6. **Whitespace/Punctuation**: Ignore differences in spacing, periods, commas
+
+For PEOPLE specifically:
+- The canonical name should be First Name + Last Name (or First + Middle Initial + Last)
+- Merge all variants: full name, last name only, initials, titles, nicknames
+- NEVER use descriptive phrases like "Mr. X's brother" as canonical
+
+For ORGANIZATIONS:
+- Merge: Full name with abbreviations (FBI = Federal Bureau of Investigation)
+- Merge: Different legal forms (Inc., LLC, Corp., etc.)
+- Merge: With/without "The" prefix
+
+For LOCATIONS:
+- Merge: City abbreviations (NYC = New York City)
+- Merge: With/without state (Palm Beach = Palm Beach, FL)
+- Merge: Common neighborhood/borough names with city
+
+{examples}
+
+IMPORTANT:
+- Every entity must appear in exactly one group
+- The canonical name MUST be a proper name (First + Last), NOT a description
+- Use the most complete PROPER NAME as canonical (e.g., "Jeffrey Epstein" not "Mr. Epstein's brother")
+- When in doubt between a descriptive phrase and a name, ALWAYS choose the actual name
+- Merge aggressively - group all variants of the same person together
+- Include all variations in the variants array, including the canonical name itself
+
+VALIDATION:
+- Ask yourself: "Is this canonical name an actual person's name?" If no, find the actual name from the variants
+- Examples of GOOD canonical names: "Jeffrey Epstein", "Bill Clinton", "John Smith"
+- Examples of BAD canonical names: "Mr. Epstein's brother", "The defendant", "Plaintiff"
+
+Return ONLY valid JSON with NO extra text, markdown, or explanations."""
+
+    def deduplicate_entities(self, entities: List[str], entity_type: str, batch_size: int = 50) -> Dict[str, str]:
+        """Use LLM to deduplicate entities, processing in batches"""
+        if not entities:
+            return {}
+
+        print(f"\nDeduplicating {len(entities)} {entity_type}...")
+
+        # Process in batches
+        all_mappings = {}
+        batches = [entities[i:i + batch_size] for i in range(0, len(entities), batch_size)]
+
+        for batch_idx, batch in enumerate(tqdm(batches, desc=f"Processing {entity_type} batches")):
+            try:
+                response = self.client.chat.completions.create(
+                    model=self.model,
+                    messages=[
+                        {
+                            "role": "system",
+                            "content": self.get_deduplication_prompt(entity_type)
+                        },
+                        {
+                            "role": "user",
+                            "content": f"Identify duplicates in this list of {entity_type}:\n\n" + "\n".join(f"- {e}" for e in batch)
+                        }
+                    ],
+                    temperature=0.1,
+                    max_tokens=4096
+                )
+
+                content = response.choices[0].message.content.strip()
+
+                # Robust JSON extraction
+                # 1. Try to find JSON between markdown code fences
+                json_match = re.search(r'```(?:json)?\s*\n(.*?)\n```', content, re.DOTALL)
+                if json_match:
+                    content = json_match.group(1).strip()
+                else:
+                    # 2. Try to find JSON between curly braces
+                    json_match = re.search(r'\{.*\}', content, re.DOTALL)
+                    if json_match:
+                        content = json_match.group(0).strip()
+                    else:
+                        # 3. Strip markdown manually
+                        if content.startswith('```json'):
+                            content = content[7:]
+                        elif content.startswith('```'):
+                            content = content[3:]
+                        if content.endswith('```'):
+                            content = content[:-3]
+                        content = content.strip()
+
+                # Try to parse JSON
+                try:
+                    groups = json.loads(content)
+                except json.JSONDecodeError as e:
+                    print(f"\nJSON parsing error in batch {batch_idx}:")
+                    print(f"Error: {e}")
+                    print(f"Content preview: {content[:500]}")
+                    # Try to salvage by finding the first complete JSON object
+                    try:
+                        # Find first { and matching }
+                        start = content.find('{')
+                        if start == -1:
+                            raise ValueError("No JSON object found")
+
+                        brace_count = 0
+                        end = start
+                        for i in range(start, len(content)):
+                            if content[i] == '{':
+                                brace_count += 1
+                            elif content[i] == '}':
+                                brace_count -= 1
+                                if brace_count == 0:
+                                    end = i + 1
+                                    break
+
+                        if end > start:
+                            content = content[start:end]
+                            groups = json.loads(content)
+                            print(f"✓ Recovered JSON from malformed response")
+                        else:
+                            raise ValueError("Could not find complete JSON object")
+                    except Exception as salvage_error:
+                        print(f"Could not salvage JSON: {salvage_error}")
+                        raise e
+
+                # Validate and convert groups to individual mappings
+                for canonical, variants in groups.items():
+                    # Validate canonical name for people
+                    if entity_type == "people":
+                        # Check for bad canonical names
+                        bad_patterns = [
+                            r"'s\s+(brother|sister|friend|attorney|lawyer|associate)",
+                            r"^(the|a)\s+(defendant|plaintiff|witness|victim|judge|president)",
+                            r"^mr\.|^ms\.|^mrs\.|^dr\.\s*$",
+                            r"co-conspirator|witness\s+\d+|victim\s+\d+",
+                            r"'s$"  # ends with possessive
+                        ]
+
+                        canonical_lower = canonical.lower()
+                        for pattern in bad_patterns:
+                            if re.search(pattern, canonical_lower):
+                                # This is a bad canonical name - try to find a better one
+                                # Look for the longest actual name in the variants
+                                better_name = max(
+                                    (v for v in variants if len(v.split()) >= 2 and not re.search(pattern, v.lower())),
+                                    key=len,
+                                    default=canonical
+                                )
+                                if better_name != canonical:
+                                    print(f"  ⚠️  Fixed bad canonical: '{canonical}' → '{better_name}'")
+                                    canonical = better_name
+                                break
+
+                    for variant in variants:
+                        all_mappings[variant] = canonical
+
+            except Exception as e:
+                print(f"Warning: Error processing batch {batch_idx}: {e}")
+                # If batch fails, map each entity to itself
+                for entity in batch:
+                    if entity not in all_mappings:
+                        all_mappings[entity] = entity
+
+        return all_mappings
+
+    def merge_batches(self, mappings: Dict[str, str]) -> Dict[str, str]:
+        """Merge mappings from multiple batches to ensure consistency"""
+        # Group by canonical names
+        groups = defaultdict(set)
+        for variant, canonical in mappings.items():
+            groups[canonical].add(variant)
+
+        # Pick the most common canonical name for each group
+        final_mappings = {}
+        for canonical, variants in groups.items():
+            # Use the longest name as canonical (usually most complete)
+            true_canonical = max(variants, key=len)
+            for variant in variants:
+                final_mappings[variant] = true_canonical
+
+        return final_mappings
+
+    def process_all(self, batch_size: int = 50) -> Dict[str, Dict[str, str]]:
+        """Process all entity types"""
+        print("=" * 60)
+        print("ENTITY DEDUPLICATION")
+        print("=" * 60)
+
+        # Load all entities
+        all_entities = self.load_all_entities()
+
+        print(f"\nEntity counts:")
+        for entity_type, entity_list in all_entities.items():
+            print(f"  {entity_type}: {len(entity_list)}")
+
+        # Deduplicate each type
+        dedupe_mappings = {}
+        for entity_type in ["people", "organizations", "locations"]:
+            mappings = self.deduplicate_entities(
+                all_entities[entity_type],
+                entity_type,
+                batch_size=batch_size
+            )
+            dedupe_mappings[entity_type] = self.merge_batches(mappings)
+
+            # Show stats
+            unique_after = len(set(dedupe_mappings[entity_type].values()))
+            print(f"  {entity_type}: {len(all_entities[entity_type])} → {unique_after} unique entities")
+
+        return dedupe_mappings
+
+    def save_dedupe_file(self, mappings: Dict[str, Dict[str, str]]):
+        """Save deduplication mappings to JSON file"""
+        with open(self.dedupe_file, 'w', encoding='utf-8') as f:
+            json.dump(mappings, f, indent=2, ensure_ascii=False)
+
+        print(f"\n✅ Deduplication mappings saved to {self.dedupe_file}")
+
+    def load_existing_dedupe(self) -> Dict[str, Dict[str, str]]:
+        """Load existing dedupe file if it exists"""
+        if self.dedupe_file.exists():
+            with open(self.dedupe_file, 'r', encoding='utf-8') as f:
+                return json.load(f)
+        return {"people": {}, "organizations": {}, "locations": {}}
+
+
+def main():
+    load_dotenv()
+
+    import argparse
+    parser = argparse.ArgumentParser(description="Deduplicate entities using LLM")
+    parser.add_argument("--api-url", help="OpenAI-compatible API base URL")
+    parser.add_argument("--api-key", help="API key")
+    parser.add_argument("--model", help="Model name")
+    parser.add_argument("--batch-size", type=int, default=50, help="Entities per batch (default: 50)")
+    parser.add_argument("--show-stats", action="store_true", help="Show current deduplication stats and exit")
+
+    args = parser.parse_args()
+
+    api_url = args.api_url or os.getenv("OPENAI_API_URL")
+    api_key = args.api_key or os.getenv("OPENAI_API_KEY")
+    model = args.model or os.getenv("OPENAI_MODEL", "gpt-4o")
+
+    deduplicator = EntityDeduplicator(api_url, api_key, model)
+
+    if args.show_stats:
+        # Just show stats
+        existing = deduplicator.load_existing_dedupe()
+        all_entities = deduplicator.load_all_entities()
+
+        print("\nCurrent deduplication status:")
+        for entity_type in ["people", "organizations", "locations"]:
+            raw_count = len(all_entities[entity_type])
+            if existing.get(entity_type):
+                unique_count = len(set(existing[entity_type].values()))
+                print(f"  {entity_type}: {raw_count} raw → {unique_count} unique")
+            else:
+                print(f"  {entity_type}: {raw_count} (not deduplicated)")
+        return
+
+    # Process and save
+    mappings = deduplicator.process_all(batch_size=args.batch_size)
+    deduplicator.save_dedupe_file(mappings)
+
+
+if __name__ == "__main__":
+    main()

process_images.py

@@ -6,6 +6,7 @@ Processes images from Downloads folder and extracts structured data.
 
 import os
 import json
+import re
 import base64
 from pathlib import Path
 from typing import Dict, List, Optional
@@ -48,13 +49,17 @@ class ImageProcessor:
                 return set()
         return set()
 
-    def save_index(self):
+    def save_index(self, failed_files=None):
         """Save the current index of processed files"""
+        data = {
+            'processed_files': sorted(list(self.processed_files)),
+            'last_updated': str(Path.cwd())
+        }
+        if failed_files:
+            data['failed_files'] = failed_files
+
         with open(self.index_file, 'w') as f:
-            json.dump({
-                'processed_files': sorted(list(self.processed_files)),
-                'last_updated': str(Path.cwd())
-            }, f, indent=2)
+            json.dump(data, f, indent=2)
 
     def mark_processed(self, filename: str):
         """Mark a file as processed and update index"""
@@ -169,17 +174,58 @@ Return ONLY valid JSON in this exact structure:
             # Parse response
             content = response.choices[0].message.content
 
-            # Parse JSON from content (strip markdown if present)
-            content = content.strip()
-            if content.startswith('```json'):
-                content = content[7:]
-            if content.startswith('```'):
-                content = content[3:]
-            if content.endswith('```'):
-                content = content[:-3]
+            # Robust JSON extraction
             content = content.strip()
 
-            extracted_data = json.loads(content)
+            # 1. Try to find JSON between markdown code fences
+            json_match = re.search(r'```(?:json)?\s*\n(.*?)\n```', content, re.DOTALL)
+            if json_match:
+                content = json_match.group(1).strip()
+            else:
+                # 2. Try to find JSON between curly braces
+                json_match = re.search(r'\{.*\}', content, re.DOTALL)
+                if json_match:
+                    content = json_match.group(0).strip()
+                else:
+                    # 3. Strip markdown manually
+                    if content.startswith('```json'):
+                        content = content[7:]
+                    elif content.startswith('```'):
+                        content = content[3:]
+                    if content.endswith('```'):
+                        content = content[:-3]
+                    content = content.strip()
+
+            # Try to parse JSON
+            try:
+                extracted_data = json.loads(content)
+            except json.JSONDecodeError as e:
+                # Try to salvage by finding the first complete JSON object
+                try:
+                    # Find first { and matching }
+                    start = content.find('{')
+                    if start == -1:
+                        raise ValueError("No JSON object found")
+
+                    brace_count = 0
+                    end = start
+                    for i in range(start, len(content)):
+                        if content[i] == '{':
+                            brace_count += 1
+                        elif content[i] == '}':
+                            brace_count -= 1
+                            if brace_count == 0:
+                                end = i + 1
+                                break
+
+                    if end > start:
+                        content = content[start:end]
+                        extracted_data = json.loads(content)
+                    else:
+                        raise ValueError("Could not find complete JSON object")
+                except Exception:
+                    # If we can't salvage it, raise the original error
+                    raise e
 
             return ProcessingResult(
                 filename=self.get_relative_path(image_path),
@@ -216,6 +262,8 @@ Return ONLY valid JSON in this exact structure:
             return []
 
         results = []
+        failed_files = []
+
         with concurrent.futures.ThreadPoolExecutor(max_workers=max_workers) as executor:
             futures = {executor.submit(self.process_image, img): img for img in image_files}
 
@@ -227,16 +275,24 @@ Return ONLY valid JSON in this exact structure:
                     # Save individual result to file
                     if result.success:
                         self.save_individual_result(result)
+                        tqdm.write(f"✅ Processed: {result.filename}")
+                    else:
+                        # Track failed files
+                        failed_files.append({
+                            'filename': result.filename,
+                            'error': result.error
+                        })
+                        tqdm.write(f"❌ Failed: {result.filename} - {result.error}")
 
                     # Mark as processed regardless of success/failure
                     self.mark_processed(result.filename)
 
                     pbar.update(1)
 
-                    if not result.success:
-                        tqdm.write(f"❌ Failed: {result.filename} - {result.error}")
-                    else:
-                        tqdm.write(f"✅ Processed: {result.filename}")
+        # Save failed files to index for reference
+        if failed_files:
+            self.save_index(failed_files=failed_files)
+            print(f"\n⚠️  {len(failed_files)} files failed - logged in {self.index_file}")
 
         return results
 

processing_index.json

@@ -7116,6 +7116,7 @@
     "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007340.jpg",
     "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007341.jpg",
     "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007342.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007343.jpg",
     "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007344.jpg",
     "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007345.jpg",
     "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007346.jpg",
@@ -7123,7 +7124,2772 @@
     "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007348.jpg",
     "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007349.jpg",
     "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007350.jpg",
-    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007351.jpg"
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007351.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007352.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007353.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007354.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007355.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007356.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007357.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007358.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007359.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007360.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007361.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007362.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007363.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007364.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007365.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007366.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007367.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007368.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007369.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007370.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007371.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007372.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007373.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007374.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007375.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007376.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007377.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007378.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007379.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007380.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007381.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007382.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007383.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007384.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007385.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007386.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007387.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007388.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007389.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007390.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007391.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007392.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007393.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007394.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007395.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007396.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007397.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007398.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007399.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007400.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007401.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007402.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007403.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007404.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007405.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007406.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007407.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007408.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007409.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007410.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007411.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007412.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007413.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007414.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007415.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007416.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007417.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007418.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007419.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007420.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007421.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007422.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007423.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007424.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007425.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007426.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007427.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007428.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007429.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007430.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007431.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007432.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007433.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007434.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007435.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007436.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007437.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007438.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007439.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007440.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007441.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007442.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007443.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007444.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007445.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007446.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007447.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007448.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007449.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007450.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007451.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007452.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007453.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007454.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007455.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007456.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007457.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007458.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007459.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007460.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007461.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007462.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007463.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007464.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007465.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007466.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007467.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007468.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007469.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007470.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007471.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007472.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007473.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007474.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007475.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007476.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007477.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007478.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007479.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007480.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007481.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007482.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007483.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007484.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007485.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007486.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007487.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007488.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007489.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007490.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007491.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007492.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007493.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007494.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007495.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007496.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007497.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007498.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007499.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007500.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007501.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007502.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007503.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007504.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007505.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007506.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007507.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007508.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007509.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007510.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007511.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007512.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007513.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007514.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007515.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007516.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007517.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007518.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007519.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007520.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007521.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007522.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007523.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007524.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007525.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007526.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007527.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007528.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007529.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007530.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007531.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007532.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007533.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007534.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007535.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007536.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007537.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007538.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007539.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007540.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007541.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007542.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007543.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007544.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007545.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007546.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007547.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007548.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007549.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007550.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007551.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007552.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007553.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007554.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007555.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007556.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007557.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007558.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007559.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007560.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007561.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007562.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007563.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007564.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007565.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007566.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007567.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007568.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007569.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007570.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007571.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007572.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007573.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007574.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007575.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007576.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007577.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007578.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007579.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007580.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007581.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007582.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007583.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007584.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007585.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007586.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007587.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007588.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007589.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007590.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007591.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007592.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007593.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007594.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007595.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007596.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007597.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007598.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007599.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007600.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007601.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007602.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007603.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007604.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007605.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007606.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007607.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007608.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007609.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007610.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007611.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007612.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007613.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007614.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007615.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007616.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007617.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007618.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007619.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007620.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007621.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007622.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007623.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007624.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007625.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007626.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007627.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007628.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007629.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007630.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007631.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007632.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007633.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007634.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007635.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007636.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007637.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007638.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007639.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007640.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007641.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007642.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007643.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007644.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007645.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007646.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007647.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007648.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007649.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007650.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007651.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007652.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007653.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007654.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007655.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007656.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007657.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007658.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007659.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007660.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007661.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007662.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007663.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007664.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007665.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007666.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007667.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007668.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007669.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007670.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007671.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007672.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007673.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007674.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007675.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007676.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007677.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007678.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007679.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007680.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007681.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007682.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007683.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007684.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007685.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007686.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007687.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007688.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007689.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007690.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007691.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007692.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007693.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007694.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007695.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007696.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007697.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007698.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007699.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007700.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007701.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007702.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007703.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007704.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007705.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007706.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007707.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007708.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007709.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007710.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007711.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007712.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007713.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007714.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007715.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007716.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007717.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007718.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007719.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007720.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007721.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007722.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007723.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007724.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007725.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007726.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007727.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007728.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007729.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007730.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007731.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007732.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007733.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007734.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007735.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007736.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007737.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007738.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007739.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007740.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007741.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007742.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007743.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007744.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007745.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007746.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007747.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007748.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007749.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007750.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007751.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007752.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007753.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007754.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007755.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007756.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007757.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007758.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007759.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007760.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007761.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007762.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007763.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007764.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007765.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007766.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007767.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007768.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007769.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007770.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007771.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007772.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007773.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007774.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007775.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007776.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007777.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007778.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007779.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007780.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007781.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007782.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007783.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007784.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007785.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007786.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007787.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007788.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007789.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007790.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007791.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007792.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007793.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007794.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007795.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007796.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007797.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007798.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007799.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007800.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007801.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007802.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007803.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007804.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007805.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007806.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007807.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007808.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007809.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007810.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007811.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007812.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007813.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007814.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007815.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007816.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007817.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007818.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007819.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007820.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007821.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007822.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007823.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007824.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007825.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007826.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007827.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007828.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007829.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007830.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007831.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007832.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007833.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007834.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007835.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007836.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007837.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007838.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007839.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007840.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007841.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007842.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007843.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007844.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007845.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007846.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007847.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007848.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007849.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007850.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007851.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007852.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007853.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007854.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007855.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007856.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007857.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007858.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007859.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007860.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007861.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007862.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007863.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007864.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007865.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007866.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007867.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007868.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007869.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007870.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007871.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007872.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007873.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007874.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007875.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007876.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007877.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007878.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007879.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007880.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007881.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007882.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007883.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007884.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007885.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007886.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007887.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007888.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007889.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007890.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007891.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007892.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007893.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007894.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007895.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007896.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007897.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007898.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007899.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007900.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007901.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007902.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007903.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007904.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007905.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007906.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007907.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007908.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007909.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007910.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007911.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007912.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007913.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007914.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007915.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007916.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007917.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007918.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007919.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007920.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007921.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007922.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007923.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007924.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007925.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007926.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007927.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007928.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007929.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007930.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007931.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007932.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007933.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007934.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007935.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007936.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007937.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007938.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007939.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007940.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007941.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007942.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007943.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007944.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007945.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007946.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007947.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007948.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007949.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007950.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007951.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007952.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007953.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007954.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007955.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007956.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007957.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007958.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007959.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007960.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007961.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007962.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007963.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007964.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007965.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007966.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007967.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007968.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007969.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007970.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007971.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007972.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007973.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007974.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007975.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007976.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007977.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007978.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007979.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007980.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007981.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007982.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007983.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007984.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007985.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007986.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007987.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007988.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007989.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007990.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007991.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007992.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007993.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007994.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007995.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007996.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007997.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007998.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007999.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008000.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008001.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008002.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008003.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008004.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008005.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008006.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008007.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008008.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008009.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008010.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008011.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008012.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008013.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008014.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008015.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008016.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008017.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008018.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008019.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008020.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008021.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008022.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008023.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008024.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008025.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008026.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008027.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008028.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008029.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008030.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008031.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008032.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008033.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008034.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008035.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008036.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008037.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008038.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008039.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008040.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008041.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008042.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008043.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008044.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008045.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008046.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008047.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008048.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008049.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008050.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008051.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008052.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008053.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008054.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008055.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008056.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008057.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008058.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008059.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008060.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008061.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008062.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008063.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008064.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008065.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008066.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008067.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008068.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008069.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008070.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008071.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008072.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008073.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008074.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008075.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008076.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008077.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008078.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008079.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008080.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008081.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008082.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008083.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008084.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008085.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008086.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008087.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008088.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008089.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008090.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008091.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008092.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008093.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008094.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008095.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008096.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008097.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008098.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008099.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008100.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008101.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008102.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008103.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008104.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008105.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008106.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008107.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008108.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008109.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008110.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008111.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008112.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008113.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008114.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008115.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008116.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008117.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008118.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008119.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008120.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008121.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008122.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008123.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008124.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008125.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008126.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008127.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008128.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008129.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008130.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008131.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008132.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008133.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008134.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008135.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008136.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008137.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008138.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008139.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008140.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008141.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008142.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008143.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008144.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008145.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008146.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008147.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008148.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008149.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008150.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008151.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008152.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008153.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008154.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008155.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008156.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008157.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008158.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008159.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008160.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008161.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008162.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008163.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008164.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008165.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008166.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008167.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008168.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008169.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008170.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008171.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008172.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008173.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008174.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008175.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008176.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008177.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008178.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008179.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008180.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008181.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008182.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008183.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008184.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008185.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008186.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008187.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008188.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008189.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008190.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008191.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008192.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008193.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008194.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008195.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008196.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008197.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008198.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008199.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008200.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008201.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008202.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008203.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008204.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008205.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008206.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008207.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008208.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008209.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008210.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008211.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008212.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008213.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008214.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008215.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008216.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008217.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008218.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008219.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008220.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008221.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008222.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008223.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008224.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008225.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008226.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008227.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008228.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008229.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008230.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008231.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008232.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008233.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008234.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008235.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008236.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008237.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008238.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008239.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008240.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008241.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008242.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008243.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008244.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008245.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008246.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008247.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008248.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008249.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008250.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008251.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008252.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008253.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008254.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008255.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008256.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008257.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008258.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008259.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008260.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008261.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008262.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008263.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008264.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008265.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008266.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008267.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008268.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008269.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008270.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008271.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008272.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008273.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008274.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008275.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008276.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008277.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008278.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008279.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008280.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008281.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008282.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008283.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008284.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008285.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008286.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008287.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008288.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008289.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008290.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008291.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008292.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008293.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008294.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008295.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008296.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008297.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008298.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008299.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008300.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008301.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008302.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008303.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008304.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008305.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008306.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008307.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008308.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008309.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008310.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008311.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008312.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008313.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008314.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008315.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008316.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008317.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008318.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008319.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008320.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008321.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008322.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008323.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008324.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008325.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008326.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008327.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008328.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008329.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008330.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008331.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008332.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008333.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008334.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008335.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008336.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008337.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008338.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008339.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008340.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008341.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008342.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008343.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008344.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008345.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008346.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008347.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008348.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008349.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008350.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008351.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008352.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008353.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008354.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008355.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008356.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008357.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008358.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008359.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008360.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008361.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008362.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008363.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008364.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008365.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008366.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008367.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008368.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008369.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008370.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008371.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008372.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008373.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008374.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008375.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008376.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008377.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008378.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008379.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008380.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008381.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008382.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008383.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008384.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008385.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008386.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008387.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008388.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008389.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008390.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008391.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008392.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008393.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008394.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008395.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008396.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008397.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008398.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008399.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008400.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008401.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008402.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008403.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008404.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008405.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008406.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008407.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008408.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008409.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008410.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008411.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008412.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008413.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008414.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008415.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008416.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008417.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008418.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008419.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008420.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008421.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008422.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008423.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008424.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008425.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008426.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008427.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008428.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008429.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008430.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008431.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008432.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008433.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008434.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008435.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008436.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008437.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008438.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008439.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008440.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008441.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008442.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008443.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008444.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008445.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008446.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008447.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008448.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008449.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008450.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008451.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008452.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008453.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008454.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008455.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008456.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008457.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008458.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008459.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008460.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008461.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008462.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008463.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008464.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008465.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008466.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008467.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008468.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008469.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008470.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008471.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008472.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008473.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008474.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008475.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008476.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008477.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008478.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008479.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008480.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008481.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008482.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008483.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008484.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008485.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008486.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008487.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008488.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008489.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008490.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008491.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008492.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008493.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008494.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008495.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008496.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008497.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008498.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008499.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008500.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008501.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008502.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008503.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008504.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008505.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008506.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008507.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008508.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008509.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008510.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008511.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008512.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008513.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008514.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008515.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008516.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008517.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008518.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008519.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008520.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008521.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008522.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008523.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008524.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008525.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008526.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008527.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008528.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008529.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008530.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008531.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008532.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008533.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008534.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008535.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008536.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008537.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008538.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008539.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008540.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008541.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008542.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008543.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008544.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008545.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008546.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008547.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008548.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008549.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008550.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008551.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008552.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008553.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008554.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008555.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008556.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008557.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008558.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008559.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008560.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008561.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008562.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008563.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008564.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008565.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008566.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008567.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008568.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008569.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008570.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008571.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008572.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008573.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008574.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008575.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008576.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008577.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008578.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008579.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008580.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008581.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008582.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008583.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008584.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008585.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008586.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008587.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008588.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008589.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008590.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008591.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008592.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008593.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008594.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008595.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008596.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008597.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008598.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008599.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008600.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008601.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008602.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008603.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008604.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008605.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008606.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008607.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008608.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008609.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008610.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008611.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008612.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008613.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008614.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008615.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008616.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008617.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008618.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008619.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008620.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008621.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008622.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008623.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008624.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008625.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008626.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008627.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008628.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008629.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008630.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008631.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008632.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008633.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008634.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008635.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008636.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008637.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008638.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008639.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008640.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008641.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008642.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008643.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008644.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008645.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008646.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008647.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008648.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008649.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008650.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008651.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008652.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008653.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008654.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008655.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008656.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008657.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008658.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008659.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008660.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008661.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008662.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008663.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008664.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008665.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008666.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008667.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008668.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008669.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008670.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008671.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008672.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008673.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008674.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008675.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008676.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008677.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008678.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008679.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008680.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008681.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008682.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008683.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008684.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008685.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008686.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008687.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008688.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008689.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008690.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008691.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008692.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008693.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008694.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008695.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008696.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008697.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008698.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008699.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008700.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008701.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008702.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008703.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008704.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008705.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008706.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008707.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008708.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008709.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008710.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008711.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008712.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008713.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008714.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008715.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008716.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008717.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008718.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008719.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008720.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008721.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008722.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008723.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008724.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008725.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008726.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008727.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008728.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008729.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008730.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008731.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008732.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008733.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008734.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008735.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008736.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008737.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008738.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008739.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008740.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008741.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008742.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008743.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008744.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008745.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008746.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008747.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008748.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008749.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008750.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008751.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008752.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008753.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008754.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008755.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008756.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008757.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008758.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008759.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008760.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008761.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008762.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008763.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008764.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008765.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008766.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008767.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008768.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008769.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008770.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008771.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008772.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008773.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008774.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008775.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008776.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008777.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008778.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008779.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008780.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008781.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008782.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008783.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008784.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008785.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008786.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008787.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008788.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008789.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008790.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008791.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008792.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008793.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008794.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008795.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008796.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008797.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008798.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008799.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008800.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008801.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008802.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008803.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008804.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008805.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008806.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008807.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008808.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008809.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008810.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008811.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008812.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008813.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008814.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008815.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008816.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008817.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008818.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008819.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008820.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008821.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008822.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008823.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008824.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008825.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008826.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008827.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008828.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008829.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008830.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008831.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008832.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008833.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008834.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008835.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008836.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008837.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008838.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008839.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008840.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008841.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008843.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008844.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008845.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008846.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008847.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008848.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008849.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008850.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008851.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008852.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008853.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008854.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008855.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008856.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008857.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008858.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008859.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008860.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008861.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008862.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008863.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008864.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008865.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008866.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008867.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008868.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008869.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008870.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008871.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008872.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008873.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008874.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008875.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008876.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008877.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008878.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008879.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008880.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008881.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008882.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008883.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008884.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008885.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008886.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008887.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008888.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008889.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008890.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008891.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008892.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008893.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008894.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008895.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008896.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008897.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008898.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008899.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008900.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008901.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008902.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008903.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008904.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008905.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008906.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008907.jpg",
+    "IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008908.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008909.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008910.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008911.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008912.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008913.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008914.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008915.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008916.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008917.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008918.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008919.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008920.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008921.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008922.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008923.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008924.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008925.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008926.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008927.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008928.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008929.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008930.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008931.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008932.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008933.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008934.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008935.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008936.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008937.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008938.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008939.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008940.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008941.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008942.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008943.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008944.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008945.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008946.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008947.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008948.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008949.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008950.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008951.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008952.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008953.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008954.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008955.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008956.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008957.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008958.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008959.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008960.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008961.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008962.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008963.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008964.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008965.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008966.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008967.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008968.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008969.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008970.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008971.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008972.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008973.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008974.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008975.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008976.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008977.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008978.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008979.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008980.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008981.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008982.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008983.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008984.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008985.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008986.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008987.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008988.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008989.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008990.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008991.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008992.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008993.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008994.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008995.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008996.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008997.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008998.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008999.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009000.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009001.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009002.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009003.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009004.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009005.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009006.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009007.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009008.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009009.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009010.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009011.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009012.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009013.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009014.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009015.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009016.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009017.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009018.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009019.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009020.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009021.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009022.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009023.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009024.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009025.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009026.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009027.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009028.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009029.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009030.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009031.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009032.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009033.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009034.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009035.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009036.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009037.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009038.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009039.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009040.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009041.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009042.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009043.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009044.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009045.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009046.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009047.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009048.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009049.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009050.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009051.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009052.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009053.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009054.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009055.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009056.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009057.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009058.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009059.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009060.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009061.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009062.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009063.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009064.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009065.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009066.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009067.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009068.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009069.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009070.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009071.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009072.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009073.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009074.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009075.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009076.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009077.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009078.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009079.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009080.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009081.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009082.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009083.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009084.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009085.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009086.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009087.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009088.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009089.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009090.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009091.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009092.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009093.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009094.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009095.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009096.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009097.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009098.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009099.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009100.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009101.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009102.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009103.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009104.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009105.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009106.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009107.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009108.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009109.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009110.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009111.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009112.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009113.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009114.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009115.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009116.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009117.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009118.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009119.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009120.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009121.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009122.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009123.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009124.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009125.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009126.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009127.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009128.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009129.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009130.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009131.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009132.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009133.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009134.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009135.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009136.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009137.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009138.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009139.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009140.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009141.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009142.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009143.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009144.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009145.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009146.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009147.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009148.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009149.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009150.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009151.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009152.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009153.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009154.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009155.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009156.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009157.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009158.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009159.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009160.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009161.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009162.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009163.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009164.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009165.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009166.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009167.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009168.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009169.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009170.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009171.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009172.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009173.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009174.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009175.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009176.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009177.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009178.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009179.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009180.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009181.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009182.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009183.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009184.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009185.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009186.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009187.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009188.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009189.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009190.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009191.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009192.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009193.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009194.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009195.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009196.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009197.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009198.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009199.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009200.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009201.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009202.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009203.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009204.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009205.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009206.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009207.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009208.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009209.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009210.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009211.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009212.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009213.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009214.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009215.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009216.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009217.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009218.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009219.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009220.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009221.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009222.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009223.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009224.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009225.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009226.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009227.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009228.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009229.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009230.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009231.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009232.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009233.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009234.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009235.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009236.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009237.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009238.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009239.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009240.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009241.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009242.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009243.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009244.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009245.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009246.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009247.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009248.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009249.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009250.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009251.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009252.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009253.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009254.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009255.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009256.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009257.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009258.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009259.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009260.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009261.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009262.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009263.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009264.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009265.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009266.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009267.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009268.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009269.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009270.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009271.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009272.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009273.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009274.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009275.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009276.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009277.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009278.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009279.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009280.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009281.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009282.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009283.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009284.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009285.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009286.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009287.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009288.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009289.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009290.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009291.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009292.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009293.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009294.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009295.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009296.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009297.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009298.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009299.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009300.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009301.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009302.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009303.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009304.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009305.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009306.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009307.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009308.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009309.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009310.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009311.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009312.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009313.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009314.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009315.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009316.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009317.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009318.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009319.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009320.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009321.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009322.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009323.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009324.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009325.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009326.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009327.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009328.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009329.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009330.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009331.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009332.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009333.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009334.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009335.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009336.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009337.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009338.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009339.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009340.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009341.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009342.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009343.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009344.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009345.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009346.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009347.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009348.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009349.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009350.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009351.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009352.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009353.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009354.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009355.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009356.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009357.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009358.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009359.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009360.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009361.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009362.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009363.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009364.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009365.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009366.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009367.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009368.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009369.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009370.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009371.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009372.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009373.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009374.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009375.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009376.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009377.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009378.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009379.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009380.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009381.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009382.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009383.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009384.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009385.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009386.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009387.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009388.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009389.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009390.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009391.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009392.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009393.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009394.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009395.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009396.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009397.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009398.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009399.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009400.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009401.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009402.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009403.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009404.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009405.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009406.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009407.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009408.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009409.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009410.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009411.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009412.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009413.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009414.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009415.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009416.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009417.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009418.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009419.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009420.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009421.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009422.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009423.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009424.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009425.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009426.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009427.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009428.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009429.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009430.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009431.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009432.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009433.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009434.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009435.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009436.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009437.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009438.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009439.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009440.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009441.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009442.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009443.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009444.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009445.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009446.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009447.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009448.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009449.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009450.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009451.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009452.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009453.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009454.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009455.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009456.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009457.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009458.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009459.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009460.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009461.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009462.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009463.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009464.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009465.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009466.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009467.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009468.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009469.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009470.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009471.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009472.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009473.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009474.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009475.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009476.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009477.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009478.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009479.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009480.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009481.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009482.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009483.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009484.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009485.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009486.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009487.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009488.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009489.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009490.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009491.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009492.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009493.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009494.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009495.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009496.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009497.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009498.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009499.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009500.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009501.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009502.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009503.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009504.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009505.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009506.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009507.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009508.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009509.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009510.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009511.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009512.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009513.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009514.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009515.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009516.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009517.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009518.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009519.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009520.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009521.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009522.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009523.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009524.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009525.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009526.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009527.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009528.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009529.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009530.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009531.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009532.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009533.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009534.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009535.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009536.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009537.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009538.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009539.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009540.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009541.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009542.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009543.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009544.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009545.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009546.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009547.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009548.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009549.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009550.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009551.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009552.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009553.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009554.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009555.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009556.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009557.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009558.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009559.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009560.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009561.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009562.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009563.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009564.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009565.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009566.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009567.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009568.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009569.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009570.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009571.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009572.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009573.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009574.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009575.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009576.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009577.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009578.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009579.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009580.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009581.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009582.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009583.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009584.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009585.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009586.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009587.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009588.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009589.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009590.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009591.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009592.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009593.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009594.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009595.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009596.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009597.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009598.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009599.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009600.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009601.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009602.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009603.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009604.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009605.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009606.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009607.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009608.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009609.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009610.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009611.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009612.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009613.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009614.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009615.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009616.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009617.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009618.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009619.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009620.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009621.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009622.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009623.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009624.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009625.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009626.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009627.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009628.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009629.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009630.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009631.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009632.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009633.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009634.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009635.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009636.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009637.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009638.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009639.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009640.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009641.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009642.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009643.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009644.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009645.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009646.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009647.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009648.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009649.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009650.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009651.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009652.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009653.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009654.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009655.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009656.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009657.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009658.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009659.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009660.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009661.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009662.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009663.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009664.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009665.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009666.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009667.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009668.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009669.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009670.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009671.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009672.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009673.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009674.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009675.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009676.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009677.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009678.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009679.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009680.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009681.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009682.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009683.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009684.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009685.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009686.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009687.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009688.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009689.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009690.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009691.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009692.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009693.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009694.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009695.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009696.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009697.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009698.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009699.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009700.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009701.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009702.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009703.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009704.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009705.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009706.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009707.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009708.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009709.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009710.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009711.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009712.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009713.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009714.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009715.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009716.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009717.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009718.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009719.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009720.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009721.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009722.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009723.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009724.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009725.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009726.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009727.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009728.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009729.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009730.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009731.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009732.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009733.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009734.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009735.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009736.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009737.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009738.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009739.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009740.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009741.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009742.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009743.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009744.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009745.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009746.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009747.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009748.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009749.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009750.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009751.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009752.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009753.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009754.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009755.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009756.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009757.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009758.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009759.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009760.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009761.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009762.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009763.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009764.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009765.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009766.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009767.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009768.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009769.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009770.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009771.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009772.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009773.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009774.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009775.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009776.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009777.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009778.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009779.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009780.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009781.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009782.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009783.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009784.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009785.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009786.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009787.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009788.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009789.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009790.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009791.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009792.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009793.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009794.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009795.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009796.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009797.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009798.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009799.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009800.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009801.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009802.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009803.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009804.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009805.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009806.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009807.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009808.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009809.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009810.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009811.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009812.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009813.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009814.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009815.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009816.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009817.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009818.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009819.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009820.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009821.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009822.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009823.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009824.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009825.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009826.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009827.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009828.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009829.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009830.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009831.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009832.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009833.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009834.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009835.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009836.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009837.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009838.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009839.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009840.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009841.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009842.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009843.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009844.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009845.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009846.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009847.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009848.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009849.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009850.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009851.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009852.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009853.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009854.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009855.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009856.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009857.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009858.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009859.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009860.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009861.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009862.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009863.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009864.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009865.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009866.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009867.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009868.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009869.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009870.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009871.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009872.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009873.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009874.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009875.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009876.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009877.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009878.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009879.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009880.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009881.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009882.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009883.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009884.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009885.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009886.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009887.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009888.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009889.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009890.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009891.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009892.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009893.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009894.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009895.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009896.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009897.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009898.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009899.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009900.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009901.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009902.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009903.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009904.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009905.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009906.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009907.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009908.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009909.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009910.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009911.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009912.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009913.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009914.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009915.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009916.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009917.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009918.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009919.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009920.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009921.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009922.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009923.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009924.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009925.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009926.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009927.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009928.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009929.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009930.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009931.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009932.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009933.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009934.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009935.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009936.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009937.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009938.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009939.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009940.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009941.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009942.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009943.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009944.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009945.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009946.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009947.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009948.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009949.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009950.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009951.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009952.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009953.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009954.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009955.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009956.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009957.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009958.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009959.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009960.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009961.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009962.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009963.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009964.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009965.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009966.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009967.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009968.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009969.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009970.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009971.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009972.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009973.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009974.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009975.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009976.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009977.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009978.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009979.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009980.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009981.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009982.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009983.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009984.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009985.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009986.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009987.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009988.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009989.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009990.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009991.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009992.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009993.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009994.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009995.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009996.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009997.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009998.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009999.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010000.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010001.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010002.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010003.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010004.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010005.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010006.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010007.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010008.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010009.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010010.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010011.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010012.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010013.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010014.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010015.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010016.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010017.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010018.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010019.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010020.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010021.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010022.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010023.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010024.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010025.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010026.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010027.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010028.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010029.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010030.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010031.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010032.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010033.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010034.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010035.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010036.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010037.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010038.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010039.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010040.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010041.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010042.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010043.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010044.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010045.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010046.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010047.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010048.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010049.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010050.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010051.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010052.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010053.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010054.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010055.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010056.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010057.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010058.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010059.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010060.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010061.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010062.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010063.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010064.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010065.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010066.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010067.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010068.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010069.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010070.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010071.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010072.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010073.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010074.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010075.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010076.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010077.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010078.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010079.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010080.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010081.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010082.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010083.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010084.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010085.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010086.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010087.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010088.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010089.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010090.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010091.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010092.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010093.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010094.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010095.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010096.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010097.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010098.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010099.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010100.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010101.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010102.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010103.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010104.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010105.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010106.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010107.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010108.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010109.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010110.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010111.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010112.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010113.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010114.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010115.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010116.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010117.jpg"
   ],
   "last_updated": "/Users/nickp/code/files"
 }

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008987.json

@@ -0,0 +1,61 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "8",
+    "document_number": "609",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 609 Filed 02/24/22 Page 8 of 13\n\nF3d 76, 79 (2d Cir 1998) (Citing United States v. King, No. 94 Cr. 455, 1998 WL 50221 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 5, 1998)).\n\nMoreover, conclusion of the trial on which the subject juror served does not remove a jurors' interest in privacy and protection from harassment. See United States v. Gurney, 558 F.2d 1202, 1210-12 (5th Cir.1977).\n\n2. Jurors may face criminal exposure for answers given on jury questionnaires\n\nTo complete the jury questionnaire, jurors must swear to truthfully answer the same under penalty of perjury; jurors are also placed under oath prior to answering questions in voir dire. See e.g., United States v Parse, 789 F3d 83, 88 (2d Cir 2015). A juror who knowingly submits false answers on the jury questionnaire and/or during voir dire testimony may expose himself or herself to arrest and prosecution, while jurors also maintain a fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. Id., at 91.\n\n3. Intervention in criminal trials may be granted to protect the rights of third parties\n\nIt is indisputable that precedent supports interventions by interested third parties in criminal matters, as such have been repeatedly granted in \"circumstances where 'a third party's constitutional or other federal rights are implicated by the resolution of a particular motion, request, or other issue during the course of a criminal case.'\" United States v. Collyard, case no. 12cr0058, 2013 WL 1346202 at *2 (D. Minn. April 3, 2013) (quoting United States v. Carmichael, 342 F. Supp. 2d 1070, 1072 (M.D. Ala. 2004)). For example, courts have allowed the press to intervene in criminal cases to assert the First Amendment rights of the Press. See In re Associated Press, 162 F.3d 503, 506- 507 (7th Cir. 1998). Courts have also allowed\n8\nDOJ-OGR-00008987",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 609 Filed 02/24/22 Page 8 of 13",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "F3d 76, 79 (2d Cir 1998) (Citing United States v. King, No. 94 Cr. 455, 1998 WL 50221 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 5, 1998)).\n\nMoreover, conclusion of the trial on which the subject juror served does not remove a jurors' interest in privacy and protection from harassment. See United States v. Gurney, 558 F.2d 1202, 1210-12 (5th Cir.1977).\n\n2. Jurors may face criminal exposure for answers given on jury questionnaires\n\nTo complete the jury questionnaire, jurors must swear to truthfully answer the same under penalty of perjury; jurors are also placed under oath prior to answering questions in voir dire. See e.g., United States v Parse, 789 F3d 83, 88 (2d Cir 2015). A juror who knowingly submits false answers on the jury questionnaire and/or during voir dire testimony may expose himself or herself to arrest and prosecution, while jurors also maintain a fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. Id., at 91.\n\n3. Intervention in criminal trials may be granted to protect the rights of third parties\n\nIt is indisputable that precedent supports interventions by interested third parties in criminal matters, as such have been repeatedly granted in \"circumstances where 'a third party's constitutional or other federal rights are implicated by the resolution of a particular motion, request, or other issue during the course of a criminal case.'\" United States v. Collyard, case no. 12cr0058, 2013 WL 1346202 at *2 (D. Minn. April 3, 2013) (quoting United States v. Carmichael, 342 F. Supp. 2d 1070, 1072 (M.D. Ala. 2004)). For example, courts have allowed the press to intervene in criminal cases to assert the First Amendment rights of the Press. See In re Associated Press, 162 F.3d 503, 506- 507 (7th Cir. 1998). Courts have also allowed",
+      "position": "main content"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "8",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00008987",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Associated Press"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "S.D.N.Y.",
+      "Minn.",
+      "Ala."
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22",
+      "Feb. 5, 1998",
+      "April 3, 2013",
+      "1998",
+      "1977",
+      "2015",
+      "2004"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "609",
+      "94 Cr. 455",
+      "12cr0058",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00008987"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage to the document."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008988.json

@@ -0,0 +1,72 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "9",
+    "document_number": "609",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 609 Filed 02/24/22 Page 9 of 13\n\nintervention in criminal cases by third parties who are seeking to prevent the wide dissemination of confidential or privileged information. United States v. RMI Co., 599 F.2d 1183 (3d Cir. 1979); United States v. Crawford, 735 F.2d 174 (5th Cir. 1984); United States v. Martoma, 962 F. Supp. 2d 602, 605-06 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). “A third-party’s reasonable assertion of privilege with respect to documents to be produced in a criminal action is sufficient grounds on which to grant the third-party’s motion to intervene and to consider the merits of that party’s application.” Martoma, 962 F. Supp. 2d at 605-06.\n\nB. Juror 50's Jury Questionnaire should be released to Counsel, but otherwise remain under seal, to provide Juror 50 with a full and fair opportunity to present his position to this Court\n\n1. A copy of the Jury Questionnaire is necessary to comply with Judge Nathan’s January 5th order\n\nIt is necessary for Juror 50 to review his answers to the Jury Questionnaire and the transcript of his voir dire testimony, before he is able to comply with Judge Nathan’s order and address the “appropriateness of an inquiry”, into his conduct and his truthfulness of his responses on the Jury Questionnaire. See Order at 1. Jan. 5, 2022. 20-CR-330. It should go without saying that Juror 50 needs to know whether or not the question(s) related to prior sexual abuse were answered by him correctly on his Jury Questionnaire to help determine what an appropriate inquiry would entail, so that the same would also Juror 50’s privacy rights and legitimate interests related to these matters.\n\n9\nDOJ-OGR-00008988",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 609 Filed 02/24/22 Page 9 of 13",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "intervention in criminal cases by third parties who are seeking to prevent the wide dissemination of confidential or privileged information. United States v. RMI Co., 599 F.2d 1183 (3d Cir. 1979); United States v. Crawford, 735 F.2d 174 (5th Cir. 1984); United States v. Martoma, 962 F. Supp. 2d 602, 605-06 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). “A third-party’s reasonable assertion of privilege with respect to documents to be produced in a criminal action is sufficient grounds on which to grant the third-party’s motion to intervene and to consider the merits of that party’s application.” Martoma, 962 F. Supp. 2d at 605-06.",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "B. Juror 50's Jury Questionnaire should be released to Counsel, but otherwise remain under seal, to provide Juror 50 with a full and fair opportunity to present his position to this Court",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "1. A copy of the Jury Questionnaire is necessary to comply with Judge Nathan’s January 5th order",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "It is necessary for Juror 50 to review his answers to the Jury Questionnaire and the transcript of his voir dire testimony, before he is able to comply with Judge Nathan’s order and address the “appropriateness of an inquiry”, into his conduct and his truthfulness of his responses on the Jury Questionnaire. See Order at 1. Jan. 5, 2022. 20-CR-330. It should go without saying that Juror 50 needs to know whether or not the question(s) related to prior sexual abuse were answered by him correctly on his Jury Questionnaire to help determine what an appropriate inquiry would entail, so that the same would also Juror 50’s privacy rights and legitimate interests related to these matters.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "9",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00008988",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Juror 50",
+      "Judge Nathan"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "United States"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "S.D.N.Y."
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22",
+      "January 5, 2022",
+      "Jan. 5, 2022"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 609",
+      "20-CR-330",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00008988"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 9 of 13."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008991.json

@@ -0,0 +1,69 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "12",
+    "document_number": "609",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 609 Filed 02/24/22 Page 12 of 13\nDated: New York, New York January 10, 2022\nRespectfully Submitted,\n/S/\nTodd Spodek, Esq.\nSpodek Law Group P.C.\n85 Broad Street, 17th Floor\nNew York, NY 10004\nTel: (212) 300-5196\nFax: (212) 300-6371\nts@spodeklawgroup.com\nAttorney for Proposed Intervenor\n12\nDOJ-OGR-00008991",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 609 Filed 02/24/22 Page 12 of 13",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Dated: New York, New York January 10, 2022",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Respectfully Submitted,",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "signature",
+      "content": "/S/",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Todd Spodek, Esq.\nSpodek Law Group P.C.\n85 Broad Street, 17th Floor\nNew York, NY 10004\nTel: (212) 300-5196\nFax: (212) 300-6371\nts@spodeklawgroup.com\nAttorney for Proposed Intervenor",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "12",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00008991",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Todd Spodek"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Spodek Law Group P.C."
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "New York"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "January 10, 2022",
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "609",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00008991"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a signature block and contact information for the attorney."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008992.json

@@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "13",
+    "document_number": "609",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "Certificate of Service",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 609 Filed 02/24/22 Page 13 of 13 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on this 10th day of January, 2022, I caused a copy of the foregoing to be electronically served upon all parties receiving CM/ECF notices in this case. /S/ Todd A. Spodek, Esq. COUNSEL FOR PROPOSED INTERVENOR 13 DOJ-OGR-00008992",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 609 Filed 02/24/22 Page 13 of 13",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "I certify that on this 10th day of January, 2022, I caused a copy of the foregoing to be electronically served upon all parties receiving CM/ECF notices in this case.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "signature",
+      "content": "/S/",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Todd A. Spodek, Esq. COUNSEL FOR PROPOSED INTERVENOR",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "13",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00008992",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Todd A. Spodek"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "January 10, 2022",
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "609",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00008992"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a standard Certificate of Service form used in legal proceedings, with no visible redactions or damage."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008993.json

@@ -0,0 +1,92 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "1 of 3",
+    "document_number": "610",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "Court Order",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": true
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 610 Filed 02/24/22 Page 1 of 3\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\nUnited States of America,\n-v-\nGhislain Maxwell,\nDefendant.\nALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:\nOn January 19, 2022, the Defendant filed a motion for a new trial pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 on the basis that Juror 50 \"falsely answered a material question during voir dire and . . . that, had he answered truthfully, he would have been subject to a challenge for cause.\" Maxwell Br., Jan. 19, 2022, at 48. The Defendant contends that the current paper record sufficiently supports her motion and should be granted without a hearing.\nIn the alternative, she requests that a hearing be conducted. Id. She also argues that if a hearing is ordered, a broader hearing is required based on a news article that suggests a second juror was allegedly a victim of sexual abuse. Id. at 48-49.\nIn an Opinion & Order filed under temporary seal, the Court DENIES the Defendant's motion for a new trial on the current record. As explained in the temporarily sealed Opinion & Order, Defendant's motion on the current record relies extensively on statements made by Juror 50 regarding what occurred during jury deliberations that the Court is prohibited from considering under Federal Rule of Evidence 606. With regard to Juror 50's statements that do not pertain to jury deliberations, in order to resolve the motion on this record, the Court would have to accept unsworn statements made to media outlets as true and reach factual determinations that are not available on the current record.\n1\nDOJ-OGR-00008993",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 610 Filed 02/24/22 Page 1 of 3",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "United States of America,\n-v-\nGhislain Maxwell,\nDefendant.",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "stamp",
+      "content": "USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: _____ DATE FILED: 2/24/22",
+      "position": "margin"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "20-CR-330 (AJN)\nORDER",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "On January 19, 2022, the Defendant filed a motion for a new trial pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 on the basis that Juror 50 \"falsely answered a material question during voir dire and . . . that, had he answered truthfully, he would have been subject to a challenge for cause.\" Maxwell Br., Jan. 19, 2022, at 48. The Defendant contends that the current paper record sufficiently supports her motion and should be granted without a hearing.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "In the alternative, she requests that a hearing be conducted. Id. She also argues that if a hearing is ordered, a broader hearing is required based on a news article that suggests a second juror was allegedly a victim of sexual abuse. Id. at 48-49.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "In an Opinion & Order filed under temporary seal, the Court DENIES the Defendant's motion for a new trial on the current record. As explained in the temporarily sealed Opinion & Order, Defendant's motion on the current record relies extensively on statements made by Juror 50 regarding what occurred during jury deliberations that the Court is prohibited from considering under Federal Rule of Evidence 606. With regard to Juror 50's statements that do not pertain to jury deliberations, in order to resolve the motion on this record, the Court would have to accept unsworn statements made to media outlets as true and reach factual determinations that are not available on the current record.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "1",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00008993",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Ghislain Maxwell",
+      "Alison J. Nathan",
+      "Juror 50"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "United States District Court",
+      "United States of America"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "New York"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "January 19, 2022",
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 610",
+      "20-CR-330 (AJN)"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court order from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. It is a printed document with a stamp indicating electronic filing. The content is a legal ruling on a motion for a new trial."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008995.json

@@ -0,0 +1,89 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "3",
+    "document_number": "610",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "Court Order",
+    "has_handwriting": true,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 610 Filed 02/24/22 Page 3 of 3\n\nCourt will conduct the questioning at the public hearing with input from counsel for the Defendant and the Government. The parties may submit by email proposed questions in accordance with the Opinion & Order on or before March 1, 2022.\n\nThe hearing will take place on March 8, 2022, at 10:00 a.m. The Court ORDERS Juror 50 to appear in Courtroom 906 of the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Centre Street, New York, New York at that date and time to give testimony under oath in response to the Court's questions. The Court will ensure public access and will provide information on public access as soon as it is available.\n\nThe Court will send the temporarily sealed Opinion & Order to the parties. By noon on February 25, 2022, the parties are ORDERED to inform the Court whether either seeks limited redactions to the Opinion & Order, conforming any requests to this Court's prior order, Dkt. No. 596, and justifying any such request by reference to the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006).\n\nSO ORDERED.\n\nDated: February 24, 2022\nNew York, New York\n\nALISON J. NATHAN\nUnited States District Judge\n\n3\nDOJ-OGR-00008995",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 610 Filed 02/24/22 Page 3 of 3",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Court will conduct the questioning at the public hearing with input from counsel for the Defendant and the Government. The parties may submit by email proposed questions in accordance with the Opinion & Order on or before March 1, 2022.",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The hearing will take place on March 8, 2022, at 10:00 a.m. The Court ORDERS Juror 50 to appear in Courtroom 906 of the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Centre Street, New York, New York at that date and time to give testimony under oath in response to the Court's questions. The Court will ensure public access and will provide information on public access as soon as it is available.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Court will send the temporarily sealed Opinion & Order to the parties. By noon on February 25, 2022, the parties are ORDERED to inform the Court whether either seeks limited redactions to the Opinion & Order, conforming any requests to this Court's prior order, Dkt. No. 596, and justifying any such request by reference to the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006).",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "SO ORDERED.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Dated: February 24, 2022\nNew York, New York",
+      "position": "bottom"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "Alison J. Nathan",
+      "position": "signature"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "ALISON J. NATHAN\nUnited States District Judge",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "3",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00008995",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Alison J. Nathan"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "United States District Court",
+      "Second Circuit"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "New York"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "March 1, 2022",
+      "March 8, 2022",
+      "February 25, 2022",
+      "February 24, 2022"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 610",
+      "Dkt. No. 596",
+      "435 F.3d 110",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00008995"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document is a court order with a signature from Judge Alison J. Nathan. It appears to be a formal legal document with specific instructions and dates related to a court case."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008996.json

@@ -0,0 +1,104 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "1",
+    "document_number": "611",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "Letter",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": true
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 611 Filed 02/24/22 Page 1 of 1 U.S Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of New York The Silvio J. Mollo Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, New York 10007 February 24, 2022 BY ECF The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) Dear Judge Nathan: The Government respectfully submits this letter in response to the Court's February 24, 2022 Order (Dkt. No. 610), which directed the parties to inform the Court whether either seeks limited redactions to the Court's February 24, 2022 Opinion and Order filed under temporary seal. The Government does not seek any redactions to the Court's February 24, 2022 Opinion and Order filed under temporary seal. Respectfully submitted, DAMIAN WILLIAMS United States Attorney By: s/ Maurene Comey Alison Moe Lara Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York Cc: Defense Counsel (By ECF) DOJ-OGR-00008996",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 611 Filed 02/24/22 Page 1 of 1",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "U.S Department of Justice",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "United States Attorney Southern District of New York",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Silvio J. Mollo Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, New York 10007",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "February 24, 2022",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "BY ECF",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Dear Judge Nathan: The Government respectfully submits this letter in response to the Court's February 24, 2022 Order (Dkt. No. 610), which directed the parties to inform the Court whether either seeks limited redactions to the Court's February 24, 2022 Opinion and Order filed under temporary seal. The Government does not seek any redactions to the Court's February 24, 2022 Opinion and Order filed under temporary seal.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Respectfully submitted, DAMIAN WILLIAMS United States Attorney By: s/ Maurene Comey Alison Moe Lara Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Cc: Defense Counsel (By ECF)",
+      "position": "bottom"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "stamp",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00008996",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Alison J. Nathan",
+      "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+      "Damian Williams",
+      "Maurene Comey",
+      "Alison Moe",
+      "Lara Pomerantz",
+      "Andrew Rohrbach"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "U.S Department of Justice",
+      "United States Attorney",
+      "United States District Court",
+      "Southern District of New York"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "New York"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "February 24, 2022"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "611",
+      "20 Cr. 330 (AJN)",
+      "610",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00008996"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document is a letter from the United States Attorney's Office to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The letter is dated February 24, 2022, and is signed by Damian Williams, United States Attorney, and several Assistant United States Attorneys. The document is stamped with a DOJ reference number."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008997.json

@@ -0,0 +1,77 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "1",
+    "document_number": "612",
+    "date": "January 13, 2022",
+    "document_type": "Letter",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 612 Filed 02/24/22 Page 1 of 5\nHaddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C\nJeffrey S. Pagliuca\n150 East 10th Avenue\nDenver, Colorado 80203\nPH 303.831.7364\nFX 303.832.2628\nwww.hmflaw.com\njpagliuca@hmflaw.com\nJanuary 13, 2022\nVIA EMAIL\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nUnited States District Court\nSouthern District of New York\n40 Foley Square\nNew York, NY 10007\nRe: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)\nDear Judge Nathan,\nMs. Maxwell requests that the \"Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Intervene and for Release of Sealed Jury Questionnaire and Transcript, on Behalf of Proposed Intervenor, Juror 50\" and its companion Motion remain under seal, at least until a resolution of Ms. Maxwell's forthcoming motion for new trial based on this Juror's failure to answer truthfully during jury selection. Juror 50's Motion and accompanying Memorandum are an attempt to obtain discovery by a non-party to this criminal case, made by someone who lacks standing to participate in this prosecution. Accordingly, these pleadings are not \"judicial documents\" and are afforded no presumption of public access.\nJuror 50 first seeks to intervene suggesting that \"it is indisputable that precedent supports intervention by interested third parties in criminal matters....\" Memo. at 8.\nAu contraire, \"the long line of precedent hold[s] that a non-party lacks a judicially cognizable interest in a defendant's prosecution.\" United States v. Stoerr, 695 F.3d 271, 278 (3d Cir. 2012). Juror 50 is not a party here and there is no legal basis for Juror 50 to intervene in this\nDOJ-OGR-00008997",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 612 Filed 02/24/22 Page 1 of 5",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C\nJeffrey S. Pagliuca\n150 East 10th Avenue\nDenver, Colorado 80203\nPH 303.831.7364\nFX 303.832.2628\nwww.hmflaw.com\njpagliuca@hmflaw.com",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "January 13, 2022\nVIA EMAIL\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nUnited States District Court\nSouthern District of New York\n40 Foley Square\nNew York, NY 10007\nRe: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)\nDear Judge Nathan,",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Ms. Maxwell requests that the \"Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Intervene and for Release of Sealed Jury Questionnaire and Transcript, on Behalf of Proposed Intervenor, Juror 50\" and its companion Motion remain under seal, at least until a resolution of Ms. Maxwell's forthcoming motion for new trial based on this Juror's failure to answer truthfully during jury selection. Juror 50's Motion and accompanying Memorandum are an attempt to obtain discovery by a non-party to this criminal case, made by someone who lacks standing to participate in this prosecution. Accordingly, these pleadings are not \"judicial documents\" and are afforded no presumption of public access.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Juror 50 first seeks to intervene suggesting that \"it is indisputable that precedent supports intervention by interested third parties in criminal matters....\" Memo. at 8.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Au contraire, \"the long line of precedent hold[s] that a non-party lacks a judicially cognizable interest in a defendant's prosecution.\" United States v. Stoerr, 695 F.3d 271, 278 (3d Cir. 2012). Juror 50 is not a party here and there is no legal basis for Juror 50 to intervene in this",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00008997",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca",
+      "Alison J. Nathan",
+      "Ghislaine Maxwell"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C",
+      "United States District Court",
+      "Southern District of New York"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "Denver",
+      "Colorado",
+      "New York"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "January 13, 2022",
+      "02/24/22",
+      "2012"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 612",
+      "20 Cr. 330 (AJN)",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00008997"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a formal letter from a law firm to a judge, discussing a legal case involving Ghislaine Maxwell. The letter is typed and contains legal terminology and references to specific court documents."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008999.json

@@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "3",
+    "document_number": "612",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 612 Filed 02/24/22 Page 3 of 5\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nJanuary 13, 2022\nPage 3\n\nThe fact that Juror 50 filed these pleadings does not make them \"judicial documents.\"\nUnited States v. Amodeo (\"Amodeo I\"), 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995) (\"We think that the mere filing of a paper or document with the court is insufficient to render that paper a judicial document subject to the right of public access. We think that the item filed must be relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process in order for it to be designated a judicial document.\") Moreover, Ms. Maxwell anticipates moving to strike the pleadings and, if stricken, the documents enjoy no presumption of public access. Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 51-52 (2d Cir. 2019) ([under Civil Rule 12], \"the district court may strike such material from the filings on the grounds that it is 'redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous.' Because such rejected or stricken material is not 'relevant to the performance of the judicial function' it would not be considered a 'judicial document' and would enjoy no presumption of public access.\")\n\nThe Second Circuit established a framework in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) for courts to utilize in determining when the public has a right of access to particular documents. The Court of Appeals held that \"[b]efore any such common law right can attach, however, a court must first conclude that the documents at issue are indeed 'judicial documents.'\" Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 119. \"Once the court has determined that the documents are judicial documents and that therefore a common law presumption of access attaches, it must determine the weight of that presumption.\" Id. \"Finally, after determining the weight of the presumption of access, the court must 'balance competing considerations against it.'\" Id. at 120.\n\nDOJ-OGR-00008999",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 612 Filed 02/24/22 Page 3 of 5",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nJanuary 13, 2022\nPage 3",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The fact that Juror 50 filed these pleadings does not make them \"judicial documents.\"\nUnited States v. Amodeo (\"Amodeo I\"), 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995) (\"We think that the mere filing of a paper or document with the court is insufficient to render that paper a judicial document subject to the right of public access. We think that the item filed must be relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process in order for it to be designated a judicial document.\") Moreover, Ms. Maxwell anticipates moving to strike the pleadings and, if stricken, the documents enjoy no presumption of public access. Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 51-52 (2d Cir. 2019) ([under Civil Rule 12], \"the district court may strike such material from the filings on the grounds that it is 'redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous.' Because such rejected or stricken material is not 'relevant to the performance of the judicial function' it would not be considered a 'judicial document' and would enjoy no presumption of public access.\")",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Second Circuit established a framework in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) for courts to utilize in determining when the public has a right of access to particular documents. The Court of Appeals held that \"[b]efore any such common law right can attach, however, a court must first conclude that the documents at issue are indeed 'judicial documents.'\" Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 119. \"Once the court has determined that the documents are judicial documents and that therefore a common law presumption of access attaches, it must determine the weight of that presumption.\" Id. \"Finally, after determining the weight of the presumption of access, the court must 'balance competing considerations against it.'\" Id. at 120.",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00008999",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Alison J. Nathan",
+      "Juror 50",
+      "Ms. Maxwell"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Second Circuit",
+      "Court of Appeals",
+      "DOJ"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "January 13, 2022",
+      "02/24/22",
+      "1995",
+      "2019",
+      "2006"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 612",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00008999"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a case involving Juror 50 and Ms. Maxwell. The text discusses the concept of 'judicial documents' and the right of public access to court documents. The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009000.json

@@ -0,0 +1,69 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "4",
+    "document_number": "612",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 612 Filed 02/24/22 Page 4 of 5\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nJanuary 13, 2022\nPage 4\nThere exists no compelling reason to release Juror 50's pleadings. Any public release of the documents will set off another round of publicity, speculation, and commentary, all of which is prejudicial to the truth finding process and Ms. Maxwell's rights to fair and impartial proceedings.\nThe pleadings filed by Juror 50 have questionable merit, have not been ruled upon, and implicate an ongoing investigation by the parties and the court into juror misconduct. Certainly, at least at this stage of the proceedings, the pleadings are not \"judicial documents\" and until the issues around Juror 50's motion for intervention and discovery have been resolved they should remain sealed. If the Court believes Juror 50's pleadings merit judicial document status the seal should remain. The pleadings would be afforded the lowest presumption of public access and compelling reasons to maintain the sealed status exist.\nJuror 50 has demonstrated a lack of reliability and an appetite for publicity. Should the documents be released the sotto voce comments regarding Juror 50's intent, state of mind, and actions will be fodder for the media and may influence the memories of other potential witnesses, including notably the other jurors. Documents regularly remain sealed where public release would \"compromise\" the interest in the integrity and security of [an] investigation,\" In re Sealed Search Warrants Issued June 4 & 5, 2008, No. 08-M-208 (DRH), 2008 WL 5667021, at *5 (N.D.N.Y. July 14, 2008).\nDOJ-OGR-00009000",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 612 Filed 02/24/22 Page 4 of 5",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nJanuary 13, 2022\nPage 4",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "There exists no compelling reason to release Juror 50's pleadings. Any public release of the documents will set off another round of publicity, speculation, and commentary, all of which is prejudicial to the truth finding process and Ms. Maxwell's rights to fair and impartial proceedings.",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The pleadings filed by Juror 50 have questionable merit, have not been ruled upon, and implicate an ongoing investigation by the parties and the court into juror misconduct. Certainly, at least at this stage of the proceedings, the pleadings are not \"judicial documents\" and until the issues around Juror 50's motion for intervention and discovery have been resolved they should remain sealed. If the Court believes Juror 50's pleadings merit judicial document status the seal should remain. The pleadings would be afforded the lowest presumption of public access and compelling reasons to maintain the sealed status exist.",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Juror 50 has demonstrated a lack of reliability and an appetite for publicity. Should the documents be released the sotto voce comments regarding Juror 50's intent, state of mind, and actions will be fodder for the media and may influence the memories of other potential witnesses, including notably the other jurors. Documents regularly remain sealed where public release would \"compromise\" the interest in the integrity and security of [an] investigation,\" In re Sealed Search Warrants Issued June 4 & 5, 2008, No. 08-M-208 (DRH), 2008 WL 5667021, at *5 (N.D.N.Y. July 14, 2008).",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009000",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Alison J. Nathan",
+      "Juror 50",
+      "Ms. Maxwell"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "DOJ"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "N.D.N.Y."
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "January 13, 2022",
+      "02/24/22",
+      "June 4, 2008",
+      "June 5, 2008",
+      "July 14, 2008"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 612",
+      "No. 08-M-208 (DRH)"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of United States v. Maxwell. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 4 of a 5-page document."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009001.json

@@ -0,0 +1,77 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "5",
+    "document_number": "612",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 612 Filed 02/24/22 Page 5 of 5\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nJanuary 13, 2022\nPage 5\ns/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca\nJeffrey S. Pagliuca\nLaura A. Menninger\nHADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C.\n150 East 10th Avenue\nDenver, CO 80203\nPhone: 303-831-7364\nChristian R. Everdell\nCOHEN & GRESSER LLP\n800 Third Avenue\nNew York, NY 10022\nPhone: 212-957-7600\nBobbi C. Sternheim\nLaw Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim\n225 Broadway, Suite 715\nNew York, NY 10007\nPhone: 212-243-1100\nAttorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell\ncc: Counsel of record (via Email)\nDOJ-OGR-00009001",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 612 Filed 02/24/22 Page 5 of 5",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nJanuary 13, 2022\nPage 5",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "signature",
+      "content": "s/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca\nLaura A. Menninger\nHADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C.\n150 East 10th Avenue\nDenver, CO 80203\nPhone: 303-831-7364\nChristian R. Everdell\nCOHEN & GRESSER LLP\n800 Third Avenue\nNew York, NY 10022\nPhone: 212-957-7600\nBobbi C. Sternheim\nLaw Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim\n225 Broadway, Suite 715\nNew York, NY 10007\nPhone: 212-243-1100",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "cc: Counsel of record (via Email)",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009001",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Alison J. Nathan",
+      "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca",
+      "Laura A. Menninger",
+      "Christian R. Everdell",
+      "Bobbi C. Sternheim",
+      "Ghislaine Maxwell"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C.",
+      "COHEN & GRESSER LLP",
+      "Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "Denver, CO",
+      "New York, NY"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "January 13, 2022",
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 612",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009001"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009002.json

@@ -0,0 +1,74 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "1",
+    "document_number": "613",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "Court Document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 1 of 66\n\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n-------------------------------------------------------------X\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n\nv.\n\nGHISLAINE MAXWELL,\nDefendant.\n-------------------------------------------------------------X\n\nGHISLAINE MAXWELL'S MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL\n\nJeffrey S. Pagliuca\nLaura A. Menninger\nHADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C.\n150 East 10th Avenue\nDenver, CO 80203\nPhone: 303-831-7364\n\nChristian R. Everdell\nCOHEN & GRESSER LLP\n800 Third Avenue\nNew York, NY 10022\nPhone: 212-957-7600\n\nBobbi C. Sternheim\nLaw Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim\n225 Broadway, Suite 715\nNew York, NY 10007\nPhone: 212-243-1100\n\nAttorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell\n\nDOJ-OGR-00009002",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 1 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n-------------------------------------------------------------X\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n\nv.\n\nGHISLAINE MAXWELL,\nDefendant.\n-------------------------------------------------------------X",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca\nLaura A. Menninger\nHADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C.\n150 East 10th Avenue\nDenver, CO 80203\nPhone: 303-831-7364\n\nChristian R. Everdell\nCOHEN & GRESSER LLP\n800 Third Avenue\nNew York, NY 10022\nPhone: 212-957-7600\n\nBobbi C. Sternheim\nLaw Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim\n225 Broadway, Suite 715\nNew York, NY 10007\nPhone: 212-243-1100",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009002",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca",
+      "Laura A. Menninger",
+      "Christian R. Everdell",
+      "Bobbi C. Sternheim",
+      "Ghislaine Maxwell"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C.",
+      "COHEN & GRESSER LLP",
+      "Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim",
+      "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT",
+      "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "Denver, CO",
+      "New York, NY",
+      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 613",
+      "20 Cr. 330 (AJN)",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009002"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for a new trial. The text is clear and legible, with no visible redactions or damage."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009004.json

@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "3",
+    "document_number": "613",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 3 of 66\nB. An intentionally false answer during voir dire is not a prerequisite to obtaining a new trial. ....................... 23\nArgument ....................................................... 28\nI. Ms. Maxwell is entitled to a new trial. ............................ 28\nA. Juror No. 50 did not truthfully answer material questions during voir dire, including Questions 25 and 48. ....................... 28\nB. Had Juror No. 50 answered Questions 25 and 48 truthfully, his answers would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause. ........ 29\n1. Implied bias. ............................................ 30\n2. Inferable bias. ............................................ 37\n3. Actual bias. ............................................... 38\nC. Juror No. 50's answers to Questions 25 and 48 were intentionally false. ........ 39\nD. Had Juror No. 50 answered Questions 25 and 48 truthfully, the parties and the Court would have explored whether his other answers were false. ...... 43\nE. The scope of any evidentiary hearing. ............................. 48\n1. Pre-hearing discovery. ....................................... 48\n2. The hearing itself. .......................................... 49\nII. Juror No. 50 has no right to intervene. ............................... 51\nA. Juror No. 50 lacks standing. ...................................... 51\nB. This Court should refuse Juror No. 50's discovery request because Juror No. 50 is under investigation and the release of the information requested would prejudice that investigation. ................................................ 52\nC. Juror No. 50's filings should be stricken or, alternatively, remain under seal. ... 53\nConclusion .......................................................... 56\nCertificate of Service .................................................. 59\niii\nDOJ-OGR-00009004",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 3 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "B. An intentionally false answer during voir dire is not a prerequisite to obtaining a new trial. ....................... 23\nArgument ....................................................... 28\nI. Ms. Maxwell is entitled to a new trial. ............................ 28\nA. Juror No. 50 did not truthfully answer material questions during voir dire, including Questions 25 and 48. ....................... 28\nB. Had Juror No. 50 answered Questions 25 and 48 truthfully, his answers would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause. ........ 29\n1. Implied bias. ............................................ 30\n2. Inferable bias. ............................................ 37\n3. Actual bias. ............................................... 38\nC. Juror No. 50's answers to Questions 25 and 48 were intentionally false. ........ 39\nD. Had Juror No. 50 answered Questions 25 and 48 truthfully, the parties and the Court would have explored whether his other answers were false. ...... 43\nE. The scope of any evidentiary hearing. ............................. 48\n1. Pre-hearing discovery. ....................................... 48\n2. The hearing itself. .......................................... 49\nII. Juror No. 50 has no right to intervene. ............................... 51\nA. Juror No. 50 lacks standing. ...................................... 51\nB. This Court should refuse Juror No. 50's discovery request because Juror No. 50 is under investigation and the release of the information requested would prejudice that investigation. ................................................ 52\nC. Juror No. 50's filings should be stricken or, alternatively, remain under seal. ... 53\nConclusion .......................................................... 56\nCertificate of Service .................................................. 59",
+      "position": "main content"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "iii",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009004",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Ms. Maxwell",
+      "Juror No. 50"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "613",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009004"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ms. Maxwell, with a focus on Juror No. 50 and their answers during voir dire. The document is well-structured and printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009005.json

@@ -0,0 +1,132 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "4",
+    "document_number": "613",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "Table of Authorities",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 4 of 66\n\nTable of Authorities\n\nCases\n\nAdams v. Texas, 448 U.S. 38 (1980) ............................................................28\nArizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (1991) ....................................................22\nBrown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 2019)...................................................54\nBurton v. Johnson, 948 F.2d 1150 (10th Cir. 1991)...........................................29, 30\nClark v. United States, 289 U.S. 1 (1933).........................................................27\nCunningham v. Shoop, __ F.4th __, 2022 WL 92594 (6th Cir. Nos. 11-3005/20-3429, Jan. 10, 2022)...............................................................50\nDavis v. Bombardier Recreational Prod., Inc., No. 3:11CV236-TSL-MTP, 2012 WL 112202 (S.D. Miss. Jan. 12, 2012) .......................................................52\nDyer v. Calderon, 151 F.3d 970 (9th Cir.1998) ..................................................27, 30\nGonzales v. Thomas, 99 F.3d 978 (10th Cir. 1996).............................................36\nHunley v. Godinez, 975 F.2d 316 (7th Cir. 1992) ................................................29\nIn re Gucci, 126 F.3d 380 (2d Cir. 1997)..........................................................52\nIn re Sealed Search Warrants Issued June 4 & 5, 2008, No. 08-M-208 (DRH), 2008 WL 5667021 (N.D.N.Y. July 14, 2008) .......................................................55\nJohn Doe Agency v. John Doe Corp., 493 U.S. 146 (1989)....................................52\nLinda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614 (1973)....................................................51\nLugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) .......................54\nMazzeo v. Gibbons, No. 2:08-CV-01387-RLH-PA, 2010 WL 3910072 (D. Nev. Sept. 30, 2010)...............................................................53\n\niv\nDOJ-OGR-00009005",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 4 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Table of Authorities",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Cases",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Adams v. Texas, 448 U.S. 38 (1980) ............................................................28\nArizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (1991) ....................................................22\nBrown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 2019)...................................................54\nBurton v. Johnson, 948 F.2d 1150 (10th Cir. 1991)...........................................29, 30\nClark v. United States, 289 U.S. 1 (1933).........................................................27\nCunningham v. Shoop, __ F.4th __, 2022 WL 92594 (6th Cir. Nos. 11-3005/20-3429, Jan. 10, 2022)...............................................................50\nDavis v. Bombardier Recreational Prod., Inc., No. 3:11CV236-TSL-MTP, 2012 WL 112202 (S.D. Miss. Jan. 12, 2012) .......................................................52\nDyer v. Calderon, 151 F.3d 970 (9th Cir.1998) ..................................................27, 30\nGonzales v. Thomas, 99 F.3d 978 (10th Cir. 1996).............................................36\nHunley v. Godinez, 975 F.2d 316 (7th Cir. 1992) ................................................29\nIn re Gucci, 126 F.3d 380 (2d Cir. 1997)..........................................................52\nIn re Sealed Search Warrants Issued June 4 & 5, 2008, No. 08-M-208 (DRH), 2008 WL 5667021 (N.D.N.Y. July 14, 2008) .......................................................55\nJohn Doe Agency v. John Doe Corp., 493 U.S. 146 (1989)....................................52\nLinda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614 (1973)....................................................51\nLugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) .......................54\nMazzeo v. Gibbons, No. 2:08-CV-01387-RLH-PA, 2010 WL 3910072 (D. Nev. Sept. 30, 2010)...............................................................53",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "iv",
+      "position": "bottom"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009005",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Adams",
+      "Texas",
+      "Fulminante",
+      "Arizona",
+      "Maxwell",
+      "Brown",
+      "Johnson",
+      "Burton",
+      "Clark",
+      "Cunningham",
+      "Shoop",
+      "Davis",
+      "Bombardier Recreational Prod., Inc.",
+      "Dyer",
+      "Calderon",
+      "Gonzales",
+      "Thomas",
+      "Hunley",
+      "Godinez",
+      "Gucci",
+      "John Doe Agency",
+      "John Doe Corp.",
+      "Linda R.S.",
+      "Richard D.",
+      "Lugosch",
+      "Pyramid Co. of Onondaga",
+      "Mazzeo",
+      "Gibbons"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "U.S.",
+      "F.3d",
+      "Cir.",
+      "U.S. Supreme Court",
+      "S.D. Miss.",
+      "N.D.N.Y.",
+      "D. Nev."
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "Texas",
+      "Arizona",
+      "New York"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "1980",
+      "1991",
+      "2019",
+      "1991",
+      "1933",
+      "2022",
+      "2012",
+      "1998",
+      "1996",
+      "1992",
+      "1997",
+      "2008",
+      "1989",
+      "1973",
+      "2006",
+      "2010"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "613",
+      "448 U.S. 38",
+      "499 U.S. 279",
+      "929 F.3d 41",
+      "948 F.2d 1150",
+      "289 U.S. 1",
+      "__ F.4th __",
+      "2022 WL 92594",
+      "3:11CV236-TSL-MTP",
+      "2012 WL 112202",
+      "151 F.3d 970",
+      "99 F.3d 978",
+      "975 F.2d 316",
+      "126 F.3d 380",
+      "08-M-208 (DRH)",
+      "2008 WL 5667021",
+      "493 U.S. 146",
+      "410 U.S. 614",
+      "435 F.3d 110",
+      "2:08-CV-01387-RLH-PA",
+      "2010 WL 3910072"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document is a table of authorities from a legal case. It appears to be a printed document with no handwritten text or stamps. The text is clear and legible."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009008.json

@@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "7",
+    "document_number": "613",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 7 of 66\n\nConstitutional Provisions\n\nU.S. Amend. VI ....................................................... 21, 22\n\nRules\n\nFed. R. Civ. P. 12.................................................... 53, 54\nFed. R. Crim. P. 24 .................................................... 45\nFed. R. Crim. P. 33 .................................................... 1, 21\nFed. R. Evid. 606(b) .................................................... 49, 50\n\nvii\nDOJ-OGR-00009008",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 7 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Constitutional Provisions",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "U.S. Amend. VI ....................................................... 21, 22",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Rules",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Fed. R. Civ. P. 12.................................................... 53, 54\nFed. R. Crim. P. 24 .................................................... 45\nFed. R. Crim. P. 33 .................................................... 1, 21\nFed. R. Evid. 606(b) .................................................... 49, 50",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "vii",
+      "position": "bottom"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009008",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [],
+    "organizations": [
+      "DOJ"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "613",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009008"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with references to various legal rules and provisions. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document is well-formatted and clear."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009009.json

@@ -0,0 +1,73 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "8",
+    "document_number": "613",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 8 of 66\n\nGhislaine Maxwell moves under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 for a new trial.\n\nIntroduction\n\nJuror No. 50 says he was a victim of sexual assault and sexual abuse as a child.\nWhen he told his fellow jurors of this abuse during deliberations, \"[t]he room went dead silent.\" Juror No. 50 has told several media outlets that he drew on his personal experience as a victim to persuade fellow jurors to believe Ms. Maxwell's accusers, despite the inconsistencies and holes in their stories, even though they delayed disclosing their allegations against Ms. Maxwell, and in spite of expert testimony from Dr. Elizabeth Loftus casting significant doubt on the reliability of their claimed memories.\nThis was unfair and prejudicial to Ms. Maxwell, and it all would have been avoided if Juror No. 50 had told the truth during voir dire. But he didn't. To the contrary, Juror No. 50 repeatedly and unequivocally denied having been the victim of sexual abuse, and he denied having any experience that would affect his ability to serve fairly and impartially as a juror. Had Juror No. 50 told the truth, he would have been challenged, and excluded, for cause.\nThe Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees trial by jury. Fundamental to that guarantee is the promise that the jury will be comprised of twelve dispassionate individuals who will fairly and impartially decide, based on the evidence or lack of evidence and not on their personal predilections and biases, whether the government has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Voir dire plays an essential\n\n1\n\nDOJ-OGR-00009009",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 8 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Ghislaine Maxwell moves under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 for a new trial.",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Introduction",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Juror No. 50 says he was a victim of sexual assault and sexual abuse as a child. When he told his fellow jurors of this abuse during deliberations, \"[t]he room went dead silent.\" Juror No. 50 has told several media outlets that he drew on his personal experience as a victim to persuade fellow jurors to believe Ms. Maxwell's accusers, despite the inconsistencies and holes in their stories, even though they delayed disclosing their allegations against Ms. Maxwell, and in spite of expert testimony from Dr. Elizabeth Loftus casting significant doubt on the reliability of their claimed memories.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "This was unfair and prejudicial to Ms. Maxwell, and it all would have been avoided if Juror No. 50 had told the truth during voir dire. But he didn't. To the contrary, Juror No. 50 repeatedly and unequivocally denied having been the victim of sexual abuse, and he denied having any experience that would affect his ability to serve fairly and impartially as a juror. Had Juror No. 50 told the truth, he would have been challenged, and excluded, for cause.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees trial by jury. Fundamental to that guarantee is the promise that the jury will be comprised of twelve dispassionate individuals who will fairly and impartially decide, based on the evidence or lack of evidence and not on their personal predilections and biases, whether the government has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Voir dire plays an essential",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "1",
+      "position": "bottom"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009009",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+      "Dr. Elizabeth Loftus",
+      "Juror No. 50"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [],
+    "locations": [
+      "United States"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "613",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009009"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ghislaine Maxwell. The text is well-formatted and clear, with no visible redactions or damage."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009010.json

@@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "9",
+    "document_number": "613",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 9 of 66\n\nrole in this process, and it depends on potential jurors to truthfully answer material questions put to them by the Court and the parties.\n\nThat did not happen here. Juror No. 50 did not truthfully respond to perhaps the most important question put to potential jurors about their personal experiences - a question that pertained directly to the core allegations against Ms. Maxwell: Whether they had been a victim of sexual assault or abuse. Juror No. 50's false answer undermined voir dire, resulted in a jury that was not fair and impartial, and deprived Ms. Maxwell of her constitutional right to trial by jury.\n\nThis Court should vacate the judgment and order a new trial.\n\nFactual Background\n\nI. Jury Selection\n\nA. The jury questionnaire\n\nThis Court summoned about seven hundred potential jurors, providing each of them with a 22-page questionnaire containing 50 questions. Groups of 100 or more jurors were gathered in the courthouse in morning and afternoon sessions over the course of three days. They were given as much time as needed to complete the questionnaires. Potential jurors signed the questionnaires and swore to the accuracy of their responses under penalty of perjury.\n\nThe questionnaire's purpose was to provide the parties with information about potential jurors and to discern whether any potential juror could not be fair and impartial.\n\nThe Court assured the parties that any affirmative answers to questions would be the subject of follow up questioning during the oral voir dire.\n\n2\n\nDOJ-OGR-00009010",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 9 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "role in this process, and it depends on potential jurors to truthfully answer material questions put to them by the Court and the parties.\n\nThat did not happen here. Juror No. 50 did not truthfully respond to perhaps the most important question put to potential jurors about their personal experiences - a question that pertained directly to the core allegations against Ms. Maxwell: Whether they had been a victim of sexual assault or abuse. Juror No. 50's false answer undermined voir dire, resulted in a jury that was not fair and impartial, and deprived Ms. Maxwell of her constitutional right to trial by jury.\n\nThis Court should vacate the judgment and order a new trial.",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Factual Background",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "I. Jury Selection\n\nA. The jury questionnaire\n\nThis Court summoned about seven hundred potential jurors, providing each of them with a 22-page questionnaire containing 50 questions. Groups of 100 or more jurors were gathered in the courthouse in morning and afternoon sessions over the course of three days. They were given as much time as needed to complete the questionnaires. Potential jurors signed the questionnaires and swore to the accuracy of their responses under penalty of perjury.\n\nThe questionnaire's purpose was to provide the parties with information about potential jurors and to discern whether any potential juror could not be fair and impartial.\n\nThe Court assured the parties that any affirmative answers to questions would be the subject of follow up questioning during the oral voir dire.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "2",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009010",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Ms. Maxwell",
+      "Juror No. 50"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Court",
+      "DOJ"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "court house"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 613",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009010"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case against Ms. Maxwell. The text discusses the jury selection process and a potential issue with Juror No. 50's responses. The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009011.json

@@ -0,0 +1,74 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "10",
+    "document_number": "613",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 10 of 66\n\nThe questionnaire began with a summary of the indictment and the allegations against Ms. Maxwell, including allegations of sexual trafficking, enticement, and transportation.\n\nGiven the accusations and the sensitivity of sexual assault, sexual abuse, or sexual harassment, and the powerful effects such assault, abuse, and harassment can have, the questionnaire included several questions designed to elicit whether a potential juror had ever been abused, assaulted, or harassed, and how that might affect their ability to be an unbiased fact finder.\n\nFor example, Question No. 13 asked potential jurors if they could decide the case purely the evidence or lack of evidence and not based on any biases, sympathies, or prejudices.\n\nQuestion 25 asked potential jurors if they were ever a victim of a crime and, if so, whether that experience would prevent them from being fair and impartial.\n\nQuestions 42-50 asked jurors about their feelings and experiences with the types of alleged conduct at issue in the case, including sexual assault, sexual abuse, and sexual harassment.\n\nQuestion 42 asked whether the nature of the allegations against Ms. Maxwell \"might make it difficult\" for potential jurors to be fair and impartial. Question 43 asked potential jurors if they had views about the laws concerning the age of consent and if those views would affect their ability to be fair and impartial. Question 44 asked potential jurors if they had views about the laws governing sex trafficking and sex crimes against minors and if those views would affect their ability to be fair and impartial. Question 47\n\n3\nDOJ-OGR-00009011",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 10 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The questionnaire began with a summary of the indictment and the allegations against Ms. Maxwell, including allegations of sexual trafficking, enticement, and transportation.",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Given the accusations and the sensitivity of sexual assault, sexual abuse, or sexual harassment, and the powerful effects such assault, abuse, and harassment can have, the questionnaire included several questions designed to elicit whether a potential juror had ever been abused, assaulted, or harassed, and how that might affect their ability to be an unbiased fact finder.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "For example, Question No. 13 asked potential jurors if they could decide the case purely the evidence or lack of evidence and not based on any biases, sympathies, or prejudices.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Question 25 asked potential jurors if they were ever a victim of a crime and, if so, whether that experience would prevent them from being fair and impartial.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Questions 42-50 asked jurors about their feelings and experiences with the types of alleged conduct at issue in the case, including sexual assault, sexual abuse, and sexual harassment.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Question 42 asked whether the nature of the allegations against Ms. Maxwell \"might make it difficult\" for potential jurors to be fair and impartial. Question 43 asked potential jurors if they had views about the laws concerning the age of consent and if those views would affect their ability to be fair and impartial. Question 44 asked potential jurors if they had views about the laws governing sex trafficking and sex crimes against minors and if those views would affect their ability to be fair and impartial. Question 47",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "3",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009011",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Ms. Maxwell"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 613",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009011"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case against Ms. Maxwell, with a focus on the questionnaire used for potential jurors. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009012.json

@@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "11",
+    "document_number": "613",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 11 of 66\n\nasked potential jurors if they would have any difficulty assessing the credibility of\nalleged victims of sexual assault or abuse just as they would assess the credibility of any\nother witness.\n\nPrior to finalizing the questionnaire, Ms. Maxwell proposed specific questions to\nidentify potential jurors who had been victims of sexual assault, sexual abuse, or sexual\nharassment. The defense proposed to ask potential jurors: (1) \"Whether reported or not,\nhave you, any family member or anyone close to you, including a child/minor, ever been\nthe victim of any form of sexual abuse? (This includes actual or attempted sexual assault\nor other unwanted sexual advance, including by a stranger, acquaintance, supervisor,\nteacher, or family member;\" and (2) \"Whether reported or not, have you, or anyone close\nto you, including a child/minor, ever felt in danger of being sexually assaulted by another\nperson, including a stranger, acquaintance, supervisor, teacher, or family member?\" Doc.\n367, p 21. The government objected to Ms. Maxwell's proposed questions. Id. The Court\npartially agreed with the prosecution, asking a single question about whether potential\njurors had been actual victims of sexual assault, sexual abuse, or sexual harassment.\n\nSpecifically, Question 48 asked:\n\nHave you or a friend or family member ever been the victim of sexual\nharassment, sexual abuse, or sexual assault? (This includes actual or\nattempted sexual assault or other unwanted sexual advance, including by a\nstranger, acquaintance, supervisor, teacher, or family member.)\n\nThe questionnaire offered three answers: \"Yes (self),\" \"Yes (friend or family member),\"\nand \"No.\"\n\n4\nDOJ-OGR-00009012",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 11 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "asked potential jurors if they would have any difficulty assessing the credibility of\nalleged victims of sexual assault or abuse just as they would assess the credibility of any\nother witness.",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Prior to finalizing the questionnaire, Ms. Maxwell proposed specific questions to\nidentify potential jurors who had been victims of sexual assault, sexual abuse, or sexual\nharassment. The defense proposed to ask potential jurors: (1) \"Whether reported or not,\nhave you, any family member or anyone close to you, including a child/minor, ever been\nthe victim of any form of sexual abuse? (This includes actual or attempted sexual assault\nor other unwanted sexual advance, including by a stranger, acquaintance, supervisor,\nteacher, or family member;\" and (2) \"Whether reported or not, have you, or anyone close\nto you, including a child/minor, ever felt in danger of being sexually assaulted by another\nperson, including a stranger, acquaintance, supervisor, teacher, or family member?\" Doc.\n367, p 21. The government objected to Ms. Maxwell's proposed questions. Id. The Court\npartially agreed with the prosecution, asking a single question about whether potential\njurors had been actual victims of sexual assault, sexual abuse, or sexual harassment.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Specifically, Question 48 asked:\n\nHave you or a friend or family member ever been the victim of sexual\nharassment, sexual abuse, or sexual assault? (This includes actual or\nattempted sexual assault or other unwanted sexual advance, including by a\nstranger, acquaintance, supervisor, teacher, or family member.)\n\nThe questionnaire offered three answers: \"Yes (self),\" \"Yes (friend or family member),\"\nand \"No.\"",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "4",
+      "position": "bottom"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009012",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Ms. Maxwell"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Court",
+      "government",
+      "prosecution",
+      "defense"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 613",
+      "Doc. 367",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009012"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a sexual assault case. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document is well-formatted and easy to read."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009013.json

@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "12",
+    "document_number": "613",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 12 of 66\n\nIf a potential juror selected either \"yes\" option, the questionnaire asked individuals to explain their answer in writing, to state whether having been a victim of sexual assault, sexual abuse, or sexual harassment would affect their ability to serve fairly and impartially, and if so, to explain why.\n\nFinally, Question 50 asked potential jurors if there was any experience that they had that might affect their ability to serve fairly and impartial as a juror.\n\nSix-hundred and ninety-four individuals answered the questionnaire.\n\nB. Juror No. 50's questionnaire\n\nJuror No. 50's questionnaire is attached as EXHIBIT 1. Under the penalty of perjury, Juror. No. 50 answered these questions as follows:\n\n- Question 13: \"Yes,\" Juror No. 50 could decide the case solely based on the evidence or lack of evidence and not based on bias, sympathy, or prejudice.\n- Question 25: \"No,\" Juror No. 50 had never been the victim of a crime.\n- Question 42: \"No,\" there was nothing about the nature of the allegations against Ms. Maxwell that \"might make it difficult\" for Juror No. 50 to be fair and impartial.\n- Question 43: \"No,\" Juror No. 50 did not have any views about laws concerning the age of consent that would affect his ability to be fair and impartial.\n- Question 44: \"No,\" Juror No. 50 did not have any views about the laws governing sex trafficking and sex crimes against minors that would affect his ability to be fair and impartial.\n\n5\n\nDOJ-OGR-00009013",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 12 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "If a potential juror selected either \"yes\" option, the questionnaire asked individuals to explain their answer in writing, to state whether having been a victim of sexual assault, sexual abuse, or sexual harassment would affect their ability to serve fairly and impartially, and if so, to explain why.\n\nFinally, Question 50 asked potential jurors if there was any experience that they had that might affect their ability to serve fairly and impartial as a juror.\n\nSix-hundred and ninety-four individuals answered the questionnaire.\n\nB. Juror No. 50's questionnaire\n\nJuror No. 50's questionnaire is attached as EXHIBIT 1. Under the penalty of perjury, Juror. No. 50 answered these questions as follows:\n\n- Question 13: \"Yes,\" Juror No. 50 could decide the case solely based on the evidence or lack of evidence and not based on bias, sympathy, or prejudice.\n- Question 25: \"No,\" Juror No. 50 had never been the victim of a crime.\n- Question 42: \"No,\" there was nothing about the nature of the allegations against Ms. Maxwell that \"might make it difficult\" for Juror No. 50 to be fair and impartial.\n- Question 43: \"No,\" Juror No. 50 did not have any views about laws concerning the age of consent that would affect his ability to be fair and impartial.\n- Question 44: \"No,\" Juror No. 50 did not have any views about the laws governing sex trafficking and sex crimes against minors that would affect his ability to be fair and impartial.",
+      "position": "main content"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "5",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009013",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Ms. Maxwell"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "613",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009013"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case against Ms. Maxwell. It discusses the questionnaire completed by potential jurors, including Juror No. 50. The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009014.json

@@ -0,0 +1,72 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "13",
+    "document_number": "613",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 13 of 66\n\nQuestion 47, \"No,\" Juror No. 50 would not have any difficulty assessing the credibility of alleged victims of sexual assault or abuse just as he would assess the credibility of any other witness.\n\nFinally, and most importantly, Juror No. 50 answered \"no\" when asked in Question 48 if he had ever been the victim of victim of sexual harassment, sexual abuse, or sexual assault, including actual or attempted sexual assault or other unwanted sexual advance, including by a stranger, acquaintance, supervisor, teacher, or family member.\n\nC. Juror No 50's voir dire\n\nPrior to trial, defense counsel moved the Court to permit limited, attorney-conducted voir dire of potential jurors. Doc. 342. Defense counsel explained that given the nature of the allegations, the stakes involved, and the omnipresent media coverage, attorney-conducted voir dire to supplement the Court's voir dire was necessary to ensure a fair and impartial jury. Id. at 7-15. Defense counsel pointed specifically to the potential that certain jurors could not be fair if they had been a victim of sexual assault or sexual abuse. Id. at 9-10. The Court declined to permit attorney-conducted voir dire. TR 10/21/2021, p 8.\n\nPrior to trial, defense counsel also proposed that the Court individually ask each juror in person several questions including \"Have you or anyone close to you ever been the victim of a crime?\" and \"Have you or has anyone close to you ever been the victim of a sexual crime?\" Doc. 367-1 at 14. The government objected that the questions were \"duplicative of questions included in the proposed voir dire\" and should not be asked\n\n6\nDOJ-OGR-00009014",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 13 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Question 47, \"No,\" Juror No. 50 would not have any difficulty assessing the credibility of alleged victims of sexual assault or abuse just as he would assess the credibility of any other witness.",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Finally, and most importantly, Juror No. 50 answered \"no\" when asked in Question 48 if he had ever been the victim of victim of sexual harassment, sexual abuse, or sexual assault, including actual or attempted sexual assault or other unwanted sexual advance, including by a stranger, acquaintance, supervisor, teacher, or family member.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "C. Juror No 50's voir dire",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Prior to trial, defense counsel moved the Court to permit limited, attorney-conducted voir dire of potential jurors. Doc. 342. Defense counsel explained that given the nature of the allegations, the stakes involved, and the omnipresent media coverage, attorney-conducted voir dire to supplement the Court's voir dire was necessary to ensure a fair and impartial jury. Id. at 7-15. Defense counsel pointed specifically to the potential that certain jurors could not be fair if they had been a victim of sexual assault or sexual abuse. Id. at 9-10. The Court declined to permit attorney-conducted voir dire. TR 10/21/2021, p 8.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Prior to trial, defense counsel also proposed that the Court individually ask each juror in person several questions including \"Have you or anyone close to you ever been the victim of a crime?\" and \"Have you or has anyone close to you ever been the victim of a sexual crime?\" Doc. 367-1 at 14. The government objected that the questions were \"duplicative of questions included in the proposed voir dire\" and should not be asked",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "6",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009014",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Court",
+      "government"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22",
+      "10/21/2021"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "613",
+      "342",
+      "367-1"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text discusses the voir dire process and the questioning of potential jurors. The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009015.json

@@ -0,0 +1,70 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "14",
+    "document_number": "613",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 14 of 66 again. Id. at 13. The defense responded in part that \"asking the questions live when the jurors' reactions, hesitations, explanations can be explored by the Court and observed by the parties will aid in the selection of an impartial and fair jury.\" Id. The Court denied the defense's request. Juror No. 50 appeared for his voir dire on November 16. Because Juror No. 50 answered \"no\" to all the relevant questions about sexual abuse, sexual assault, sexual harassment and being the victim of a crime, his voir dire was very brief, spanning just seven pages of transcript. TR 11/6/2021, pp 128-34; EXHIBIT 2. The Court did not ask Juror No. 50 whether the abuse he suffered would make it difficult to be a fair and impartial juror, whether he would be biased against Ms. Maxwell, whether he could set aside any bias he might have, or whether he could fairly and impartially evaluate Ms. Maxwell's defense, which challenged, in part, the reliability of her accusers' memories. As to the questions the Court did ask (most of which addressed his personal background),",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 14 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "again. Id. at 13. The defense responded in part that \"asking the questions live when the jurors' reactions, hesitations, explanations can be explored by the Court and observed by the parties will aid in the selection of an impartial and fair jury.\" Id. The Court denied the defense's request.",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Juror No. 50 appeared for his voir dire on November 16. Because Juror No. 50 answered \"no\" to all the relevant questions about sexual abuse, sexual assault, sexual harassment and being the victim of a crime, his voir dire was very brief, spanning just seven pages of transcript. TR 11/6/2021, pp 128-34; EXHIBIT 2. The Court did not ask Juror No. 50 whether the abuse he suffered would make it difficult to be a fair and impartial juror, whether he would be biased against Ms. Maxwell, whether he could set aside any bias he might have, or whether he could fairly and impartially evaluate Ms. Maxwell's defense, which challenged, in part, the reliability of her accusers' memories.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "As to the questions the Court did ask (most of which addressed his personal background),",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "other",
+      "content": "[redacted text]",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "7",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009015",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Ms. Maxwell"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Court"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "11/6/2021",
+      "November 16",
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 613",
+      "TR 11/6/2021, pp 128-34",
+      "EXHIBIT 2",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009015"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or legal document related to the case of Ms. Maxwell. There are several redactions in the text, indicating sensitive or confidential information has been removed."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009016.json

@@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "15",
+    "document_number": "613",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 15 of 66 At the end of the very brief voir dire examination, the Court asked Juror No. 50 if he had \"[a]ny doubt about [his] ability to\" be fair to both sides. Id. at 134. Juror No. 50 said \"no.\" Id. The Court concluded: \"Other than what I have asked you, do you have any reason to think that you can't be fair and impartial here?\" Id. Juror No. 50 responded, \"I do not.\" Id. The Court inquired whether the parties had any follow-up questions. Because Juror No. 50 denied any bias or inability to be fair and impartial, and because his answers to the questionnaire did not raise any red flags about his ability to serve as a fair and impartial juror in a case involving alleged sexual assault and sexual abuse, Ms. Maxwell's attorneys did not propose any follow-up questions. 8 DOJ-OGR-00009016",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 15 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "At the end of the very brief voir dire examination, the Court asked Juror No. 50 if he had \"[a]ny doubt about [his] ability to\" be fair to both sides. Id. at 134. Juror No. 50 said \"no.\" Id. The Court concluded: \"Other than what I have asked you, do you have any reason to think that you can't be fair and impartial here?\" Id. Juror No. 50 responded, \"I do not.\" Id.",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Court inquired whether the parties had any follow-up questions. Because Juror No. 50 denied any bias or inability to be fair and impartial, and because his answers to the questionnaire did not raise any red flags about his ability to serve as a fair and impartial juror in a case involving alleged sexual assault and sexual abuse, Ms. Maxwell's attorneys did not propose any follow-up questions.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "8",
+      "position": "bottom"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009016",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Ms. Maxwell"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "613",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009016"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or legal document related to the case of Ms. Maxwell. The text is mostly printed, with some redacted sections. The document is well-formatted and easy to read."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009017.json

@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "16",
+    "document_number": "613",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 16 of 66\n\nD. The final composition of the jury\n\nSix-hundred and ninety-four potential jurors answered the 50-question questionnaire.\n\n2 The parties submitted this joint list before reviewing the second round of questionnaires.\n\n9\nDOJ-OGR-00009017",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 16 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "D. The final composition of the jury",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Six-hundred and ninety-four potential jurors answered the 50-question questionnaire.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "2 The parties submitted this joint list before reviewing the second round of questionnaires.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "9",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009017",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [],
+    "organizations": [
+      "DOJ"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "613",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009017"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document contains redactions, likely to protect sensitive information."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009018.json

@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "17",
+    "document_number": "613",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 17 of 66",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 17 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "other",
+      "content": "Multiple redacted sections with black bars",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "10",
+      "position": "bottom"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009018",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [],
+    "organizations": [
+      "DOJ"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "613",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009018"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document contains extensive redactions with black bars, making most of the content unreadable. The visible text includes a case number, document number, filing date, and page number."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009019.json

@@ -0,0 +1,77 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "18",
+    "document_number": "613",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 18 of 66\n\nOf the 5 jurors seated as alternates, none disclosed on their questionnaires that they were victims of sexual abuse, sexual assault, or sexual harassment.4\n\nOf the 12 deliberating jurors, none disclosed on their questionnaires that they were victims of sexual abuse, sexual assault, or sexual harassment.\n\nAs we now know, however, Juror No. 50 was not telling the truth when he denied being a victim of a crime or being a victim of sexual abuse, sexual assault, or sexual harassment.\n\nAnd as explained below, it appears a second deliberating juror was also untruthful when they denied being a victim of sexual abuse, sexual assault, or sexual harassment.\n\nII. Juror No. 50's admissions that he wasn't truthful with the Court\n\n4 The court originally seated 6 alternates, but one alternate became a deliberating juror when an original juror was excused due to a family commitment. None of the 18 individuals selected for service as a deliberating or alternate juror answered \"yes\" when asked if they were a victim of sexual abuse, sexual assault, or sexual harassment.\n\n11\nDOJ-OGR-00009019",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 18 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Of the 5 jurors seated as alternates, none disclosed on their questionnaires that they were victims of sexual abuse, sexual assault, or sexual harassment.4",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Of the 12 deliberating jurors, none disclosed on their questionnaires that they were victims of sexual abuse, sexual assault, or sexual harassment.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "As we now know, however, Juror No. 50 was not telling the truth when he denied being a victim of a crime or being a victim of sexual abuse, sexual assault, or sexual harassment.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "And as explained below, it appears a second deliberating juror was also untruthful when they denied being a victim of sexual abuse, sexual assault, or sexual harassment.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "II. Juror No. 50's admissions that he wasn't truthful with the Court",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "4 The court originally seated 6 alternates, but one alternate became a deliberating juror when an original juror was excused due to a family commitment. None of the 18 individuals selected for service as a deliberating or alternate juror answered \"yes\" when asked if they were a victim of sexual abuse, sexual assault, or sexual harassment.",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "11",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009019",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Juror No. 50"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Court",
+      "DOJ"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "613",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009019"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text discusses juror responses to questionnaires regarding sexual abuse, assault, or harassment. There are no visible redactions or damage to the document."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009020.json

@@ -0,0 +1,75 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "19 of 66",
+    "document_number": "613",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 19 of 66\n\nA. Juror No. 50's statements to the media\n\n1. The interview with The Independent\n\nOn January 4, 2022, less than one week after the jury returned its verdict, Lucia Osborne-Crowley of The Independent published an article based on an interview with Juror No. 50.5 Going by the name Scotty David, Juror No. 50 told Ms. Osborne-Crowley that \"[t]his verdict is for all the victims\" and \"shows that you can be found guilty no matter your status.\" Juror No. 50 admitted to being a victim of sexual assault and abuse, telling Ms. Osborne-Crowley that he revealed the abuse to the jury and that his story was fundamental to the jury's verdict. According to Juror No. 50, the \"jury room went dead silent when he shared his story.\"\n\nJuror No. 50 explained to Ms. Osborne-Crowley how his own experience helped the jury come to believe the alleged victims despite the holes and inconsistencies in their stories. \"I know what happened when I was sexually abused. I remember the colour of the carpet, the walls. Some of it can be replayed like a video.\"\n\nRelying on his own experiences, Juror No. 50 refused to credit the testimony of Dr. Elizabeth Loftus, Ms. Maxwell's expert witness on memory. None of Dr. Loftus's testimony, said Juror No. 50, \"relate[d]to traumatic memory.\" Juror No. 50 explained all of this to the jury. Ms. Maxwell's accusers \"were all believable,\" Juror No. 50 said. \"Nothing they said felt to me like a lie.\" Sometimes, he said, you can misremember trivial details of a traumatic event without every doubting the core of the memory.\n\n5 https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/maxwell-juror-account-abuse-b1986478.html\n\n12\nDOJ-OGR-00009020",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 19 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "A. Juror No. 50's statements to the media\n\n1. The interview with The Independent",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "On January 4, 2022, less than one week after the jury returned its verdict, Lucia Osborne-Crowley of The Independent published an article based on an interview with Juror No. 50.5 Going by the name Scotty David, Juror No. 50 told Ms. Osborne-Crowley that \"[t]his verdict is for all the victims\" and \"shows that you can be found guilty no matter your status.\" Juror No. 50 admitted to being a victim of sexual assault and abuse, telling Ms. Osborne-Crowley that he revealed the abuse to the jury and that his story was fundamental to the jury's verdict. According to Juror No. 50, the \"jury room went dead silent when he shared his story.\"",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Juror No. 50 explained to Ms. Osborne-Crowley how his own experience helped the jury come to believe the alleged victims despite the holes and inconsistencies in their stories. \"I know what happened when I was sexually abused. I remember the colour of the carpet, the walls. Some of it can be replayed like a video.\"",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Relying on his own experiences, Juror No. 50 refused to credit the testimony of Dr. Elizabeth Loftus, Ms. Maxwell's expert witness on memory. None of Dr. Loftus's testimony, said Juror No. 50, \"relate[d]to traumatic memory.\" Juror No. 50 explained all of this to the jury. Ms. Maxwell's accusers \"were all believable,\" Juror No. 50 said. \"Nothing they said felt to me like a lie.\" Sometimes, he said, you can misremember trivial details of a traumatic event without every doubting the core of the memory.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "5 https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/maxwell-juror-account-abuse-b1986478.html",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "12",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009020",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Lucia Osborne-Crowley",
+      "Scotty David",
+      "Dr. Elizabeth Loftus",
+      "Ms. Maxwell"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "The Independent"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "January 4, 2022",
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "613",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009020"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ms. Maxwell. It includes a detailed account of an interview with Juror No. 50, who shared his experiences as a victim of sexual assault and how it influenced his decision-making during the trial. The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009021.json

@@ -0,0 +1,74 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "20",
+    "document_number": "613",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 20 of 66\nJuror No. 50 also explained, again based on his personal experience, why it was immaterial to him and the jury that the alleged victims did not disclose Ms. Maxwell's alleged involvement until very recently, some twenty years after the alleged abuse. \"I didn't disclose my abuse until I was in high school,\" he said.\nJuror No. 50 also had an excuse for why the alleged victims in this case kept going back to Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell and accepting help from them even after they had been abused. The alleged victims' conduct, explained Juror No. 50, was irrelevant to their credibility. In Juror No. 50's view, Ms. Maxwell's defense team was continually attacking the alleged victims and trying to get the jury to judge them for their decisions, as opposed to arguing that their stories were not worthy of belief.\n2. The interview with the Daily Mail\nOn January 5, the Daily Mail published an article based on its interview with Juror No. 50,6 in which he described Ms. Maxwell as a \"predator.\" Juror No. 50 also shared that he helped other members of the jury understand things from a victim's point of view and explained how \"you can't remember all the details\" of traumatic memories: \"there are some things that run together.\" When Juror No. 50 told his fellow jurors of the abuse he suffered, the room \"went silent.\" Although he couldn't remember every detail, there were others that stuck with him: \"I know what happened when I was sexually abused. I remember the color of the carpet, the walls. Some of it can be replayed like a video.\"\nJuror No. 50 said the verdict was for \"all the victims.\"\n6 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10370193/Ghislaine-Maxwell-juror-says-evidence-convinced-panel-predator.html\n13\nDOJ-OGR-00009021",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 20 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Juror No. 50 also explained, again based on his personal experience, why it was immaterial to him and the jury that the alleged victims did not disclose Ms. Maxwell's alleged involvement until very recently, some twenty years after the alleged abuse. \"I didn't disclose my abuse until I was in high school,\" he said.",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Juror No. 50 also had an excuse for why the alleged victims in this case kept going back to Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell and accepting help from them even after they had been abused. The alleged victims' conduct, explained Juror No. 50, was irrelevant to their credibility. In Juror No. 50's view, Ms. Maxwell's defense team was continually attacking the alleged victims and trying to get the jury to judge them for their decisions, as opposed to arguing that their stories were not worthy of belief.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "2. The interview with the Daily Mail",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "On January 5, the Daily Mail published an article based on its interview with Juror No. 50,6 in which he described Ms. Maxwell as a \"predator.\" Juror No. 50 also shared that he helped other members of the jury understand things from a victim's point of view and explained how \"you can't remember all the details\" of traumatic memories: \"there are some things that run together.\" When Juror No. 50 told his fellow jurors of the abuse he suffered, the room \"went silent.\" Although he couldn't remember every detail, there were others that stuck with him: \"I know what happened when I was sexually abused. I remember the color of the carpet, the walls. Some of it can be replayed like a video.\"\nJuror No. 50 said the verdict was for \"all the victims.\"",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "6 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10370193/Ghislaine-Maxwell-juror-says-evidence-convinced-panel-predator.html",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "13",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009021",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Juror No. 50",
+      "Ms. Maxwell",
+      "Mr. Epstein"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Daily Mail"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "January 5",
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 613",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009021"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or legal document related to the Ghislaine Maxwell case. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is likely a page from a larger document, as indicated by the page number and document number in the header."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009022.json

@@ -0,0 +1,70 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "21",
+    "document_number": "613",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 21 of 66\n\n3. The interview with Reuters\nThe same day the Daily Mail published its article, Reuters also published a story based on an interview Juror No. 50 provided to journalist Luc Cohen.7 In the Reuters interview, Juror No. 50 elaborated about the purpose and effect of his disclosing to the jury that he was a victim of sexual assault. According to Juror No. 50, coming to a unanimous verdict “wasn’t easy, to be honest.” In fact, several jurors doubted the credibility of Jane and Carolyn. “When I shared that [I had been sexually abused],” recounted Juror No. 50, the jurors who had doubts “were able to sort of come around on, they were able to come around on the memory aspect of the sexual abuse.”\n\n4. The partial video of the interview with the Daily Mail\nOn January 7, the Daily Mail published a video of a portion of the interview with Juror No. 50. This video is submitted to the Court as EXHIBIT 3. The video shows the moment when the interviewer confronts Juror No. 50 about whether he disclosed to the Court and the parties that he was a victim of sexual assault. The interviewer asks whether Juror No. 50’s history of being sexually abused was “something that [he’d] said yes to in the questionnaire” such that it “was something people were aware of when [he was] selected as a juror.”\nJuror No. 50 denied being asked such a question, saying, “No, they don’t ask your sexual abuse history. They didn’t ask it in the questionnaire.”\n\n7 https://www.reuters.com/world/us/some-ghislaine-maxwell-jurors-initially-doubted-accusers-juror-says-2022-01-05/\n\n14\nDOJ-OGR-00009022",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 21 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "3. The interview with Reuters\nThe same day the Daily Mail published its article, Reuters also published a story based on an interview Juror No. 50 provided to journalist Luc Cohen.7 In the Reuters interview, Juror No. 50 elaborated about the purpose and effect of his disclosing to the jury that he was a victim of sexual assault. According to Juror No. 50, coming to a unanimous verdict “wasn’t easy, to be honest.” In fact, several jurors doubted the credibility of Jane and Carolyn. “When I shared that [I had been sexually abused],” recounted Juror No. 50, the jurors who had doubts “were able to sort of come around on, they were able to come around on the memory aspect of the sexual abuse.”",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "4. The partial video of the interview with the Daily Mail\nOn January 7, the Daily Mail published a video of a portion of the interview with Juror No. 50. This video is submitted to the Court as EXHIBIT 3. The video shows the moment when the interviewer confronts Juror No. 50 about whether he disclosed to the Court and the parties that he was a victim of sexual assault. The interviewer asks whether Juror No. 50’s history of being sexually abused was “something that [he’d] said yes to in the questionnaire” such that it “was something people were aware of when [he was] selected as a juror.”\nJuror No. 50 denied being asked such a question, saying, “No, they don’t ask your sexual abuse history. They didn’t ask it in the questionnaire.”",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "7 https://www.reuters.com/world/us/some-ghislaine-maxwell-jurors-initially-doubted-accusers-juror-says-2022-01-05/",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "14",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009022",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Juror No. 50",
+      "Luc Cohen",
+      "Jane",
+      "Carolyn",
+      "Ghislaine Maxwell"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Reuters",
+      "Daily Mail",
+      "Court"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "January 7",
+      "02/24/22",
+      "2022-01-05"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 613",
+      "EXHIBIT 3",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009022"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the Ghislaine Maxwell case. It discusses interviews with Juror No. 50 and contains references to news articles and court exhibits."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009023.json

@@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "22 of 66",
+    "document_number": "613",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 22 of 66\n\nThe interviewer challenges Juror No. 50 on this response, saying, \"I thought in the questionnaire, there was a question that asked if you were a victim or if you were a friend or a relative of a victim.\" \"Pretty sure it was number 48,\" the interviewer concludes.\n\n\"Interesting,\" Juror No. 50 responds, his face turning red.\n\nThe interviewer notices that Juror No. 50's face is flushing, saying, \"You're not out in the sun right now [inaudible].\"\n\nJuror No. 50 stumbles to respond: \"No, No! I know my face is red because I can feel the blood but, I honestly—that's why I answered it that way. I don't remember it being there but. Um... I did answer, I definitely remember a family or relative or something but—being sexually abused. I was honest on all my questions.\"\n\nB. Juror No. 50's social media activity\n\nOn January 4, after Ms. Osborne-Crawley first published her interview with Juror No. 50, Annie Farmer quote-Tweeted a Tweet from Ms. Osborne-Crawley, linking to the interview. Ms. Farmer said:\n\n15\n\nDOJ-OGR-00009023",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 22 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The interviewer challenges Juror No. 50 on this response, saying, \"I thought in the questionnaire, there was a question that asked if you were a victim or if you were a friend or a relative of a victim.\" \"Pretty sure it was number 48,\" the interviewer concludes.\n\n\"Interesting,\" Juror No. 50 responds, his face turning red.\n\nThe interviewer notices that Juror No. 50's face is flushing, saying, \"You're not out in the sun right now [inaudible].\"\n\nJuror No. 50 stumbles to respond: \"No, No! I know my face is red because I can feel the blood but, I honestly—that's why I answered it that way. I don't remember it being there but. Um... I did answer, I definitely remember a family or relative or something but—being sexually abused. I was honest on all my questions.\"",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "B. Juror No. 50's social media activity",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "On January 4, after Ms. Osborne-Crawley first published her interview with Juror No. 50, Annie Farmer quote-Tweeted a Tweet from Ms. Osborne-Crawley, linking to the interview. Ms. Farmer said:",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "15",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009023",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Juror No. 50",
+      "Ms. Osborne-Crawley",
+      "Annie Farmer"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22",
+      "January 4"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "613",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009023"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or legal document. The text is clear and legible, with no visible redactions or damage."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009024.json

@@ -0,0 +1,67 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "23",
+    "document_number": "613",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 23 of 66 annie farmer @anniefarmer · 9h Reading this I was overwhelmed with a sense of gratitude- for this juror who was brave enough to disclose his own trauma to help others understand the experience, for the other women who testified, & for my sister all the other survivors who spoke out and kept pushing for justice Lucia Osborne-Crowley 13h WORLDWIDE EXCLUSIVE: I secured the first ever interview with a member of the jury in the #GhislaineMaxwellTrial. I'm so grateful to Scotty for talking to me about why... Show this thread 8 43 162 A short time later, Juror No. 50 “liked” Ms. Farmer's Tweet. Juror No. 50 then Tweeted directly to Ms. Farmer in response: 16 DOJ-OGR-00009024",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 23 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "annie farmer @anniefarmer · 9h Reading this I was overwhelmed with a sense of gratitude- for this juror who was brave enough to disclose his own trauma to help others understand the experience, for the other women who testified, & for my sister all the other survivors who spoke out and kept pushing for justice",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Lucia Osborne-Crowley 13h WORLDWIDE EXCLUSIVE: I secured the first ever interview with a member of the jury in the #GhislaineMaxwellTrial. I'm so grateful to Scotty for talking to me about why... Show this thread",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "8 43 162",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "A short time later, Juror No. 50 “liked” Ms. Farmer's Tweet. Juror No. 50 then Tweeted directly to Ms. Farmer in response:",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "16",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009024",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "annie farmer",
+      "Lucia Osborne-Crowley",
+      "Scotty",
+      "Ghislaine Maxwell"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "613",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009024"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the Ghislaine Maxwell trial, containing a screenshot of a Twitter conversation."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009025.json

@@ -0,0 +1,72 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "24 of 66",
+    "document_number": "613",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 24 of 66 9:07 Outlook Scotty David 1Tweet 39 Following 1 Follower Not followed by anyone you're following Tweets Tweets & replies Media Likes annie farmer @anniefarmer · 8h Reading this I was overwhelmed with a sense of gratitude- for this juror who was brave enough to disclose his own trauma to help others understand the experience, for the other women who testified, & for my sister all the other survivors who spoke out and kept pushing for justice Lucia Osborne-Crawley · 13h WORLDWIDE EXCLUSIVE: I secured the first ever interview with a member of the jury in the #GhislainMaxwellTrial. I'm so grateful to Scotty for talking to me about why... Show this thread 9 43 161 Scotty David @ScottyDavidNYC · 4h Thanks for being brave enough to stand up and share your experience. Your story was critical in how we reached our verdict in that jury room. Thanks for sharing my story Juror No. 50 also “liked” Ms. Osborne-Crawley's Tweet linking to his interview. At the time Juror No. 50 Tweeted to Ms. Farmer, his Twitter handle was the same name he used in his press interviews: “@ScottyDavidNYC.” 17 DOJ-OGR-00009025",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 24 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "9:07 Outlook Scotty David 1Tweet 39 Following 1 Follower Not followed by anyone you're following Tweets Tweets & replies Media Likes",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "annie farmer @anniefarmer · 8h Reading this I was overwhelmed with a sense of gratitude- for this juror who was brave enough to disclose his own trauma to help others understand the experience, for the other women who testified, & for my sister all the other survivors who spoke out and kept pushing for justice",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Lucia Osborne-Crawley · 13h WORLDWIDE EXCLUSIVE: I secured the first ever interview with a member of the jury in the #GhislainMaxwellTrial. I'm so grateful to Scotty for talking to me about why... Show this thread 9 43 161",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Scotty David @ScottyDavidNYC · 4h Thanks for being brave enough to stand up and share your experience. Your story was critical in how we reached our verdict in that jury room. Thanks for sharing my story",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Juror No. 50 also “liked” Ms. Osborne-Crawley's Tweet linking to his interview. At the time Juror No. 50 Tweeted to Ms. Farmer, his Twitter handle was the same name he used in his press interviews: “@ScottyDavidNYC.”",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "17 DOJ-OGR-00009025",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Scotty David",
+      "annie farmer",
+      "Lucia Osborne-Crawley",
+      "Ms. Osborne-Crawley",
+      "Ms. Farmer",
+      "Juror No. 50",
+      "Ghislain Maxwell"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [],
+    "locations": [
+      "New York City"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 613",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009025"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the Ghislain Maxwell trial, containing a screenshot of a Twitter conversation and analysis of the juror's Twitter activity."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009026.json

@@ -0,0 +1,73 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "25",
+    "document_number": "613",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 25 of 66 9:07 Outlook Scotty David @ScottyDavidNYC Manhattan, NY Joined April 2021 39 Following 1 Follower Not followed by anyone you're following Tweets Tweets & replies Media Likes annie farmer @anniefarmer 8h Reading this I was overwhelmed with a sense of gratitude- for this juror who was brave enough to disclose his own trauma to help others understand the experience, for the other women who testified, and for my sister all the other survivors who spoke out and kept pushing for justice Lucia Osborne-Crowley 13h WORLDWIDE EXCLUSIVE! I secured the first ever interview with a member of the jury in the #GhislainMaxwellTrial. I'm so grateful to Scotty for talking to me about why... Show this thread 9 43 161 Shortly after Tweeting Ms. Farmer, however, Juror No. 50 changed his Twitter handle to \"@NycSddd.\" He also attempted to delete his Tweet to Ms. Farmer. 18 DOJ-OGR-00009026",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 25 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Scotty David @ScottyDavidNYC Manhattan, NY Joined April 2021 39 Following 1 Follower Not followed by anyone you're following Tweets Tweets & replies Media Likes",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "annie farmer @anniefarmer 8h Reading this I was overwhelmed with a sense of gratitude- for this juror who was brave enough to disclose his own trauma to help others understand the experience, for the other women who testified, and for my sister all the other survivors who spoke out and kept pushing for justice",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Lucia Osborne-Crowley 13h WORLDWIDE EXCLUSIVE! I secured the first ever interview with a member of the jury in the #GhislainMaxwellTrial. I'm so grateful to Scotty for talking to me about why... Show this thread 9 43 161",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Shortly after Tweeting Ms. Farmer, however, Juror No. 50 changed his Twitter handle to \"@NycSddd.\" He also attempted to delete his Tweet to Ms. Farmer.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "18",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009026",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Scotty David",
+      "annie farmer",
+      "Lucia Osborne-Crowley",
+      "Ms. Farmer",
+      "Juror No. 50",
+      "Ghislain Maxwell"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [],
+    "locations": [
+      "Manhattan",
+      "NY"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "April 2021",
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "613",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009026"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a screenshot of a Twitter profile and related tweets. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009027.json

@@ -0,0 +1,57 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "26 of 66",
+    "document_number": "613",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 26 of 66 9:31 1 Outlook Tweet S @NycSdddd Replying to @anniefarmer Thanks for being brave enough to stand up and share your experience. Your story was critical in how we reached our verdict in that jury room. Thanks for sharing my story 4:07 PM 1/4/22 Twitter for iPhone 1 Retweet 3 Likes This Tweet has been deleted. Juror No. 50 did not \"unlike\" Ms. Farmer's Tweet, or the Tweet by Ms. Osborne-Crawley linking to his interview. In early January, Juror No. 50 also posted about his jury service on his Instagram account, 19 DOJ-OGR-00009027",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 26 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "9:31 1 Outlook Tweet S @NycSdddd Replying to @anniefarmer Thanks for being brave enough to stand up and share your experience. Your story was critical in how we reached our verdict in that jury room. Thanks for sharing my story 4:07 PM 1/4/22 Twitter for iPhone 1 Retweet 3 Likes This Tweet has been deleted.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Juror No. 50 did not \"unlike\" Ms. Farmer's Tweet, or the Tweet by Ms. Osborne-Crawley linking to his interview. In early January, Juror No. 50 also posted about his jury service on his Instagram account,",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "19 DOJ-OGR-00009027",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Ms. Farmer",
+      "Ms. Osborne-Crawley",
+      "@NycSdddd",
+      "@anniefarmer",
+      "Juror No. 50"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Twitter"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22",
+      "1/4/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 613",
+      "Juror No. 50",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009027"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing discussing a juror's social media activity during a trial. The image includes a screenshot of a deleted tweet. The document is well-formatted and legible."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009029.json

@@ -0,0 +1,79 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "28",
+    "document_number": "613",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 28 of 66\n\nC. A second juror admits to disclosing during deliberations that they were a victim of sexual assault\n\nDuring his press tour, Juror No. 50 revealed in interviews that he was not alone in revealing to jurors that he was a victim of sexual assault, describing to reporter that a second juror also disclosed that they were a victim of sexual abuse.8 On January 5, the New York Times published an article confirming Juror No. 50's statement, reporting that \"a second juror described in an interview . . . having been sexually abused as a child.\"9\n\n\"This juror, who requested anonymity, said that they, too, had discussed the experience during deliberations and that the revelation had appeared to help shape the jury's discussions.\" To date, this juror has not publicly revealed their identity, and Ms. Maxwell does not know who it is.10\n\nApplicable Law\n\nI. Juror No. 50's misconduct deprived Ms. Maxwell of her constitutional right to a fair trial by an impartial jury.\n\nA. A party alleging unfairness based on undisclosed juror bias must demonstrate first, that the juror's voir dire response was false and\n\n8 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10379445/Ghislain-Maxwells-lawyers-fought-ask-jurors-detailed-questions-sexual-abuse.html\n\n9 https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/05/nyregion/maxwell-trial-jury-inquiry.html\n\n10\n\n21\n\nDOJ-OGR-00009029",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 28 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "C. A second juror admits to disclosing during deliberations that they were a victim of sexual assault",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "During his press tour, Juror No. 50 revealed in interviews that he was not alone in revealing to jurors that he was a victim of sexual assault, describing to reporter that a second juror also disclosed that they were a victim of sexual abuse.8 On January 5, the New York Times published an article confirming Juror No. 50's statement, reporting that \"a second juror described in an interview . . . having been sexually abused as a child.\"9\n\n\"This juror, who requested anonymity, said that they, too, had discussed the experience during deliberations and that the revelation had appeared to help shape the jury's discussions.\" To date, this juror has not publicly revealed their identity, and Ms. Maxwell does not know who it is.10",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Applicable Law",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "I. Juror No. 50's misconduct deprived Ms. Maxwell of her constitutional right to a fair trial by an impartial jury.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "A. A party alleging unfairness based on undisclosed juror bias must demonstrate first, that the juror's voir dire response was false and",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "8 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10379445/Ghislain-Maxwells-lawyers-fought-ask-jurors-detailed-questions-sexual-abuse.html\n\n9 https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/05/nyregion/maxwell-trial-jury-inquiry.html\n\n10",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "21",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009029",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Juror No. 50",
+      "Ms. Maxwell"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "New York Times",
+      "Daily Mail"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "January 5",
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "613",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009029"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. The text discusses juror misconduct and potential bias. The document is well-formatted and mostly clean, with some redacted sections at the bottom."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009030.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "29",
+    "document_number": "613",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 29 of 66\n\nsecond, that the correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.\n\nFederal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 provides that, \"[u]pon the defendant's motion, the court may vacate any judgment and grant a new trial if the interest of justice so requires.\" Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(a).\n\nThe Sixth Amendment guarantees a criminal defendant the right to a trial by an impartial jury. U.S. Const. amend. VI. In McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood, the Supreme Court recognized that \"[o]ne touchstone of a fair trial is an impartial trier of fact—‘a jury capable and willing to decide the case solely on the evidence before it.’\" 464 U.S. 548, 554 (1984) (quoting Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 217 (1982)). \"The right to trial before an impartial trier of fact—be it a jury or a judge—therefore implicates Due Process as well as Sixth Amendment rights.\" United States v. Nelson, 277 F.3d 164, 201 (2d Cir. 2002).\n\nIn turn, \"[v]oir dire plays an essential role in protecting the right to trial by an impartial jury.\" United States v. Daugerdas, 867 F. Supp. 2d 445, 468 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (granting new trial to three defendants based on juror dishonesty during voir dire and concluding one defendant, Parse, waived his new trial motion), vacated and remanded sub nom. United States v. Parse, 789 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2015) (reversing district court's conclusion that the defendant Parse waived his new trial motion). It is bedrock constitutional law that defendants have a right to \"a full and fair opportunity to expose bias or prejudice on the part of veniremen\" and that \"there must be sufficient information elicited on voir dire to permit a defendant to intelligently exercise not only his challenges\n\n22\n\nDOJ-OGR-00009030",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 29 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "second, that the correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.\n\nFederal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 provides that, \"[u]pon the defendant's motion, the court may vacate any judgment and grant a new trial if the interest of justice so requires.\" Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(a).\n\nThe Sixth Amendment guarantees a criminal defendant the right to a trial by an impartial jury. U.S. Const. amend. VI. In McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood, the Supreme Court recognized that \"[o]ne touchstone of a fair trial is an impartial trier of fact—‘a jury capable and willing to decide the case solely on the evidence before it.’\" 464 U.S. 548, 554 (1984) (quoting Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 217 (1982)). \"The right to trial before an impartial trier of fact—be it a jury or a judge—therefore implicates Due Process as well as Sixth Amendment rights.\" United States v. Nelson, 277 F.3d 164, 201 (2d Cir. 2002).\n\nIn turn, \"[v]oir dire plays an essential role in protecting the right to trial by an impartial jury.\" United States v. Daugerdas, 867 F. Supp. 2d 445, 468 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (granting new trial to three defendants based on juror dishonesty during voir dire and concluding one defendant, Parse, waived his new trial motion), vacated and remanded sub nom. United States v. Parse, 789 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2015) (reversing district court's conclusion that the defendant Parse waived his new trial motion). It is bedrock constitutional law that defendants have a right to \"a full and fair opportunity to expose bias or prejudice on the part of veniremen\" and that \"there must be sufficient information elicited on voir dire to permit a defendant to intelligently exercise not only his challenges",
+      "position": "main content"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "22",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009030",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Phillips",
+      "Greenwood",
+      "Parse",
+      "Daugerdas",
+      "Nelson"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Supreme Court",
+      "U.S."
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "S.D.N.Y."
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22",
+      "1984",
+      "1982",
+      "2002",
+      "2012",
+      "2015"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "613",
+      "464 U.S. 548",
+      "455 U.S. 209",
+      "277 F.3d 164",
+      "867 F. Supp. 2d 445",
+      "789 F.3d 83",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009030"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is mostly printed, with no handwritten content or stamps visible. The document is well-formatted and legible."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009031.json

@@ -0,0 +1,90 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "30",
+    "document_number": "613",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 30 of 66\nfor cause, but also his peremptory challenges.\" United States v. Barnes, 604 F.2d 121, 139 (2d Cir. 1979) (internal quotations and citations omitted). \"A juror's dishonesty during voir dire undermines a defendant's right to a fair trial.\" Daugerdas, 867 F. Supp. 2d at 468; U.S. Const. amend. VI.\n\"[A] party alleging unfairness based on undisclosed juror bias must demonstrate first, that the juror's voir dire response was false and second, that the correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.\" United States v. Stewart, 433 F.3d 273, 303 (2d Cir. 2006) (citing McDonough, 464 U.S. at 556).\nA defendant need not demonstrate prejudice when a juror gives a false answer to a material question during voir dire if the juror would have been subject to a challenge for cause if he had answered honestly. See United States v. Martinez-Salazar, 528 U.S. 304, 316 (2000) (the \"seating of any juror who should have been dismissed for cause\" \"would require reversal\"). When a biased juror deliberates on a jury, structural error occurs, and a new trial is required without a showing of actual prejudice. See Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 307-10 (1991).\nB. An intentionally false answer during voir dire is not a prerequisite to obtaining a new trial.\n\"Intentionally false\" juror answers are not a prerequisite to a finding that a defendant's constitutional right to a fair and impartial jury have been violated. McDonough, 464 U.S. at 553-56; id. at 556-57 (Blackmun, J., concurring); id. at 557-59 (Brennan, J., concurring in judgment). So long as a truthful answer would have subjected the juror to a challenge for cause based on bias, an inadvertent false answer is just as 23\nDOJ-OGR-00009031",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 30 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "for cause, but also his peremptory challenges.\" United States v. Barnes, 604 F.2d 121, 139 (2d Cir. 1979) (internal quotations and citations omitted). \"A juror's dishonesty during voir dire undermines a defendant's right to a fair trial.\" Daugerdas, 867 F. Supp. 2d at 468; U.S. Const. amend. VI.",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "\"[A] party alleging unfairness based on undisclosed juror bias must demonstrate first, that the juror's voir dire response was false and second, that the correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.\" United States v. Stewart, 433 F.3d 273, 303 (2d Cir. 2006) (citing McDonough, 464 U.S. at 556).",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "A defendant need not demonstrate prejudice when a juror gives a false answer to a material question during voir dire if the juror would have been subject to a challenge for cause if he had answered honestly. See United States v. Martinez-Salazar, 528 U.S. 304, 316 (2000) (the \"seating of any juror who should have been dismissed for cause\" \"would require reversal\"). When a biased juror deliberates on a jury, structural error occurs, and a new trial is required without a showing of actual prejudice. See Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 307-10 (1991).",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "B. An intentionally false answer during voir dire is not a prerequisite to obtaining a new trial.",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "\"Intentionally false\" juror answers are not a prerequisite to a finding that a defendant's constitutional right to a fair and impartial jury have been violated. McDonough, 464 U.S. at 553-56; id. at 556-57 (Blackmun, J., concurring); id. at 557-59 (Brennan, J., concurring in judgment). So long as a truthful answer would have subjected the juror to a challenge for cause based on bias, an inadvertent false answer is just as",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "23",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009031",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Barnes",
+      "Daugerdas",
+      "Stewart",
+      "McDonough",
+      "Martinez-Salazar",
+      "Fulminante",
+      "Blackmun",
+      "Brennan"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "United States"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "Arizona"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22",
+      "1979",
+      "2006",
+      "2000",
+      "1991"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 613",
+      "604 F.2d 121",
+      "867 F. Supp. 2d",
+      "433 F.3d 273",
+      "464 U.S.",
+      "528 U.S. 304",
+      "499 U.S. 279",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009031"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is mostly printed, with no handwritten content or stamps visible. The document is well-formatted and legible."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009032.json

@@ -0,0 +1,85 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "31",
+    "document_number": "613",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 31 of 66\ninvidious as an intentionally false answer. United States v. Langford, 990 F.2d 65, 68 (2d Cir. 1993).11 As the Second Circuit held in Langford:\nWe read [McDonough] multi-part test as governing not only inadvertent nondisclosures but also nondisclosures or misstatements that were deliberate, for though the McDonough Court began with the inadvertent response before it, it stated that the further showing of cause must be made even after a juror's \"failure to answer honestly,\" and it hypothesized that there could be various \"motives for concealing.\" Concurring in the judgment, Justice Brennan similarly stated that a second element—bias—should be required even if the juror's erroneous response was deliberate. Thus, he stated that the\nproper focus when ruling on a motion for new trial in this situation should be on the bias of the juror and the resulting prejudice to the litigant. . .\n. . . Whether the juror answered a particular question on voir dire honestly or dishonestly, or whether an inaccurate answer was inadvertent or intentional, are simply factors to be considered in th[e] . . . determination of actual bias.\nLangford, 990 F.2d at 68 (quoting McDonough, 464 U.S. at 557-58 (Brennan, J., concurring in judgment)).\nThe seminal case addressing a juror's false answers during voir dire is McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood. McDonough was a products liability action in which Juror Payton remained silent when the district court asked, \"how many of you [potential jurors] have yourself or any members of your immediate family sustained any severe injury [in] an accident at home, or on the farm or at work that result in any disability or prolonged pain and suffering?\" 464 U.S. at 550. After trial, it was discovered\n11 This caselaw uses \"deliberate\" and \"intentional\" interchangeably.\n24\nDOJ-OGR-00009032",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 31 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "invidious as an intentionally false answer. United States v. Langford, 990 F.2d 65, 68 (2d Cir. 1993).11 As the Second Circuit held in Langford:",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "We read [McDonough] multi-part test as governing not only inadvertent nondisclosures but also nondisclosures or misstatements that were deliberate, for though the McDonough Court began with the inadvertent response before it, it stated that the further showing of cause must be made even after a juror's \"failure to answer honestly,\" and it hypothesized that there could be various \"motives for concealing.\" Concurring in the judgment, Justice Brennan similarly stated that a second element—bias—should be required even if the juror's erroneous response was deliberate. Thus, he stated that the",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "proper focus when ruling on a motion for new trial in this situation should be on the bias of the juror and the resulting prejudice to the litigant. . .",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": ". . . Whether the juror answered a particular question on voir dire honestly or dishonestly, or whether an inaccurate answer was inadvertent or intentional, are simply factors to be considered in th[e] . . . determination of actual bias.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Langford, 990 F.2d at 68 (quoting McDonough, 464 U.S. at 557-58 (Brennan, J., concurring in judgment)).",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The seminal case addressing a juror's false answers during voir dire is McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood. McDonough was a products liability action in which Juror Payton remained silent when the district court asked, \"how many of you [potential jurors] have yourself or any members of your immediate family sustained any severe injury [in] an accident at home, or on the farm or at work that result in any disability or prolonged pain and suffering?\" 464 U.S. at 550. After trial, it was discovered",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "11 This caselaw uses \"deliberate\" and \"intentional\" interchangeably.",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "24",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009032",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Justice Brennan",
+      "Juror Payton"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "United States",
+      "Second Circuit"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 613",
+      "990 F.2d 65",
+      "464 U.S. 550",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009032"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a clear and legible text. There are no visible redactions or damage."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009033.json

@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "32",
+    "document_number": "613",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 32 of 66\nthat Juror Payton's son had been injured in an explosion of a fire truck. Id. at 551. The district court denied a motion for a new trial without holding a hearing. Id.\nThe court of appeals reversed, ordering a new trial instead of remanding for a hearing. Id. at 551-52. The court of appeals held that if “an average prospective juror would have disclosed the information, and that information would have been significant and cogent evidence of the juror's probable bias, a new trial is required to rectify the failure to disclose it.” Id. at 552. “Good faith,” said the court, was “irrelevant to the inquiry.” Id.\nThe Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals, concluding that it employed the wrong standard and erred in reaching the merits instead of remanding the case to the district court for an evidentiary hearing. Id. at 556. As for the correct legal standard, the Court said that\nto obtain a new trial in such a situation, a party must first demonstrate that a juror failed to answer honestly a material question on voir dire, and then further show that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.\nId. The Court remanded to the court of appeals to consider any outstanding issues and, assuming the judgment wasn't reversed for other reasons, to remand to the district court for an evidentiary hearing applying the new legal standard. Id.\nThe court emphasized that “/voir dire examination serves to protect [the fair trial] right by exposing possible biases, both known and unknown, on the part of potential jurors” and that the “necessity of truthful answers by prospective jurors if [voir dire] is to serve its purpose is obvious.” Id. at 554. The Court did not expressly disavow the court of appeals\n25\nDOJ-OGR-00009033",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 32 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "that Juror Payton's son had been injured in an explosion of a fire truck. Id. at 551. The district court denied a motion for a new trial without holding a hearing. Id.\nThe court of appeals reversed, ordering a new trial instead of remanding for a hearing. Id. at 551-52. The court of appeals held that if “an average prospective juror would have disclosed the information, and that information would have been significant and cogent evidence of the juror's probable bias, a new trial is required to rectify the failure to disclose it.” Id. at 552. “Good faith,” said the court, was “irrelevant to the inquiry.” Id.\nThe Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals, concluding that it employed the wrong standard and erred in reaching the merits instead of remanding the case to the district court for an evidentiary hearing. Id. at 556. As for the correct legal standard, the Court said that\nto obtain a new trial in such a situation, a party must first demonstrate that a juror failed to answer honestly a material question on voir dire, and then further show that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.\nId. The Court remanded to the court of appeals to consider any outstanding issues and, assuming the judgment wasn't reversed for other reasons, to remand to the district court for an evidentiary hearing applying the new legal standard. Id.\nThe court emphasized that “/voir dire examination serves to protect [the fair trial] right by exposing possible biases, both known and unknown, on the part of potential jurors” and that the “necessity of truthful answers by prospective jurors if [voir dire] is to serve its purpose is obvious.” Id. at 554. The Court did not expressly disavow the court of appeals",
+      "position": "main content"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "25",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009033",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Payton"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Supreme Court",
+      "Court of Appeals"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 613",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009033"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text discusses a legal issue related to juror bias and the process for obtaining a new trial. The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009035.json

@@ -0,0 +1,71 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "34",
+    "document_number": "613",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 34 of 66\n\nintentional, are simply factors to be considered in this latter determination of actual bias.\"\nId. \"One easily can imagine cases in which a prospective juror provides what he subjectively believes to be an honest answer, yet that same answer is objectively incorrect and therefore suggests that the individual would be a biased juror in the particular case.\"\nId. at 559.\n\nThe Second Circuit adopted this reading of McDonough, endorsing the view expressed by Justice Brennan (and shared by Justice Blackmun) that an intentionally false answer is not a prerequisite to obtaining a new trial. United States v. Langford, 990 F.2d 65, 68 (2d Cir. 1993) (\"We read this multi-part test as governing not only inadvertent nondisclosures but also nondisclosures or misstatements that were deliberate.\"); id. at 68 (adopting Justice Brennan's reasoning). Accordingly, in the Second Circuit, \"a party alleging unfairness based on undisclosed juror bias must demonstrate first, that the juror's voir dire response was false and second, that the correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.\" United States v. Stewart, 433 F.3d 273, 303 (2d Cir. 2006).\n\nOf course, individuals cannot be allowed to lie their way onto a jury. Writing for a unanimous Supreme Court, Justice Cardozo concluded: \"If the answers to the questions [during voir dire] are willfully evasive or knowingly untrue, the talesman, when accepted, is a juror in name only . . . His relation to the court and to the parties is tainted in its origin; it is a mere pretense and sham.\" Clark v. United States, 289 U.S. 1, 11 (1933). \"[A] juror who lies [his] way onto a jury is not really a juror at all; [h]e is an interloper akin 'to a stranger who sneaks into the jury room.'\" Daugerdas, 867 F. Supp.\n27\nDOJ-OGR-00009035",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 34 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "intentional, are simply factors to be considered in this latter determination of actual bias.\" Id. \"One easily can imagine cases in which a prospective juror provides what he subjectively believes to be an honest answer, yet that same answer is objectively incorrect and therefore suggests that the individual would be a biased juror in the particular case.\" Id. at 559.",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Second Circuit adopted this reading of McDonough, endorsing the view expressed by Justice Brennan (and shared by Justice Blackmun) that an intentionally false answer is not a prerequisite to obtaining a new trial. United States v. Langford, 990 F.2d 65, 68 (2d Cir. 1993) (\"We read this multi-part test as governing not only inadvertent nondisclosures but also nondisclosures or misstatements that were deliberate.\"); id. at 68 (adopting Justice Brennan's reasoning). Accordingly, in the Second Circuit, \"a party alleging unfairness based on undisclosed juror bias must demonstrate first, that the juror's voir dire response was false and second, that the correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.\" United States v. Stewart, 433 F.3d 273, 303 (2d Cir. 2006).",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Of course, individuals cannot be allowed to lie their way onto a jury. Writing for a unanimous Supreme Court, Justice Cardozo concluded: \"If the answers to the questions [during voir dire] are willfully evasive or knowingly untrue, the talesman, when accepted, is a juror in name only . . . His relation to the court and to the parties is tainted in its origin; it is a mere pretense and sham.\" Clark v. United States, 289 U.S. 1, 11 (1933). \"[A] juror who lies [his] way onto a jury is not really a juror at all; [h]e is an interloper akin 'to a stranger who sneaks into the jury room.'\" Daugerdas, 867 F. Supp.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "27",
+      "position": "bottom"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009035",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Justice Brennan",
+      "Justice Blackmun",
+      "Justice Cardozo"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Second Circuit",
+      "Supreme Court"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22",
+      "1993",
+      "2006",
+      "1933"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 613",
+      "990 F.2d 65",
+      "433 F.3d 273",
+      "289 U.S. 1",
+      "867 F. Supp.",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009035"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a clear and legible text. There are no visible redactions or damage."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009036.json

@@ -0,0 +1,67 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "35",
+    "document_number": "613",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 35 of 66\n2d at 468 (quoting Dyer v. Calderon, 151 F.3d 970, 983 (9th Cir.1998) (en banc)).\n\"[C]ourts cannot administer justice in circumstances in which a juror can commit a federal crime in order to serve as a juror in a criminal case and do so with no fear of sanction so long as a conviction results.\" United States v. Colombo, 869 F.2d 149, 152 (2d Cir. 1989).\n\nArgument\nI. Ms. Maxwell is entitled to a new trial.\nThis Court must order a new trial if Ms. Maxwell can make two showings: First, that Juror No. 50's voir dire response was false and second, that the correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause. Stewart, 433 F.3d at 303. Even without an evidentiary hearing, Ms. Maxwell has made that showing here.\nA. Juror No.50 did not truthfully answer material questions during voir dire, including Questions 25 and 48.\nThere is no reasonable dispute that Juror No. 50's voir dire responses were false. Juror No. 50 has told several media outlets that he was a victim of sexual assault and sexual abuse as a child. Necessarily, then, Juror No. 50 did not provide truthful answers when he denied being the victim of a crime (Question 25) or being a victim of sexual harassment, sexual abuse, or sexual assault (Question 48).\nAnd because being a victim of sexual assault or sexual abuse is material to an individual's ability to serve as a fair and impartial juror in a case about sexual assault and sexual abuse, Ms. Maxwell has satisfied the first prong of the McDonough test. See United States v. Sampson, 820 F. Supp. 2d 151, 172 (D. Mass. 2011) (\"[A] matter is\n28\nDOJ-OGR-00009036",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 35 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "2d at 468 (quoting Dyer v. Calderon, 151 F.3d 970, 983 (9th Cir.1998) (en banc)).\n\"[C]ourts cannot administer justice in circumstances in which a juror can commit a federal crime in order to serve as a juror in a criminal case and do so with no fear of sanction so long as a conviction results.\" United States v. Colombo, 869 F.2d 149, 152 (2d Cir. 1989).\n\nArgument\nI. Ms. Maxwell is entitled to a new trial.\nThis Court must order a new trial if Ms. Maxwell can make two showings: First, that Juror No. 50's voir dire response was false and second, that the correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause. Stewart, 433 F.3d at 303. Even without an evidentiary hearing, Ms. Maxwell has made that showing here.\nA. Juror No.50 did not truthfully answer material questions during voir dire, including Questions 25 and 48.\nThere is no reasonable dispute that Juror No. 50's voir dire responses were false. Juror No. 50 has told several media outlets that he was a victim of sexual assault and sexual abuse as a child. Necessarily, then, Juror No. 50 did not provide truthful answers when he denied being the victim of a crime (Question 25) or being a victim of sexual harassment, sexual abuse, or sexual assault (Question 48).\nAnd because being a victim of sexual assault or sexual abuse is material to an individual's ability to serve as a fair and impartial juror in a case about sexual assault and sexual abuse, Ms. Maxwell has satisfied the first prong of the McDonough test. See United States v. Sampson, 820 F. Supp. 2d 151, 172 (D. Mass. 2011) (\"[A] matter is",
+      "position": "main content"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "28",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009036",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Ms. Maxwell",
+      "Dyer",
+      "Calderon",
+      "Colombo",
+      "Stewart",
+      "Sampson",
+      "McDonough",
+      "Juror No. 50"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "9th Cir.",
+      "2d Cir.",
+      "D. Mass."
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22",
+      "1998",
+      "1989",
+      "2011"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 613",
+      "820 F. Supp. 2d 151",
+      "869 F.2d 149",
+      "151 F.3d 970",
+      "433 F.3d at 303",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009036"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ms. Maxwell, discussing the potential for a new trial due to issues with Juror No. 50's voir dire responses. The document includes citations to various legal precedents and references to specific court cases."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009037.json

@@ -0,0 +1,53 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "36",
+    "document_number": "613",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 36 of 66\nmaterial if it has a natural tendency to influence, or be capable of influencing, the judge who must decide whether to excuse a juror for cause.\" (citing Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 16 (1999) (giving general definition of materiality))).\n\nB. Had Juror No. 50 answered Questions 25 and 48 truthfully, his answers would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.\nThe second question is whether truthful responses from Juror No. 50 would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause. See Stewart, 433 F.3d at 303. \"[T]he test is not whether the true facts would compel the Court to remove a juror for cause, but rather whether a truthful response 'would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.'\" Daugerdas, 867 F. Supp. 2d at 470 (quoting McDonough, 464 U.S. at 556).\n\"An impartial jury is one in which every juror is 'capable and willing to decide the case solely on the evidence before [him].'\" Id. (quoting McDonough, 464 U.S. at 554).\n\"Jurors are instructed that they are to decide the question of a defendant's guilt based solely on the evidence presented.\" Id. (citing United States v. Thomas, 116 F.3d 606, 616-17 n.10 (2d Cir. 1997). A juror is biased—i.e., not impartial—if his experiences \"would 'prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties as a juror in accordance with his instructions and his oath.'\" Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412, 424 (1985) (quoting Adams v. Texas, 448 U.S. 38, 45 (1980)); see also United States v. Torres, 128 F.3d 38, 43 (2d Cir. 1997) (juror who structured financial transactions properly excused for cause in case involving structuring of cash deposits).\n29\nDOJ-OGR-00009037",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 36 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "material if it has a natural tendency to influence, or be capable of influencing, the judge who must decide whether to excuse a juror for cause.\" (citing Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 16 (1999) (giving general definition of materiality))).\n\nB. Had Juror No. 50 answered Questions 25 and 48 truthfully, his answers would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.\nThe second question is whether truthful responses from Juror No. 50 would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause. See Stewart, 433 F.3d at 303. \"[T]he test is not whether the true facts would compel the Court to remove a juror for cause, but rather whether a truthful response 'would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.'\" Daugerdas, 867 F. Supp. 2d at 470 (quoting McDonough, 464 U.S. at 556).\n\"An impartial jury is one in which every juror is 'capable and willing to decide the case solely on the evidence before [him].'\" Id. (quoting McDonough, 464 U.S. at 554).\n\"Jurors are instructed that they are to decide the question of a defendant's guilt based solely on the evidence presented.\" Id. (citing United States v. Thomas, 116 F.3d 606, 616-17 n.10 (2d Cir. 1997). A juror is biased—i.e., not impartial—if his experiences \"would 'prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties as a juror in accordance with his instructions and his oath.'\" Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412, 424 (1985) (quoting Adams v. Texas, 448 U.S. 38, 45 (1980)); see also United States v. Torres, 128 F.3d 38, 43 (2d Cir. 1997) (juror who structured financial transactions properly excused for cause in case involving structuring of cash deposits).",
+      "position": "main body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "29",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009037",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [],
+    "organizations": [
+      "United States"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22",
+      "1999",
+      "1997",
+      "1985",
+      "1980"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "613",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009037"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text discusses the concept of juror impartiality and the grounds for challenging a juror for cause. The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009038.json

@@ -0,0 +1,80 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "37",
+    "document_number": "613",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 37 of 66\n\nChallenges for cause can be based on implied bias, inferable bias, or actual basis. See Torres, 128 F.3d at 43; see also Sampson, 820 F. Supp. 2d at 162–67 (discussing at length each type of bias).\n\n1. Implied bias\n\n“Implied or presumed bias is ‘bias conclusively presumed as a matter of law.’” Torres, 128 F.3d at 45 (quoting Wood, 299 U.S. at 133). “It is attributed to a prospective juror regardless of actual partiality.” Id. “In contrast to the inquiry for actual bias, which focuses on whether the record at voir dire supports a finding that the juror was in fact partial, the issue for implied bias is whether an average person in the position of the juror in controversy would be prejudiced.” Id. (citing Haynes, 398 F.2d at 984). “And in determining whether a prospective juror is impliedly biased, ‘his statements upon voir dire [about his ability to be impartial] are totally irrelevant.’” Id. (quoting Haynes, 398 F.2d at 984).\n\nAs is relevant here, there are two ways in which courts imply bias. First, “[c]ourts imply bias ‘when there are similarities between the personal experiences of the juror and the issues being litigated.’” Daugerdas, 867 F. Supp. 2d at 472 (quoting Sampson, 820 F. Supp. 2d at 163–64); see also Skaggs v. Otis Elevator Co., 164 F.3d 511, 517 (10th Cir. 1998) (collecting cases where bias was implied based on the juror’s experiences); see, e.g., Hunley v. Godinez, 975 F.2d 316, 319–20 (7th Cir. 1992) (holding, in a case charging murder in the course of a burglary, that bias should be implied where two jurors were the victims of similar burglaries during deliberations); Burton v. Johnson, 948 F.2d 1150, 1159 (10th Cir. 1991) (holding, in murder case in which the defendant presented a\n\n30\n\nDOJ-OGR-00009038",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 37 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Challenges for cause can be based on implied bias, inferable bias, or actual basis. See Torres, 128 F.3d at 43; see also Sampson, 820 F. Supp. 2d at 162–67 (discussing at length each type of bias).",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "1. Implied bias",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "“Implied or presumed bias is ‘bias conclusively presumed as a matter of law.’” Torres, 128 F.3d at 45 (quoting Wood, 299 U.S. at 133). “It is attributed to a prospective juror regardless of actual partiality.” Id. “In contrast to the inquiry for actual bias, which focuses on whether the record at voir dire supports a finding that the juror was in fact partial, the issue for implied bias is whether an average person in the position of the juror in controversy would be prejudiced.” Id. (citing Haynes, 398 F.2d at 984). “And in determining whether a prospective juror is impliedly biased, ‘his statements upon voir dire [about his ability to be impartial] are totally irrelevant.’” Id. (quoting Haynes, 398 F.2d at 984).",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "As is relevant here, there are two ways in which courts imply bias. First, “[c]ourts imply bias ‘when there are similarities between the personal experiences of the juror and the issues being litigated.’” Daugerdas, 867 F. Supp. 2d at 472 (quoting Sampson, 820 F. Supp. 2d at 163–64); see also Skaggs v. Otis Elevator Co., 164 F.3d 511, 517 (10th Cir. 1998) (collecting cases where bias was implied based on the juror’s experiences); see, e.g., Hunley v. Godinez, 975 F.2d 316, 319–20 (7th Cir. 1992) (holding, in a case charging murder in the course of a burglary, that bias should be implied where two jurors were the victims of similar burglaries during deliberations); Burton v. Johnson, 948 F.2d 1150, 1159 (10th Cir. 1991) (holding, in murder case in which the defendant presented a",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "30",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009038",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Torres",
+      "Sampson",
+      "Wood",
+      "Haynes",
+      "Daugerdas",
+      "Skaggs",
+      "Hunley",
+      "Godinez",
+      "Burton",
+      "Johnson"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "U.S.",
+      "10th Cir.",
+      "7th Cir."
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22",
+      "1998",
+      "1992",
+      "1991"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 613",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009038"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing discussing legal precedents related to juror bias. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document is well-formatted and legible."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009039.json

@@ -0,0 +1,57 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "38 of 66",
+    "document_number": "613",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 38 of 66 defense based on having suffered domestic violence at the hands of the victim, that a juror living in similarly abusive circumstances at the time of trial, and who gave dishonest answers regarding that subject at voir dire, was impliedly biased); United States v. Eubanks, 591 F.2d 513, 517 (9th Cir. 1979) (per curiam) (implying bias where, in a trial for participation in a heroin distribution conspiracy, a juror failed to disclose at voir dire that he had two sons who were serving long prison sentences for heroin-related crimes). Second, courts imply bias when \"repeated lies in voir dire imply that the juror concealed material facts in order to secure a spot on the particular jury.\" Daugerdas, 867 F. Supp. 2d at 472 (quotation omitted). \"A juror . . . who lies materially and repeatedly in response to legitimate inquiries about her background introduces destructive uncertainties into the process.\" Dyer, 151 F.3d at 983. Under both theories, Juror No. 50 was impliedly biased. First, bias should be implied because this is a case in which \"there are similarities between the personal experiences of the juror and the issues being litigated.\" Daugerdas, 867 F. Supp. 2d at 472. \"When a juror has life experiences that correspond with evidence presented during the trial, that congruence raises obvious concerns about the juror's possible bias.\" Sampson v. United States, 724 F.3d 150, 167 (1st Cir. 2013) (citing Torres, 128 F.3d at 47-48; Burton, 948 F.2d at 1158-59). \"In such a situation, the juror may have enormous difficulty separating her own life experiences from evidence in the case.\" Id. The First Circuit has commented, for example, that \"it would be natural for a juror who had been 31 DOJ-OGR-00009039",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 38 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "defense based on having suffered domestic violence at the hands of the victim, that a juror living in similarly abusive circumstances at the time of trial, and who gave dishonest answers regarding that subject at voir dire, was impliedly biased); United States v. Eubanks, 591 F.2d 513, 517 (9th Cir. 1979) (per curiam) (implying bias where, in a trial for participation in a heroin distribution conspiracy, a juror failed to disclose at voir dire that he had two sons who were serving long prison sentences for heroin-related crimes).",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Second, courts imply bias when \"repeated lies in voir dire imply that the juror concealed material facts in order to secure a spot on the particular jury.\" Daugerdas, 867 F. Supp. 2d at 472 (quotation omitted). \"A juror . . . who lies materially and repeatedly in response to legitimate inquiries about her background introduces destructive uncertainties into the process.\" Dyer, 151 F.3d at 983.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Under both theories, Juror No. 50 was impliedly biased. First, bias should be implied because this is a case in which \"there are similarities between the personal experiences of the juror and the issues being litigated.\" Daugerdas, 867 F. Supp. 2d at 472. \"When a juror has life experiences that correspond with evidence presented during the trial, that congruence raises obvious concerns about the juror's possible bias.\" Sampson v. United States, 724 F.3d 150, 167 (1st Cir. 2013) (citing Torres, 128 F.3d at 47-48; Burton, 948 F.2d at 1158-59). \"In such a situation, the juror may have enormous difficulty separating her own life experiences from evidence in the case.\" Id. The First Circuit has commented, for example, that \"it would be natural for a juror who had been",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "31",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009039",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [],
+    "organizations": [],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "613",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009039"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing discussing juror bias in a trial. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is likely a page from a larger legal brief or opinion."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009040.json

@@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "39",
+    "document_number": "613",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 39 of 66\nthe victim of a home invasion to harbor bias against a defendant accused of such a crime.\" Id.\nThe same is true here: \"It would be natural for a juror who had been the victim of [sexual assault and sexual abuse] to harbor bias against a defendant accused of such a crime.\" See id. Like Jane, Carolyn, Kate, and Annie Farmer, Juror No. 50 claims to be a victim of child sexual abuse. Like Jane, Carolyn, Kate, and Annie Farmer, Juror No. 50 delayed disclosing the abuse he suffered. Like Jane, Carolyn, Kate, and Annie Farmer, Juror No. 50 says the memories of the abuse he suffered can be \"replayed like a video.\" And like Jane, who described Mr. Epstein's New York apartment and said it had a \"red mood,\" TR at 320, Juror No. 50 says he can remember the \"color of the carpet, [of] the walls\" in the room where he was abused.\nThese similarities are profound because they bear on the principal argument Ms. Maxwell made against her accusers' claimed memories: They were corrupted and unreliable. Juror No. 50's claim that the memory of his abuse can be \"replayed like a video\" is perhaps most significant, because it directly contradicts Dr. Loftus's expert testimony:\nQ. Memory has been termed a constructive process; correct?\nA. Yes.\nQ. Could you explain what that means to the jury.\nA. What we mean by that is as I testified earlier, we don't just record events and play it back later like a recording device would work, like a video machine, but rather, we are actually constructing our memories when we retrieve memories. We often take bits and pieces of experience sometimes\n32\nDOJ-OGR-00009040",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 39 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "the victim of a home invasion to harbor bias against a defendant accused of such a crime.\" Id.\nThe same is true here: \"It would be natural for a juror who had been the victim of [sexual assault and sexual abuse] to harbor bias against a defendant accused of such a crime.\" See id. Like Jane, Carolyn, Kate, and Annie Farmer, Juror No. 50 claims to be a victim of child sexual abuse. Like Jane, Carolyn, Kate, and Annie Farmer, Juror No. 50 delayed disclosing the abuse he suffered. Like Jane, Carolyn, Kate, and Annie Farmer, Juror No. 50 says the memories of the abuse he suffered can be \"replayed like a video.\" And like Jane, who described Mr. Epstein's New York apartment and said it had a \"red mood,\" TR at 320, Juror No. 50 says he can remember the \"color of the carpet, [of] the walls\" in the room where he was abused.\nThese similarities are profound because they bear on the principal argument Ms. Maxwell made against her accusers' claimed memories: They were corrupted and unreliable. Juror No. 50's claim that the memory of his abuse can be \"replayed like a video\" is perhaps most significant, because it directly contradicts Dr. Loftus's expert testimony:\nQ. Memory has been termed a constructive process; correct?\nA. Yes.\nQ. Could you explain what that means to the jury.\nA. What we mean by that is as I testified earlier, we don't just record events and play it back later like a recording device would work, like a video machine, but rather, we are actually constructing our memories when we retrieve memories. We often take bits and pieces of experience sometimes",
+      "position": "main content"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "32",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009040",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Jane",
+      "Carolyn",
+      "Kate",
+      "Annie Farmer",
+      "Juror No. 50",
+      "Mr. Epstein",
+      "Ms. Maxwell",
+      "Dr. Loftus"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [],
+    "locations": [
+      "New York"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 613",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009040"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or legal document related to the case of Ghislaine Maxwell. The text discusses the testimony of Juror No. 50 and compares it to the experiences of other alleged victims of sexual abuse. The document includes a Q&A session with Dr. Loftus, an expert witness. The overall quality of the document is clear and legible."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009041.json

@@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "40",
+    "document_number": "613",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 40 of 66\nthat occurred at different times and places, bring it together, and construct what feels like a recollection.\nTR at 2427. Given Juror No. 50's personal experience and belief about memory and its reliability, there was no way he could fairly evaluate Ms. Maxwell's challenge to the credibility of her accusers' memories or the expert testimony of Dr. Loftus.12\nSeveral decisions support this conclusion. In Sampson v. United States, for example, the First Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to order a new penalty-phase hearing in a death penalty case after a juror falsely denied, among other things, having been a victim of a crime. 724 F.3d at 154, 162. In fact, however, the juror repeatedly had been menaced by her husband with a shotgun. Id. at 168. But because the juror had not told the truth during voir dire, she was seated on a jury in a case involving a bank robbery in which the defendant threatened bank tellers at gunpoint. Id. \"These parallels,\" the Court said, \"raise a serious concern as to whether an ordinary person in [the juror's] shoes would be able to disregard her own experiences in evaluating the evidence.\" Id.\nTo be sure, the juror in Sampson did not limit her false answers to a single question. She also answered falsely to several other questions during voir dire, some material and some not. Id. at 162-63, 166. A combination of factors led the First Circuit to affirm the order for a new penalty-phase hearing. Id. at 168. Here, Juror No. 50's false\n12 Juror No. 50's confidence in his memory is not necessarily a predictor of the memory's reliability. As Dr. Loftus testified, \"when you have post-event suggestion or intervention, people get very confident about their wrong answers, and you can see that even wrong answers or false information, false memories can be expressed with a high degree of confidence.\" TR at 2430.\n33\nDOJ-OGR-00009041",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 40 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "that occurred at different times and places, bring it together, and construct what feels like a recollection.\nTR at 2427. Given Juror No. 50's personal experience and belief about memory and its reliability, there was no way he could fairly evaluate Ms. Maxwell's challenge to the credibility of her accusers' memories or the expert testimony of Dr. Loftus.12\nSeveral decisions support this conclusion. In Sampson v. United States, for example, the First Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to order a new penalty-phase hearing in a death penalty case after a juror falsely denied, among other things, having been a victim of a crime. 724 F.3d at 154, 162. In fact, however, the juror repeatedly had been menaced by her husband with a shotgun. Id. at 168. But because the juror had not told the truth during voir dire, she was seated on a jury in a case involving a bank robbery in which the defendant threatened bank tellers at gunpoint. Id. \"These parallels,\" the Court said, \"raise a serious concern as to whether an ordinary person in [the juror's] shoes would be able to disregard her own experiences in evaluating the evidence.\" Id.\nTo be sure, the juror in Sampson did not limit her false answers to a single question. She also answered falsely to several other questions during voir dire, some material and some not. Id. at 162-63, 166. A combination of factors led the First Circuit to affirm the order for a new penalty-phase hearing. Id. at 168. Here, Juror No. 50's false",
+      "position": "main content"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "12 Juror No. 50's confidence in his memory is not necessarily a predictor of the memory's reliability. As Dr. Loftus testified, \"when you have post-event suggestion or intervention, people get very confident about their wrong answers, and you can see that even wrong answers or false information, false memories can be expressed with a high degree of confidence.\" TR at 2430.",
+      "position": "footnote"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "33",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009041",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Dr. Loftus",
+      "Ms. Maxwell",
+      "Juror No. 50"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "First Circuit",
+      "Court"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 613",
+      "724 F.3d",
+      "TR at 2427",
+      "TR at 2430",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009041"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case, with a formal tone and legal language. There are no visible redactions or damage to the document."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009042.json

@@ -0,0 +1,63 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "41",
+    "document_number": "613",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 41 of 66\nanswers to Questions 25 and 48 are reason enough to order a new trial because they relate to the core allegations against Ms. Maxwell. Moreover, if this Court orders an evidentiary hearing, it is likely additional false answers will come to light, further supporting the conclusion that Ms. Maxwell is entitled to a new trial.\nIn State v. Ashfar, the defendant was convicted of aggravated sexual assault based on the allegation that he touched the genitals of his 12-year-old client during a therapy session. 196 A.3d 93, 94 (N.H. 2018).13 The empaneled jury, however, included an individual who had been sexually assaulted by a babysitter when he was five or six years old. Id. at 95. The juror had not disclosed this during voir dire and had, instead, answered \"no\" when asked if \"[he] or a close member of your family or a close friend ever been a victim of a crime?\" Id. at 95. The trial court ordered a new trial, relying both on the juror's false answer during voir dire but also his post-verdict conduct, which included communications with a female victim of sexual assault who wrote a book on the subject and the juror's self-identification as \"an advocate for people.\" Id. at 96. The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed.\nThe decisions in Sampson and Ashfar support a new trial here. Like those cases, Juror No. 50 falsely denied having a personal experience strikingly similar to the conduct at issue in the criminal case. Juror No. 50's experience as a sexual assault victim \"raise[s]\n13 Because state courts are more often the venue for prosecution of crimes involving sexual assault, state court decisions are particularly helpful. The New Hampshire Supreme Court \"assum[ed] without deciding that McDonough provides the applicable analytical framework\" and concluded that the trial court \"sustainably exercised its discretion in finding the juror \"was not impartial.\" 196 A.3d at 97.",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 41 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "answers to Questions 25 and 48 are reason enough to order a new trial because they relate to the core allegations against Ms. Maxwell. Moreover, if this Court orders an evidentiary hearing, it is likely additional false answers will come to light, further supporting the conclusion that Ms. Maxwell is entitled to a new trial.\nIn State v. Ashfar, the defendant was convicted of aggravated sexual assault based on the allegation that he touched the genitals of his 12-year-old client during a therapy session. 196 A.3d 93, 94 (N.H. 2018).13 The empaneled jury, however, included an individual who had been sexually assaulted by a babysitter when he was five or six years old. Id. at 95. The juror had not disclosed this during voir dire and had, instead, answered \"no\" when asked if \"[he] or a close member of your family or a close friend ever been a victim of a crime?\" Id. at 95. The trial court ordered a new trial, relying both on the juror's false answer during voir dire but also his post-verdict conduct, which included communications with a female victim of sexual assault who wrote a book on the subject and the juror's self-identification as \"an advocate for people.\" Id. at 96. The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed.\nThe decisions in Sampson and Ashfar support a new trial here. Like those cases, Juror No. 50 falsely denied having a personal experience strikingly similar to the conduct at issue in the criminal case. Juror No. 50's experience as a sexual assault victim \"raise[s]",
+      "position": "main body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "13 Because state courts are more often the venue for prosecution of crimes involving sexual assault, state court decisions are particularly helpful. The New Hampshire Supreme Court \"assum[ed] without deciding that McDonough provides the applicable analytical framework\" and concluded that the trial court \"sustainably exercised its discretion in finding the juror \"was not impartial.\" 196 A.3d at 97.",
+      "position": "footnote"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "34",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009042",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Ms. Maxwell",
+      "Ashfar",
+      "McDonough"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "New Hampshire Supreme Court"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "New Hampshire"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22",
+      "2018"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 613",
+      "196 A.3d 93",
+      "196 A.3d at 97",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009042"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ms. Maxwell. The text discusses the need for a new trial based on the false answers provided by a juror during voir dire. The document includes citations to legal precedents and references to specific court decisions."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009043.json

@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "42",
+    "document_number": "613",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 42 of 66\na serious concern as to whether an ordinary person in [Juror No. 50's] shoes would be able to disregard [his] own experiences in evaluating the evidence.\" Id. Moreover, like the juror in Ashfar, Juror No. 50's post-trial conduct further supports a finding of implied bias. The juror in Ashfar communicated with a victim of sexual assault; here, Juror No. 50 communicated with Annie Farmer. The juror in Ashfar viewed himself as \"advocate for people;\" here, Juror No. 50 proclaimed that the verdict against Ms. Maxwell was a verdict \"for all the victims.\"\n\nThe bias of Juror No. 50 should be implied for another reason: \"[R]epeated lies in voir dire imply that the juror concealed material facts in order to secure a spot on the particular jury.\" Daugerdas, 867 F. Supp. 2d at 472.\n\nCrucially, \"[e]ven when prospective jurors are dishonest for reasons other than a desire to secure a seat on the jury, dishonest answers to voir dire questions indicate that a juror is unwilling or unable 'to apply the law as instructed by the court to the evidence\n\n35\nDOJ-OGR-00009043",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 42 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "a serious concern as to whether an ordinary person in [Juror No. 50's] shoes would be able to disregard [his] own experiences in evaluating the evidence.\" Id. Moreover, like the juror in Ashfar, Juror No. 50's post-trial conduct further supports a finding of implied bias. The juror in Ashfar communicated with a victim of sexual assault; here, Juror No. 50 communicated with Annie Farmer. The juror in Ashfar viewed himself as \"advocate for people;\" here, Juror No. 50 proclaimed that the verdict against Ms. Maxwell was a verdict \"for all the victims.\"\n\nThe bias of Juror No. 50 should be implied for another reason: \"[R]epeated lies in voir dire imply that the juror concealed material facts in order to secure a spot on the particular jury.\" Daugerdas, 867 F. Supp. 2d at 472.\n\nCrucially, \"[e]ven when prospective jurors are dishonest for reasons other than a desire to secure a seat on the jury, dishonest answers to voir dire questions indicate that a juror is unwilling or unable 'to apply the law as instructed by the court to the evidence",
+      "position": "main"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "35",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009043",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Annie Farmer",
+      "Ms. Maxwell"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "613",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009043"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a redacted section. The text is mostly clear, but there are several blacked-out lines indicating redactions."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009044.json

@@ -0,0 +1,81 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "43",
+    "document_number": "613",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 43 of 66\npresented by the parties' and, therefore, are indicative of a lack of impartiality because a fundamental instruction in every federal case is that a juror must render a verdict 'solely on the evidence presented at trial.'\" Sampson, 820 F. Supp. 2d at 165 (quoting Thomas, 116 F.3d at 617 & n.10 (citing The Federal Judicial Center's Benchbook for U.S. District Court Judges)). Therefore, dishonest answers are a factor that can contribute to a finding of implied bias. See Skaggs, 164 F.3d at 517.\nThe false answers Ms. Maxwell knows about so far, by themselves, provide a basis for a new trial because, if they had been exposed during voir dire, this Court would have treated Juror No. 50 just as it treated Juror No. [REDACTED]. [REDACTED]\n[REDACTED]\n[REDACTED]. But he also did much more, falsely denying that he had been a victim of sexual assault or sexual abuse. [REDACTED]\n[REDACTED]\nThis Court should treat Juror No. 50 just as it treated Juror No. [REDACTED], and on that ground order a new trial. [REDACTED].\n36\nDOJ-OGR-00009044",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 43 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "presented by the parties' and, therefore, are indicative of a lack of impartiality because a fundamental instruction in every federal case is that a juror must render a verdict 'solely on the evidence presented at trial.'\" Sampson, 820 F. Supp. 2d at 165 (quoting Thomas, 116 F.3d at 617 & n.10 (citing The Federal Judicial Center's Benchbook for U.S. District Court Judges)). Therefore, dishonest answers are a factor that can contribute to a finding of implied bias. See Skaggs, 164 F.3d at 517.",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The false answers Ms. Maxwell knows about so far, by themselves, provide a basis for a new trial because, if they had been exposed during voir dire, this Court would have treated Juror No. 50 just as it treated Juror No. [REDACTED]. [REDACTED]",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "[REDACTED]",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "[REDACTED]. But he also did much more, falsely denying that he had been a victim of sexual assault or sexual abuse. [REDACTED]",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "[REDACTED]",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "This Court should treat Juror No. 50 just as it treated Juror No. [REDACTED], and on that ground order a new trial. [REDACTED].",
+      "position": "bottom"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "36",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009044",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Ms. Maxwell",
+      "Sampson",
+      "Thomas",
+      "Skaggs"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "The Federal Judicial Center",
+      "U.S. District Court",
+      "DOJ"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 613",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009044"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document contains redactions, likely due to sensitive information. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009045.json

@@ -0,0 +1,73 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "44",
+    "document_number": "613",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 44 of 66\n\n2. Inferable bias\n\n\"'Inferable' or 'inferred' bias exists 'when a juror discloses a fact that bespeaks a risk of partiality sufficiently significant to warrant granting the trial judge discretion to excuse the juror for cause, but not so great as to make mandatory a presumption of bias.'\" Daugerdas, 867 F. Supp. 2d at 474 (quoting United States v. Greer, 285 F.3d 158, 171 (2d Cir. 2002)). A court should dismiss a potential juror for inferable bias \"after having received responses from the juror that permit an inference that the juror in question would not be able to decide the matter objectively.\" Torres, 128 F.3d at 47. \"[T]his is so even though the juror need not be asked the specific question of whether he or she could decide the case impartially.\" Id.\n\n\"Moreover, once facts are elicited that permit a finding of inferable bias, then, just as in the situation of implied bias, the juror's statements as to his or her ability to be impartial become irrelevant.\" Id. \"The crux of the implied bias analysis in a case like this one is found in an examination of the similarities between the juror's experiences and the incident giving rise to the trial.\" Torres, 128 F.3d at 48 (quoting Gonzales v. Thomas, 99 F.3d 978, 989 (10th Cir. 1996)). Assuming this Court does not imply bias, it should nevertheless infer bias.\n\nIn United States v. Torres, the defendant was convicted of conspiracy to launder the proceeds of a heroin trafficking scheme by structuring financial transactions. 128 F.3d at 41. Over the defense's objection, the district court (Judge Preska) dismissed for cause a potential juror who admitted that she \"had at one time engaged in the 'structuring' of cash transactions.\" Id. at 42. On appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed, concluding that the 37\n\nDOJ-OGR-00009045",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 44 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "2. Inferable bias",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "\"'Inferable' or 'inferred' bias exists 'when a juror discloses a fact that bespeaks a risk of partiality sufficiently significant to warrant granting the trial judge discretion to excuse the juror for cause, but not so great as to make mandatory a presumption of bias.'\" Daugerdas, 867 F. Supp. 2d at 474 (quoting United States v. Greer, 285 F.3d 158, 171 (2d Cir. 2002)). A court should dismiss a potential juror for inferable bias \"after having received responses from the juror that permit an inference that the juror in question would not be able to decide the matter objectively.\" Torres, 128 F.3d at 47. \"[T]his is so even though the juror need not be asked the specific question of whether he or she could decide the case impartially.\" Id.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "\"Moreover, once facts are elicited that permit a finding of inferable bias, then, just as in the situation of implied bias, the juror's statements as to his or her ability to be impartial become irrelevant.\" Id. \"The crux of the implied bias analysis in a case like this one is found in an examination of the similarities between the juror's experiences and the incident giving rise to the trial.\" Torres, 128 F.3d at 48 (quoting Gonzales v. Thomas, 99 F.3d 978, 989 (10th Cir. 1996)). Assuming this Court does not imply bias, it should nevertheless infer bias.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "In United States v. Torres, the defendant was convicted of conspiracy to launder the proceeds of a heroin trafficking scheme by structuring financial transactions. 128 F.3d at 41. Over the defense's objection, the district court (Judge Preska) dismissed for cause a potential juror who admitted that she \"had at one time engaged in the 'structuring' of cash transactions.\" Id. at 42. On appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed, concluding that the",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "37",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009045",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Greer",
+      "Torres",
+      "Gonzales",
+      "Thomas",
+      "Preska"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Second Circuit",
+      "Tenth Circuit"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22",
+      "2002",
+      "1996"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 613",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009045"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is well-formatted and easy to read. There are no visible redactions or damage to the document."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009046.json

@@ -0,0 +1,79 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "45",
+    "document_number": "613",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 45 of 66\ndistrict court did not err in inferring bias. Id. at 47-48. \"Given the similarity of Juror No. 7's structuring activity to the conduct alleged against appellant Devery in this case, it was reasonable for Judge Preska to conclude that the average person in Juror No. 7's position might have felt personally threatened.\" Id. at 48. Although the Court in Torres declined to define the \"precise scope of a trial judge's discretion to infer bias,\" Judge Calabresi further explained:\n\nIt is enough for the present to note that cases in which a juror has engaged in activities that closely approximate those of the defendant on trial are particularly apt. The exercise of the trial judge's discretion to grant challenges for cause on the basis of inferred bias is especially appropriate in such situations.\n\nId. at 47 (emphasis added).\n\nJust as it is \"especially appropriate\" for a court to infer bias when a potential juror has engaged in \"activities that closely approximate those of the defendant on trial,\" so too is it \"especially appropriate\" for a court to infer bias when a potential juror has been subject to conduct \"that closely approximate[d] [that] of the defendant on trial.\" See id. In such a case, there is just too great a risk that such a juror will not be able to decide the case purely based on the applicable law and the evidence or lack of evidence, even though that inability may be unconscious. This is one such case.\n\n3. Actual bias\n\n\"Actual bias is 'bias in fact'—the existence of a state of mind that leads to an inference that the person will not act with entire impartiality.\" Torres, 128 F.3d at 43 (citing United States v. Wood, 299 U.S. 123, 133 (1936)). \"A juror is found by the judge to be partial either because the juror admits partiality, or the judge finds actual partiality",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 45 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "district court did not err in inferring bias. Id. at 47-48. \"Given the similarity of Juror No. 7's structuring activity to the conduct alleged against appellant Devery in this case, it was reasonable for Judge Preska to conclude that the average person in Juror No. 7's position might have felt personally threatened.\" Id. at 48. Although the Court in Torres declined to define the \"precise scope of a trial judge's discretion to infer bias,\" Judge Calabresi further explained:",
+      "position": "main body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "It is enough for the present to note that cases in which a juror has engaged in activities that closely approximate those of the defendant on trial are particularly apt. The exercise of the trial judge's discretion to grant challenges for cause on the basis of inferred bias is especially appropriate in such situations.",
+      "position": "main body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Id. at 47 (emphasis added).",
+      "position": "main body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Just as it is \"especially appropriate\" for a court to infer bias when a potential juror has engaged in \"activities that closely approximate those of the defendant on trial,\" so too is it \"especially appropriate\" for a court to infer bias when a potential juror has been subject to conduct \"that closely approximate[d] [that] of the defendant on trial.\" See id. In such a case, there is just too great a risk that such a juror will not be able to decide the case purely based on the applicable law and the evidence or lack of evidence, even though that inability may be unconscious. This is one such case.",
+      "position": "main body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "3. Actual bias",
+      "position": "main body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "\"Actual bias is 'bias in fact'—the existence of a state of mind that leads to an inference that the person will not act with entire impartiality.\" Torres, 128 F.3d at 43 (citing United States v. Wood, 299 U.S. 123, 133 (1936)). \"A juror is found by the judge to be partial either because the juror admits partiality, or the judge finds actual partiality",
+      "position": "main body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "38",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009046",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Devery",
+      "Judge Preska",
+      "Judge Calabresi"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22",
+      "1936"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 613",
+      "299 U.S. 123",
+      "128 F.3d",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009046"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text discusses the concept of bias in jurors and the discretion of trial judges to infer bias. The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009047.json

@@ -0,0 +1,57 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "46",
+    "document_number": "613",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 46 of 66\nbased upon the juror's voir dire answers.\" Id. (citing United States v. Haynes, 398 F.2d 980, 984 (2d Cir. 1968) (actual bias is \"based upon express proof, e.g., by a voir dire admission by the prospective juror of a state of mind prejudicial to a party's interest\"); Rosales-Lopez v. United States, 451 U.S. 182, 188 (1981) (plurality opinion) (\"Without an adequate voir dire the trial judge's responsibility to remove prospective jurors who will not be able impartially to follow the court's instructions and evaluate the evidence cannot be fulfilled.\"))\nThis Court need not decide whether Juror No. 50 was actually biased, since this Court can and should imply and infer bias. Assuming this Court holds an evidentiary hearing at which Juror No. 50 is compelled to give truthful answers to the questions he would have been asked if he had not falsely responded to the questionnaire, Ms. Maxwell reserves the right to argue that Juror No. 50 was actually biased.\nC. Juror No. 50's answers to Questions 25 and 48 were intentionally false.\nMs. Maxwell does not need to prove that Juror No. 50's voir dire answers were intentionally false. As explained above, she need only prove \"first, that the juror's voir dire response was false and second, that the correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.\" Stewart, 433 F.3d at 303. Nevertheless, assuming this Court concludes that Ms. Maxwell must prove Juror No. 50 intentionally misled the Court in falsely answering Questions 25 and 48, Ms. Maxwell has easily met that burden.\nThere are at least six reasons to believe Juror No. 50 acted intentionally. First, this Court need only watch the video of Juror No. 50 being confronted with his false answers to appreciate that he acted intentionally. Juror No. 50's face immediately flushed and\n39\nDOJ-OGR-00009047",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 46 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "based upon the juror's voir dire answers.\" Id. (citing United States v. Haynes, 398 F.2d 980, 984 (2d Cir. 1968) (actual bias is \"based upon express proof, e.g., by a voir dire admission by the prospective juror of a state of mind prejudicial to a party's interest\"); Rosales-Lopez v. United States, 451 U.S. 182, 188 (1981) (plurality opinion) (\"Without an adequate voir dire the trial judge's responsibility to remove prospective jurors who will not be able impartially to follow the court's instructions and evaluate the evidence cannot be fulfilled.\"))\nThis Court need not decide whether Juror No. 50 was actually biased, since this Court can and should imply and infer bias. Assuming this Court holds an evidentiary hearing at which Juror No. 50 is compelled to give truthful answers to the questions he would have been asked if he had not falsely responded to the questionnaire, Ms. Maxwell reserves the right to argue that Juror No. 50 was actually biased.\nC. Juror No. 50's answers to Questions 25 and 48 were intentionally false.\nMs. Maxwell does not need to prove that Juror No. 50's voir dire answers were intentionally false. As explained above, she need only prove \"first, that the juror's voir dire response was false and second, that the correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.\" Stewart, 433 F.3d at 303. Nevertheless, assuming this Court concludes that Ms. Maxwell must prove Juror No. 50 intentionally misled the Court in falsely answering Questions 25 and 48, Ms. Maxwell has easily met that burden.\nThere are at least six reasons to believe Juror No. 50 acted intentionally. First, this Court need only watch the video of Juror No. 50 being confronted with his false answers to appreciate that he acted intentionally. Juror No. 50's face immediately flushed and",
+      "position": "main content"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "39",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009047",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Ms. Maxwell"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "U.S. Supreme Court",
+      "2d Cir."
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22",
+      "1968",
+      "1981"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 613",
+      "398 F.2d 980",
+      "451 U.S. 182",
+      "433 F.3d at 303",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009047"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text discusses the issue of juror bias and the implications of a juror providing false answers during voir dire. The document includes citations to various court cases and legal references."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009048.json

@@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "47",
+    "document_number": "613",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 47 of 66\nturned red, and he grasped for words when the Daily Mail reporter told him about\nQuestion 48. \"Interesting,\" Juror No. 50 said, struggling for an explanation. Unable to\ncredibly explain away his false answer, Juror No. 50 eventually put together a\nnonsensical response: \"No, No! I know my face is red because I can feel the blood but, I\nhonestly—that's why I answered it that way.\"\nSecond, Juror No. 50's attempt to justify his false answer by claiming he \"flew\nthrough\" the questionnaire is not worthy of belief. The questionnaire instructed potential\njurors to \"carefully\" compete it. No time limitation was imposed for completion of the\nquestionnaire. It emphasized that only the parties and the Court would know the identities\nof the jurors. It advised that there are no \"right or wrong\" answers, \"only truthful\nanswers.\" And it assured jurors that their privacy would be respected and that if an\nanswer to any question was embarrassing or caused the juror particular concern, they\ncould alert the Court. The Court must presume Juror No. 50 heeded these instructions.\nIndeed, there is compelling evidence that Juror No. 50 carefully followed these\ninstructions and did not \"fly through\" the questionnaire, as he now claims.\n\n\n\n\n\n\nThird, it is simply not credible that Juror No. 50\n\n40\nDOJ-OGR-00009048",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 47 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "turned red, and he grasped for words when the Daily Mail reporter told him about\nQuestion 48. \"Interesting,\" Juror No. 50 said, struggling for an explanation. Unable to\ncredibly explain away his false answer, Juror No. 50 eventually put together a\nnonsensical response: \"No, No! I know my face is red because I can feel the blood but, I\nhonestly—that's why I answered it that way.\"\nSecond, Juror No. 50's attempt to justify his false answer by claiming he \"flew\nthrough\" the questionnaire is not worthy of belief. The questionnaire instructed potential\njurors to \"carefully\" compete it. No time limitation was imposed for completion of the\nquestionnaire. It emphasized that only the parties and the Court would know the identities\nof the jurors. It advised that there are no \"right or wrong\" answers, \"only truthful\nanswers.\" And it assured jurors that their privacy would be respected and that if an\nanswer to any question was embarrassing or caused the juror particular concern, they\ncould alert the Court. The Court must presume Juror No. 50 heeded these instructions.\nIndeed, there is compelling evidence that Juror No. 50 carefully followed these\ninstructions and did not \"fly through\" the questionnaire, as he now claims.",
+      "position": "main content"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Third, it is simply not credible that Juror No. 50",
+      "position": "main content"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "40",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009048",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Juror No. 50"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Daily Mail",
+      "Court",
+      "DOJ"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "613",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009048"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with redactions. The text is mostly clear, but some parts are blacked out."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009049.json

@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "48",
+    "document_number": "613",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 48 of 66 Ex. 1, p 3 (\"The purpose of this questionnaire is to determine whether prospective jurors can decide this case impartially based upon the evidence presented at trial and the legal instructions given by the presiding judge.\") The questionnaire also told potential jurors that it would ask personal questions. Id. (\"Although some of the questions may appear to be of a personal nature, please understand that the Court and the parties must learn enough information about each juror's background and experience to select a fair and impartial jury.\") Fourth, Juror No. 50's post-verdict conduct shows his false answers to the questionnaire were intentional. Juror No. 50 went on a media press to promote himself, his experience as a victim, and his role on the jury. He has given multiple interviews to 41 DOJ-OGR-00009049",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 48 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Ex. 1, p 3 (\"The purpose of this questionnaire is to determine whether prospective jurors can decide this case impartially based upon the evidence presented at trial and the legal instructions given by the presiding judge.\") The questionnaire also told potential jurors that it would ask personal questions. Id. (\"Although some of the questions may appear to be of a personal nature, please understand that the Court and the parties must learn enough information about each juror's background and experience to select a fair and impartial jury.\") Fourth, Juror No. 50's post-verdict conduct shows his false answers to the questionnaire were intentional. Juror No. 50 went on a media press to promote himself, his experience as a victim, and his role on the jury. He has given multiple interviews to",
+      "position": "main body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "41",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009049",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Court",
+      "DOJ"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "613",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009049"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with redactions. The text is mostly clear, but some parts are blacked out."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009051.json

@@ -0,0 +1,78 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "50",
+    "document_number": "613",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 50 of 66\n\nFifth, Juror No. 50's false answer to question 48 was not a one-off mistake. He also falsely answered question 25.\n\n\n\nFinally, this case is not like other cases in which a juror may have given a false answer to avoid embarrassment. Juror No. 50 has spoken to numerous media outlets about his service as a juror, has freely admitted that he is the victim of sexual abuse and sexual assault, and has done the bare minimum to conceal his identity, allowing himself to be identified by his first name while posing for pictures and being video recorded. Juror No. 50 has not shunned the limelight. He has reveled in it.\n\nD. Had Juror No. 50 answered Questions 25 and 48 truthfully, the parties and the Court would have explored whether his other answers were false.\n\nRegardless of whether Juror No. 50's answers were intentional lies or inadvertent misstatements, his false answers to Questions 25 and 48\n\n\n\nAt the October 21 hearing, this Court emphasized the importance of voir dire, and it expressed confidence that it could \"smoke out\" jurors who did not tell the truth:\n\n\nletter was written by the government with full knowledge that it would be published by the media and effectively silence Juror No. 50. The submission of the letter was an end run around this Court's orders regarding Local Rule 23.1 and Rule 3.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.\n\n43\nDOJ-OGR-00009051",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 50 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Fifth, Juror No. 50's false answer to question 48 was not a one-off mistake. He also falsely answered question 25.",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Finally, this case is not like other cases in which a juror may have given a false answer to avoid embarrassment. Juror No. 50 has spoken to numerous media outlets about his service as a juror, has freely admitted that he is the victim of sexual abuse and sexual assault, and has done the bare minimum to conceal his identity, allowing himself to be identified by his first name while posing for pictures and being video recorded. Juror No. 50 has not shunned the limelight. He has reveled in it.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "D. Had Juror No. 50 answered Questions 25 and 48 truthfully, the parties and the Court would have explored whether his other answers were false.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Regardless of whether Juror No. 50's answers were intentional lies or inadvertent misstatements, his false answers to Questions 25 and 48",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "At the October 21 hearing, this Court emphasized the importance of voir dire, and it expressed confidence that it could \"smoke out\" jurors who did not tell the truth:",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "letter was written by the government with full knowledge that it would be published by the media and effectively silence Juror No. 50. The submission of the letter was an end run around this Court's orders regarding Local Rule 23.1 and Rule 3.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.",
+      "position": "bottom"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "43",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009051",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [],
+    "organizations": [],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22",
+      "October 21"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "613",
+      "50",
+      "25",
+      "48",
+      "23.1",
+      "3.6",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009051"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with redactions. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document is from a court case with the number 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, and it is page 50 of 66."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009052.json

@@ -0,0 +1,67 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "51",
+    "document_number": "613",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 51 of 66\n\nI will individually, one-on-one, question[] the jurors, and with the parties present, I feel confident that I can discern any clear dishonesty. This is not just going to be a summary voir dire; it will be probing. . . . If a juror's going to lie and be dishonest, we will smoke that out.\n\nTR 10/21/2021, p 25-26. Because Juror No. 50 did not honestly answer these material questions, however, the Court and the defense were not alerted to probe these issues and instead relied on Juror No. 50's claim that he could be fair and impartial. In hindsight, that claim is not credible.\n\nThis is not speculation. Rather, based on what Juror No. 50 has said to the media, it's clear he was not fair and impartial because his personal experiences \"prevent[ed] or substantially impair[ed] the performance of his duties as a juror in accordance with his instructions and his oath.\" Wainwright, 469 U.S. at 424. If Juror No. 50 had truthfully disclosed that he was a victim of sexual assault and sexual abuse as a child, the Court and parties would have probed, among other things, whether he was able (1) to assess the credibility of alleged sex assault victim like all other witnesses; (2) to fairly evaluate the testimony of Dr. Loftus; (3) to impartially assess Ms. Maxwell's defense that her accusers' memories were unreliable and tainted by money and manipulation; and (4) set aside his own traumatic experience when evaluating whether the government met its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.\n\nJuror No. 50's failure to disclose that he was a victim of sexual abuse (Question 48) was further compounded by his failure to disclose that he was merely a victim of a crime (Question 25). Disclosing that he was a crime victim would have invited inquiry by counsel and the Court regarding the nature of the crime and would have provided a\n\n44\n\nDOJ-OGR-00009052",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 51 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "I will individually, one-on-one, question[] the jurors, and with the parties present, I feel confident that I can discern any clear dishonesty. This is not just going to be a summary voir dire; it will be probing. . . . If a juror's going to lie and be dishonest, we will smoke that out.\n\nTR 10/21/2021, p 25-26. Because Juror No. 50 did not honestly answer these material questions, however, the Court and the defense were not alerted to probe these issues and instead relied on Juror No. 50's claim that he could be fair and impartial. In hindsight, that claim is not credible.",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "This is not speculation. Rather, based on what Juror No. 50 has said to the media, it's clear he was not fair and impartial because his personal experiences \"prevent[ed] or substantially impair[ed] the performance of his duties as a juror in accordance with his instructions and his oath.\" Wainwright, 469 U.S. at 424. If Juror No. 50 had truthfully disclosed that he was a victim of sexual assault and sexual abuse as a child, the Court and parties would have probed, among other things, whether he was able (1) to assess the credibility of alleged sex assault victim like all other witnesses; (2) to fairly evaluate the testimony of Dr. Loftus; (3) to impartially assess Ms. Maxwell's defense that her accusers' memories were unreliable and tainted by money and manipulation; and (4) set aside his own traumatic experience when evaluating whether the government met its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Juror No. 50's failure to disclose that he was a victim of sexual abuse (Question 48) was further compounded by his failure to disclose that he was merely a victim of a crime (Question 25). Disclosing that he was a crime victim would have invited inquiry by counsel and the Court regarding the nature of the crime and would have provided a",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "44",
+      "position": "bottom"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009052",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Dr. Loftus",
+      "Ms. Maxwell"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Court"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "10/21/2021",
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 613",
+      "Juror No. 50",
+      "Question 48",
+      "Question 25",
+      "Wainwright, 469 U.S. at 424",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009052"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or legal filing related to a criminal case involving Ghislaine Maxwell. The text discusses the voir dire process and the potential bias of a juror (Juror No. 50) who failed to disclose their history of sexual abuse. The document includes references to specific court documents and legal precedents."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009053.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "52",
+    "document_number": "613",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 52 of 66 basis for a cause challenge or a peremptory challenge. Juror No. 50's false answers to both questions deprived the Court of any basis for any meaningful inquiry on a topic bearing directly on his ability to serve impartially and the basis for a cause challenge. Truthful answers from Juror No. 50 would have led the Court and the parties to probe much more deeply into his biases and prejudices, both known and unknown.17 Had that happened, the record shows that he would have been removed as a potential juror. 16 Juror No. 50 continues his media exploits despite being the subject of this Motion and represented by counsel. On January 18, 2022, he appeared in a documentary produced by ITV. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvnwRuDfrdM at timestamps 01:53, 02:32, 04:10, 05:10, 34:36, 38:41, 39:15. 17 This follow-up questioning would not have been a mere formality. 45 DOJ-OGR-00009053",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 52 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "basis for a cause challenge or a peremptory challenge. Juror No. 50's false answers to both questions deprived the Court of any basis for any meaningful inquiry on a topic bearing directly on his ability to serve impartially and the basis for a cause challenge.",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Truthful answers from Juror No. 50 would have led the Court and the parties to probe much more deeply into his biases and prejudices, both known and unknown.17 Had that happened, the record shows that he would have been removed as a potential juror.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "16 Juror No. 50 continues his media exploits despite being the subject of this Motion and represented by counsel. On January 18, 2022, he appeared in a documentary produced by ITV. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvnwRuDfrdM at timestamps 01:53, 02:32, 04:10, 05:10, 34:36, 38:41, 39:15.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "17 This follow-up questioning would not have been a mere formality.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "45",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009053",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Juror No. 50"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "ITV",
+      "Court"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22",
+      "January 18, 2022"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "613",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009053"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with redactions. The text is mostly printed, with some footnotes and a URL. The document is from a court case with the number 1:20-cr-00330-PAE."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009054.json

@@ -0,0 +1,87 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "53",
+    "document_number": "613",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 53 of 66\n\nE. Juror 50's material misstatements (and those of the second unidentified juror) prevented Ms. Maxwell from exercising her peremptory challenges, denying her a fair trial.\n\nProper voir dire plays a vital role in assuring a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury. Without an adequate voir dire the trial judge's responsibility to remove prospective jurors who may not be able impartially serve cannot be fulfilled.\n\n\"Similarly, lack of adequate voir dire impairs the defendant's right to exercise peremptory challenges where provided by statute or rule, as it is in the federal courts.\" Rosales-Lopez v. United States, 451 U.S. 182, 188 (1981) (citation omitted).\n\nThe role of peremptory challenges in a criminal trial cannot be overstated:\n\nPeremptory challenges have been an integral aspect of criminal trial procedure for over six hundred years and continue to be universally employed throughout the country. The underlying thesis is that, with the exception of challenges for cause, the suitability of a particular juror is counsel's decision and not the court's. Consistent with that thesis and subject to constitutional strictures, a peremptory challenge can rest on a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all.\n\nState v. Scher, 278 N.J. Super. 249, 263, 650 A.2d 1012, 1019 (App. Div. 1994) (cleaned up).\n\nFed. R. Crim. P. 24 entitles a number of peremptory challenges to prospective jurors. Here, Ms. Maxwell exercised all of her peremptory challenges and, whether for cause or peremptory, would not have knowing allowed a juror who: (1) claimed to be a victim of sexual abuse; or (2) neglected to disclose that the juror had been a victim of sexual abuse; (3) [redacted]. Had Juror 50 disclosed any of these issues, Ms. Maxwell would have used a peremptory challenge against this juror and not as to any of the other remaining jurors.\n\n46\nDOJ-OGR-00009054",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 53 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "E. Juror 50's material misstatements (and those of the second unidentified juror) prevented Ms. Maxwell from exercising her peremptory challenges, denying her a fair trial.",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Proper voir dire plays a vital role in assuring a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury. Without an adequate voir dire the trial judge's responsibility to remove prospective jurors who may not be able impartially serve cannot be fulfilled.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "\"Similarly, lack of adequate voir dire impairs the defendant's right to exercise peremptory challenges where provided by statute or rule, as it is in the federal courts.\" Rosales-Lopez v. United States, 451 U.S. 182, 188 (1981) (citation omitted).",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The role of peremptory challenges in a criminal trial cannot be overstated:",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Peremptory challenges have been an integral aspect of criminal trial procedure for over six hundred years and continue to be universally employed throughout the country. The underlying thesis is that, with the exception of challenges for cause, the suitability of a particular juror is counsel's decision and not the court's. Consistent with that thesis and subject to constitutional strictures, a peremptory challenge can rest on a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "State v. Scher, 278 N.J. Super. 249, 263, 650 A.2d 1012, 1019 (App. Div. 1994) (cleaned up).",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Fed. R. Crim. P. 24 entitles a number of peremptory challenges to prospective jurors. Here, Ms. Maxwell exercised all of her peremptory challenges and, whether for cause or peremptory, would not have knowing allowed a juror who: (1) claimed to be a victim of sexual abuse; or (2) neglected to disclose that the juror had been a victim of sexual abuse; (3) [redacted]. Had Juror 50 disclosed any of these issues, Ms. Maxwell would have used a peremptory challenge against this juror and not as to any of the other remaining jurors.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "46",
+      "position": "bottom"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009054",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Ms. Maxwell"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "United States"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "New Jersey"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22",
+      "1981",
+      "1994"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 613",
+      "451 U.S. 182",
+      "278 N.J. Super. 249",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009054"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ms. Maxwell. The text discusses the importance of proper voir dire and peremptory challenges in ensuring a fair trial. There is a redacted section on page 53."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009056.json

@@ -0,0 +1,73 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "55",
+    "document_number": "613",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 55 of 66\nexperiences, he would have been excused, if not for cause, then as a defense peremptory strike.\n\nII. The scope of any evidentiary hearing\n\nMs. Maxwell does not believe an evidentiary hearing is required because the undisputed evidence shows (1) that Juror No. 50 falsely answered a material question during voir dire and (2) that, had he answered truthfully, he would have been subject to a challenge for cause. If this Court disagrees, however, a formal evidentiary hearing is appropriate.\n\nWhen, as here, there is a plausible claim of juror misconduct, \"an unflagging duty falls to the district court to investigate the claim.\" United States v. French, 904 F.3d 111, 117 (1st Cir. 2018) (quotation omitted). \"[A] formal evidentiary hearing [is] the gold standard for an inquiry into alleged juror misconduct.\" United States v. French, 977 F.3d 114, 122 (1st Cir. 2020), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 2601 (2021), cert. denied sub nom. Russell v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 2601 (2021).\n\nA. Pre-hearing discovery\n\nMs. Maxwell requests that the Court authorize subpoenas to:\n\n1. Juror No. 50 to produce:\n\na. Emails or other written communications between Juror No. 50 and any alleged victim or witness in this case;\n\nb. Emails or other written communications between Juror No. 50 and any other juror in this case;\n\n48\n\nDOJ-OGR-00009056",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 55 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "experiences, he would have been excused, if not for cause, then as a defense peremptory strike.",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "II. The scope of any evidentiary hearing\n\nMs. Maxwell does not believe an evidentiary hearing is required because the undisputed evidence shows (1) that Juror No. 50 falsely answered a material question during voir dire and (2) that, had he answered truthfully, he would have been subject to a challenge for cause. If this Court disagrees, however, a formal evidentiary hearing is appropriate.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "When, as here, there is a plausible claim of juror misconduct, \"an unflagging duty falls to the district court to investigate the claim.\" United States v. French, 904 F.3d 111, 117 (1st Cir. 2018) (quotation omitted). \"[A] formal evidentiary hearing [is] the gold standard for an inquiry into alleged juror misconduct.\" United States v. French, 977 F.3d 114, 122 (1st Cir. 2020), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 2601 (2021), cert. denied sub nom. Russell v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 2601 (2021).",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "A. Pre-hearing discovery\n\nMs. Maxwell requests that the Court authorize subpoenas to:\n\n1. Juror No. 50 to produce:\n\na. Emails or other written communications between Juror No. 50 and any alleged victim or witness in this case;\n\nb. Emails or other written communications between Juror No. 50 and any other juror in this case;",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "48",
+      "position": "bottom"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009056",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Ms. Maxwell",
+      "Juror No. 50"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Court"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22",
+      "2018",
+      "2020",
+      "2021"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 613",
+      "904 F.3d 111",
+      "977 F.3d 114",
+      "141 S. Ct. 2601",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009056"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case, with a formal tone and legal language. There are no visible redactions or damage."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009057.json

@@ -0,0 +1,61 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "56",
+    "document_number": "613",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 56 of 66\n\nc. Non-privileged emails or other written communications between Juror No. 50 and any other person, including any news or media organization about Juror No. 50's service as a juror in this case;\n\nd. Any record of payments to Juror No. 50 in exchange for any interview or information about his service as a juror in this case;\n\n2. Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram, or other social media networking platforms identified by the parties, to produce:\n\na. All communications to and from Juror No. 50 regarding his service as a juror in this case;\n\nb. All posts, comments, or photographs posted by Juror No. 50 regarding his service as a juror in this case.\n\nc. All documents reflecting dates on which Juror No. 50 opened or closed his accounts.\n\nB. The hearing itself\n\nThe misconduct identified potentially implicates all 12 jurors who rendered a verdict here. According to Juror No. 50 and the New York Times, one other juror did not disclose that he or she was the victim of sexual abuse as a child. Nevertheless, that juror's experiences were discussed apparently in support of Juror No. 50's position. What these two jurors disclosed to the (presumably) ten jurors who responded to the questionnaire truthfully will be relevant to determine the identity of the second juror and what Juror No. 50 said to the other jurors.\n\n49\nDOJ-OGR-00009057",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 56 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "c. Non-privileged emails or other written communications between Juror No. 50 and any other person, including any news or media organization about Juror No. 50's service as a juror in this case;\nd. Any record of payments to Juror No. 50 in exchange for any interview or information about his service as a juror in this case;\n2. Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram, or other social media networking platforms identified by the parties, to produce:\na. All communications to and from Juror No. 50 regarding his service as a juror in this case;\nb. All posts, comments, or photographs posted by Juror No. 50 regarding his service as a juror in this case.\nc. All documents reflecting dates on which Juror No. 50 opened or closed his accounts.",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "B. The hearing itself",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The misconduct identified potentially implicates all 12 jurors who rendered a verdict here. According to Juror No. 50 and the New York Times, one other juror did not disclose that he or she was the victim of sexual abuse as a child. Nevertheless, that juror's experiences were discussed apparently in support of Juror No. 50's position. What these two jurors disclosed to the (presumably) ten jurors who responded to the questionnaire truthfully will be relevant to determine the identity of the second juror and what Juror No. 50 said to the other jurors.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "49",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009057",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Juror No. 50"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "New York Times"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "613",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009057"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case, discussing juror misconduct and the need for further investigation."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009058.json

@@ -0,0 +1,76 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "57",
+    "document_number": "613",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 57 of 66\n\nMs. Maxwell requests that any hearing begin with the questioning of Juror No. 50.\n\nMs. Maxwell requests that the Court first advise Juror No. 50 about the nature of the hearing and then allow defense counsel to question Juror No. 50 followed by questioning from the government, re-cross examination by defense counsel, followed by any questions from the Court and any additional questions from counsel based on the Court's questions.\n\nIf, after this examination further inquiry is required, Ms. Maxwell suggests that the second juror be summoned to Court for an identical process. If necessary, this process should be repeated as to all remaining jurors.\n\nAfter the examination of the jurors the parties should be afforded a period of time to conduct any further investigation warranted by the information presented at the hearing followed by post-hearing arguments, either oral or written.\n\nFederal Rule of Evidence 606(b) does not prohibit this inquiry, because Ms. Maxwell does not seek to impeach the verdict based on the content of deliberations. Cf. Fed. R. Evid. 606(b) (providing that, with certain exceptions, \"a juror may not testify about any statement made or incident that occurred during the jury's deliberations\" during \"an inquiry into the validity of a verdict\"). Instead, she intends to show that her jury was not fair and impartial as required by the Sixth Amendment because at least two jurors gave false answers during voir dire to material questions that, if answered truthfully, would have subject them to a challenge for cause.\n\nTo the extent Rule 606 might apply to certain questions asked at the hearing, Ms. Maxwell need not inquire into the content of deliberations to establish her jury bias\n\n50\nDOJ-OGR-00009058",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 57 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Ms. Maxwell requests that any hearing begin with the questioning of Juror No. 50.",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Ms. Maxwell requests that the Court first advise Juror No. 50 about the nature of the hearing and then allow defense counsel to question Juror No. 50 followed by questioning from the government, re-cross examination by defense counsel, followed by any questions from the Court and any additional questions from counsel based on the Court's questions.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "If, after this examination further inquiry is required, Ms. Maxwell suggests that the second juror be summoned to Court for an identical process. If necessary, this process should be repeated as to all remaining jurors.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "After the examination of the jurors the parties should be afforded a period of time to conduct any further investigation warranted by the information presented at the hearing followed by post-hearing arguments, either oral or written.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) does not prohibit this inquiry, because Ms. Maxwell does not seek to impeach the verdict based on the content of deliberations. Cf. Fed. R. Evid. 606(b) (providing that, with certain exceptions, \"a juror may not testify about any statement made or incident that occurred during the jury's deliberations\" during \"an inquiry into the validity of a verdict\"). Instead, she intends to show that her jury was not fair and impartial as required by the Sixth Amendment because at least two jurors gave false answers during voir dire to material questions that, if answered truthfully, would have subject them to a challenge for cause.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "To the extent Rule 606 might apply to certain questions asked at the hearing, Ms. Maxwell need not inquire into the content of deliberations to establish her jury bias",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "50",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009058",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Ms. Maxwell"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Court"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "613",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009058"
+    ]
+  },
+  "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 57 of 66."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009059.json

@@ -0,0 +1,75 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "58",
+    "document_number": "613",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 58 of 66\nclaim. See Cunningham v. Shoop, __ F.4th __, 2022 WL 92594, at *14-15 (6th Cir. Nos. 11-3005/20-3429, Jan. 10, 2022) (granting habeas relief as to juror bias claim because it is \"possible for Cunningham to prove that [the juror] was actually biased without relying on juror testimony in violation of Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b)\"); compare Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, 137 S. Ct. 855 (2017) (\"Where a juror makes a clear statement indicating that he or she relied on racial stereotypes or animus to convict a criminal defendant, the Sixth Amendment requires that the no-impeachment rule give way in order to permit the trial court to consider the evidence of the juror's statement and any resulting denial of the jury trial guarantee.\") Without relying on juror testimony, it is already clear that Juror No. 50 did not truthfully answer the questionnaire; Juror No. 50 has publicly admitted he is a victim of sexual assault and sexual abuse.\nAs for identifying the other juror who was also a victim of sexual assault and abuse, the Court and parties can identify the juror without eliciting testimony about what was said during deliberations. The remaining eleven jurors can be asked, under oath, whether their answer to question 48 is correct and whether they have been a victim of sexual assault or abuse. Presumably the second juror will self-identify.\nIII. Juror No. 50 has no right to intervene.\nA. Juror No. 50 lacks standing.\nJuror No. 50 seeks to intervene suggesting that \"it is indisputable that precedent supports intervention by interested third parties in criminal matters....\" Memo. at 8. This claim is not supported by \"the long line of precedent hold[ing] that a non-party lacks a judicially cognizable interest in a defendant's prosecution.\" United States v. Stoerr, 695\n51\nDOJ-OGR-00009059",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 58 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "claim. See Cunningham v. Shoop, __ F.4th __, 2022 WL 92594, at *14-15 (6th Cir. Nos. 11-3005/20-3429, Jan. 10, 2022) (granting habeas relief as to juror bias claim because it is \"possible for Cunningham to prove that [the juror] was actually biased without relying on juror testimony in violation of Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b)\"); compare Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, 137 S. Ct. 855 (2017) (\"Where a juror makes a clear statement indicating that he or she relied on racial stereotypes or animus to convict a criminal defendant, the Sixth Amendment requires that the no-impeachment rule give way in order to permit the trial court to consider the evidence of the juror's statement and any resulting denial of the jury trial guarantee.\") Without relying on juror testimony, it is already clear that Juror No. 50 did not truthfully answer the questionnaire; Juror No. 50 has publicly admitted he is a victim of sexual assault and sexual abuse.",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "As for identifying the other juror who was also a victim of sexual assault and abuse, the Court and parties can identify the juror without eliciting testimony about what was said during deliberations. The remaining eleven jurors can be asked, under oath, whether their answer to question 48 is correct and whether they have been a victim of sexual assault or abuse. Presumably the second juror will self-identify.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "III. Juror No. 50 has no right to intervene.\nA. Juror No. 50 lacks standing.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Juror No. 50 seeks to intervene suggesting that \"it is indisputable that precedent supports intervention by interested third parties in criminal matters....\" Memo. at 8. This claim is not supported by \"the long line of precedent hold[ing] that a non-party lacks a judicially cognizable interest in a defendant's prosecution.\" United States v. Stoerr, 695",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "51",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009059",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Cunningham",
+      "Shoop",
+      "Pena-Rodriguez",
+      "Stoerr"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Court",
+      "Sixth Amendment"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "Jan. 10, 2022",
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 613",
+      "11-3005/20-3429",
+      "2022 WL 92594",
+      "137 S. Ct. 855",
+      "695",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009059"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is mostly printed, with no handwritten annotations or stamps visible. The document is well-formatted and legible."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009060.json

@@ -0,0 +1,76 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "59",
+    "document_number": "613",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 59 of 66\n\nF.3d 271, 278 (3d Cir. 2012). Juror No. 50 is not a party here and there is no legal basis for Juror No. 50 to intervene in this matter. This is not a request by a journalist to intervene for public access. See United States v. Aref, 533 F.3d 72, 81 (2d Cir. 2008) (motion to intervene to assert the public's First Amendment right of access to criminal proceedings is proper). Nor is the request from a subpoena respondent. See United States v. RMI Co., 599 F.2d 1183, 1186 (3d Cir. 1979) (persons affected by the disclosure of allegedly privileged materials may intervene in pending criminal proceedings and seek protective orders). Although Juror No. 50 has expressed a questionable interest in the outcome of this case, that does not afford him standing to intervene. Notably, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure make no reference to a motion to intervene in a criminal case. This is a recognition of the general rule that \"a private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another.\" Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973). And as one court has noted, \"[e]ven crime victims, who enjoy various statutory rights of participation, have no right to intervene in the district court in a criminal case.\" United States v. Collins, 2013 WL 4780927, at *1 (E.D. Wis. 2013).\n\nB. This Court should refuse Juror No. 50's discovery request because Juror No. 50 is under investigation and the release of the information requested would prejudice that investigation.\n\nIt is the conduct of Juror No. 50 that is under investigation here. Like many suspects, Juror No. 50 would like to learn as much information about the investigation so that he can tailor responses to any potential questions and change the focus of the investigation. Once he was thoroughly tipped off by the government, Juror No. 50 has\n\n52\n\nDOJ-OGR-00009060",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 59 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "F.3d 271, 278 (3d Cir. 2012). Juror No. 50 is not a party here and there is no legal basis for Juror No. 50 to intervene in this matter. This is not a request by a journalist to intervene for public access. See United States v. Aref, 533 F.3d 72, 81 (2d Cir. 2008) (motion to intervene to assert the public's First Amendment right of access to criminal proceedings is proper). Nor is the request from a subpoena respondent. See United States v. RMI Co., 599 F.2d 1183, 1186 (3d Cir. 1979) (persons affected by the disclosure of allegedly privileged materials may intervene in pending criminal proceedings and seek protective orders). Although Juror No. 50 has expressed a questionable interest in the outcome of this case, that does not afford him standing to intervene. Notably, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure make no reference to a motion to intervene in a criminal case. This is a recognition of the general rule that \"a private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another.\" Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973). And as one court has noted, \"[e]ven crime victims, who enjoy various statutory rights of participation, have no right to intervene in the district court in a criminal case.\" United States v. Collins, 2013 WL 4780927, at *1 (E.D. Wis. 2013).",
+      "position": "main body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "B. This Court should refuse Juror No. 50's discovery request because Juror No. 50 is under investigation and the release of the information requested would prejudice that investigation.",
+      "position": "main body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "It is the conduct of Juror No. 50 that is under investigation here. Like many suspects, Juror No. 50 would like to learn as much information about the investigation so that he can tailor responses to any potential questions and change the focus of the investigation. Once he was thoroughly tipped off by the government, Juror No. 50 has",
+      "position": "main body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "52",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009060",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Juror No. 50",
+      "Aref",
+      "Linda R.S.",
+      "Richard D."
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "United States"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "E.D. Wis"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22",
+      "2012",
+      "2008",
+      "1979",
+      "1973",
+      "2013"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 613",
+      "F.3d 271",
+      "533 F.3d 72",
+      "599 F.2d 1183",
+      "410 U.S. 614",
+      "2013 WL 4780927",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009060"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case, discussing the issue of a juror's request to intervene and access certain information. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009061.json

@@ -0,0 +1,61 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "60 of 66",
+    "document_number": "613",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 60 of 66\nsought to distance himself from his original statements, attempted to destroy evidence, and tried to flee from the media.\nUnder analogous circumstances courts have refused discovery to individuals or entities under investigation. See John Doe Agency v. John Doe Corp., 493 U.S. 146, (1989) (recipient of a grand jury subpoena for certain records relating to a cost allocation appropriately denied access to records pursuant to a FOIA request).\nAny advance disclosure to Juror No. 50 of the questionnaire will undoubtably color Juror No. 50's testimony and allow him to place himself in the best possible posture. Although there may come a time when Juror No. 50 is entitled to this discovery-if he is charged with perjury, criminal contempt, or some other crime, for example-the time is not now.\nC. Juror No. 50's filings should be stricken or, alternatively, remain under seal.\nWhether a claimant has standing is \"the threshold question in every federal case, determining the power of the court to entertain the suit.\" In re Gucci, 126 F.3d 380, 387-88 (2d Cir. 1997) (citing Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498, (1975)). Striking the pleading of a putative litigant is appropriate where the litigant lacks standing. United States v. All Right, Title & Int. in Prop., Appurtenances, & Improvements Known as 479 Tamarind Drive, Hallendale, Fla., No. 98 CIV. 2279 DLC, 2011 WL 1045095, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 11, 2011). A stricken pleading is a nullity with no legal effect. Davis v. Bombardier Recreational Prod., Inc., No. 3:11CV236-TSL-MTP, 2012 WL 112202, at *3 (S.D. Miss. Jan. 12, 2012) (stricken amended complaint deemed a nullity and of\n53\nDOJ-OGR-00009061",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 60 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "sought to distance himself from his original statements, attempted to destroy evidence, and tried to flee from the media.\nUnder analogous circumstances courts have refused discovery to individuals or entities under investigation. See John Doe Agency v. John Doe Corp., 493 U.S. 146, (1989) (recipient of a grand jury subpoena for certain records relating to a cost allocation appropriately denied access to records pursuant to a FOIA request).\nAny advance disclosure to Juror No. 50 of the questionnaire will undoubtably color Juror No. 50's testimony and allow him to place himself in the best possible posture. Although there may come a time when Juror No. 50 is entitled to this discovery-if he is charged with perjury, criminal contempt, or some other crime, for example-the time is not now.\nC. Juror No. 50's filings should be stricken or, alternatively, remain under seal.\nWhether a claimant has standing is \"the threshold question in every federal case, determining the power of the court to entertain the suit.\" In re Gucci, 126 F.3d 380, 387-88 (2d Cir. 1997) (citing Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498, (1975)). Striking the pleading of a putative litigant is appropriate where the litigant lacks standing. United States v. All Right, Title & Int. in Prop., Appurtenances, & Improvements Known as 479 Tamarind Drive, Hallendale, Fla., No. 98 CIV. 2279 DLC, 2011 WL 1045095, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 11, 2011). A stricken pleading is a nullity with no legal effect. Davis v. Bombardier Recreational Prod., Inc., No. 3:11CV236-TSL-MTP, 2012 WL 112202, at *3 (S.D. Miss. Jan. 12, 2012) (stricken amended complaint deemed a nullity and of",
+      "position": "main content"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "53",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009061",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [],
+    "organizations": [],
+    "locations": [
+      "Hallendale, Fla.",
+      "S.D.N.Y.",
+      "S.D. Miss."
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22",
+      "Mar. 11, 2011",
+      "Jan. 12, 2012",
+      "1975",
+      "1989"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 613",
+      "493 U.S. 146",
+      "126 F.3d 380",
+      "422 U.S. 490",
+      "No. 98 CIV. 2279 DLC",
+      "No. 3:11CV236-TSL-MTP",
+      "2011 WL 1045095",
+      "2012 WL 112202"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 60 of 66."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009062.json

@@ -0,0 +1,76 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "61",
+    "document_number": "613",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 61 of 66\n\nno legal effect). Although Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure references \"pleadings,\" \"a district court has the inherent power to strike a party's submissions other than pleadings.\" Mazzeo v. Gibbons, No. 2:08-CV-01387-RLH-PA, 2010 WL 3910072, at *3 (D. Nev. Sept. 30, 2010); see also Metzger v. Hussman, 682 F. Supp. 1109, 1110 (D. Nev. 1988) (motion to strike granted and motion in opposition not considered by the court). This Court should strike all the filings made by Juror No. 50.\n\nAlternatively, Ms. Maxwell requests that the \"Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Intervene and for Release of Sealed Jury Questionnaire and Transcript, on Behalf of Proposed Intervenor, Juror 50\" and its companion Motion remain under seal, at least until a resolution of Ms. Maxwell's motion for new trial based on this Juror's failure to answer truthfully during jury selection. Juror No. 50's Motion and accompanying Memorandum are an attempt to obtain discovery by a non-party to this criminal case, made by someone who lacks standing to participate in this prosecution. Accordingly, these pleadings are not \"judicial documents\" and are afforded no presumption of public access. United States v. Smith, 985 F. Supp. 2d 506, 519 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (\"experience and logic show that there is no right of access to discovery materials\"). See SEC v. The Street.Com, 273 F.3d 222, 233 (2d Cir.2001) (rejecting claim that deposition testimony became a \"judicial document\" \"because the Court reviewed it in order to decide whether or not to enter [a] protective order\").\n\nThe fact that Juror No. 50 filed these pleadings does not make them \"judicial documents.\" United States v. Amodeo (\"Amodeo I\"), 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995) (\"We think that the mere filing of a paper or document with the court is insufficient to\n\n54\n\nDOJ-OGR-00009062",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 61 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "no legal effect). Although Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure references \"pleadings,\" \"a district court has the inherent power to strike a party's submissions other than pleadings.\" Mazzeo v. Gibbons, No. 2:08-CV-01387-RLH-PA, 2010 WL 3910072, at *3 (D. Nev. Sept. 30, 2010); see also Metzger v. Hussman, 682 F. Supp. 1109, 1110 (D. Nev. 1988) (motion to strike granted and motion in opposition not considered by the court). This Court should strike all the filings made by Juror No. 50.",
+      "position": "main"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Alternatively, Ms. Maxwell requests that the \"Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Intervene and for Release of Sealed Jury Questionnaire and Transcript, on Behalf of Proposed Intervenor, Juror 50\" and its companion Motion remain under seal, at least until a resolution of Ms. Maxwell's motion for new trial based on this Juror's failure to answer truthfully during jury selection. Juror No. 50's Motion and accompanying Memorandum are an attempt to obtain discovery by a non-party to this criminal case, made by someone who lacks standing to participate in this prosecution. Accordingly, these pleadings are not \"judicial documents\" and are afforded no presumption of public access. United States v. Smith, 985 F. Supp. 2d 506, 519 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (\"experience and logic show that there is no right of access to discovery materials\"). See SEC v. The Street.Com, 273 F.3d 222, 233 (2d Cir.2001) (rejecting claim that deposition testimony became a \"judicial document\" \"because the Court reviewed it in order to decide whether or not to enter [a] protective order\").",
+      "position": "main"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The fact that Juror No. 50 filed these pleadings does not make them \"judicial documents.\" United States v. Amodeo (\"Amodeo I\"), 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995) (\"We think that the mere filing of a paper or document with the court is insufficient to",
+      "position": "main"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "54",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009062",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Maxwell",
+      "Mazzeo",
+      "Gibbons",
+      "Metzger",
+      "Hussman",
+      "Smith",
+      "Amodeo"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "SEC"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "Nevada",
+      "New York"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22",
+      "Sept. 30, 2010",
+      "1988",
+      "2013",
+      "2001",
+      "1995"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 613",
+      "No. 2:08-CV-01387-RLH-PA",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009062"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is mostly printed, with no handwritten content or stamps visible. The document is well-formatted and legible."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009063.json

@@ -0,0 +1,69 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "62",
+    "document_number": "613",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 62 of 66 render that paper a judicial document subject to the right of public access. We think that the item filed must be relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process in order for it to be designated a judicial document. Moreover, if stricken, the documents enjoy no presumption of public access. Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 51-52 (2d Cir. 2019) ([under Civil Rule 12], \"the district court may strike such material from the filings on the grounds that it is \"redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous.\" Because such rejected or stricken material is not \"relevant to the performance of the judicial function\" it would not be considered a \"judicial document\" and would enjoy no presumption of public access.\") The Second Circuit established a framework in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) for courts to utilize in determining when the public has a right of access to particular documents. The Court of Appeals held that \"[b]efore any such common law right can attach, however, a court must first conclude that the documents at issue are indeed 'judicial documents.'\" Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 119. \"Once the court has determined that the documents are judicial documents and that therefore a common law presumption of access attaches, it must determine the weight of that presumption.\" Id. \"Finally, after determining the weight of the presumption of access, the court must 'balance competing considerations against it.'\" Id. at 120. There exists no compelling reason to release Juror No. 50's pleadings. Any public release of the documents will set off another round of publicity, speculation, and commentary, all of which is prejudicial to the truth finding process and Ms. Maxwell's rights to fair and impartial proceedings. 55 DOJ-OGR-00009063",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 62 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "render that paper a judicial document subject to the right of public access. We think that the item filed must be relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process in order for it to be designated a judicial document. Moreover, if stricken, the documents enjoy no presumption of public access. Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 51-52 (2d Cir. 2019) ([under Civil Rule 12], \"the district court may strike such material from the filings on the grounds that it is \"redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous.\" Because such rejected or stricken material is not \"relevant to the performance of the judicial function\" it would not be considered a \"judicial document\" and would enjoy no presumption of public access.\")",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Second Circuit established a framework in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) for courts to utilize in determining when the public has a right of access to particular documents. The Court of Appeals held that \"[b]efore any such common law right can attach, however, a court must first conclude that the documents at issue are indeed 'judicial documents.'\" Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 119. \"Once the court has determined that the documents are judicial documents and that therefore a common law presumption of access attaches, it must determine the weight of that presumption.\" Id. \"Finally, after determining the weight of the presumption of access, the court must 'balance competing considerations against it.'\" Id. at 120.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "There exists no compelling reason to release Juror No. 50's pleadings. Any public release of the documents will set off another round of publicity, speculation, and commentary, all of which is prejudicial to the truth finding process and Ms. Maxwell's rights to fair and impartial proceedings.",
+      "position": "bottom"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "55",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009063",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Maxwell"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Second Circuit",
+      "Court of Appeals",
+      "DOJ"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "Onondaga"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22",
+      "2019",
+      "2006"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 613",
+      "929 F.3d 41",
+      "435 F.3d 110",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009063"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ghislaine Maxwell. The text discusses the concept of 'judicial documents' and the right of public access to court documents. The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009064.json

@@ -0,0 +1,69 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "63",
+    "document_number": "613",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 63 of 66\n\nThe submissions by Juror No. 50 have questionable merit, have not been ruled upon, and implicate an ongoing investigation by the parties and the Court into juror misconduct. Certainly, at least at this stage of the proceedings, the submissions are not \"judicial documents\" and until the issues around Juror No. 50's motion for intervention and discovery have been resolved they should remain sealed. If the Court believes Juror No. 50's requests merit judicial document status the seal should remain. The requests would be afforded the lowest presumption of public access and compelling reasons to maintain the sealed status exist.\n\nJuror No. 50 has demonstrated a lack of reliability and an appetite for publicity. Should the documents be released the sotto voce comments regarding Juror No. 50's intent, state of mind, and actions will be fodder for the media and may influence the memories of other potential witnesses. Documents regularly remain sealed where public release would \"compromis[e] the interest in the integrity and security of [an] investigation,\" In re Sealed Search Warrants Issued June 4 & 5, 2008, No. 08-M-208 (DRH), 2008 WL 5667021, at *5 (N.D.N.Y. July 14, 2008).\n\nConclusion\n\nThe purpose of voir dire is \"to expose bias or prejudice on the part of veniremen,\" and there \"there must be sufficient information elicited on voir dire to permit a defendant to intelligently exercise not only his challenges for cause, but also his peremptory challenges.\" Barnes, 604 F.2d at 139. \"Voir dire [thus] plays an essential role in protecting the right to trial by an impartial jury.\" Daugerdas, 867 F. Supp. 2d at 468.\n\n56\nDOJ-OGR-00009064",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 63 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The submissions by Juror No. 50 have questionable merit, have not been ruled upon, and implicate an ongoing investigation by the parties and the Court into juror misconduct. Certainly, at least at this stage of the proceedings, the submissions are not \"judicial documents\" and until the issues around Juror No. 50's motion for intervention and discovery have been resolved they should remain sealed. If the Court believes Juror No. 50's requests merit judicial document status the seal should remain. The requests would be afforded the lowest presumption of public access and compelling reasons to maintain the sealed status exist.",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Juror No. 50 has demonstrated a lack of reliability and an appetite for publicity. Should the documents be released the sotto voce comments regarding Juror No. 50's intent, state of mind, and actions will be fodder for the media and may influence the memories of other potential witnesses. Documents regularly remain sealed where public release would \"compromis[e] the interest in the integrity and security of [an] investigation,\" In re Sealed Search Warrants Issued June 4 & 5, 2008, No. 08-M-208 (DRH), 2008 WL 5667021, at *5 (N.D.N.Y. July 14, 2008).",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Conclusion",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The purpose of voir dire is \"to expose bias or prejudice on the part of veniremen,\" and there \"there must be sufficient information elicited on voir dire to permit a defendant to intelligently exercise not only his challenges for cause, but also his peremptory challenges.\" Barnes, 604 F.2d at 139. \"Voir dire [thus] plays an essential role in protecting the right to trial by an impartial jury.\" Daugerdas, 867 F. Supp. 2d at 468.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "56",
+      "position": "bottom"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009064",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Court"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "N.D.N.Y."
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22",
+      "June 4 & 5, 2008",
+      "July 14, 2008"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 613",
+      "08-M-208",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009064"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case, discussing the sealing of documents related to Juror No. 50 and the importance of voir dire in ensuring an impartial jury."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009065.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "64 of 66",
+    "document_number": "613",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "Court Document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 64 of 66\n\nFor its part, this Court expressed “confidence” that its voir dire process would “smoke out” a juror who was dishonest. Ms. Maxwell relied on the Court’s process. And the Court and the parties relied on the presumption to which everyone is entitled: that potential jurors would carefully and honestly engage in voir dire.\n\nUnfortunately, we now know that Juror No. 50 (and at least one other juror) did not honor their obligations to give “only truthful answers.” Ex. 1, p 3. They are no longer entitled to the presumption of honesty.\n\nBecause Ms. Maxwell’s jury was not the fair and impartial one guaranteed her by the United States Constitution, this Court should vacate the jury’s verdict and order a new trial. In the alternative, this Court should hold an evidentiary hearing and examine all twelve jurors.\n\nDated: January 19, 2022\n\n57\nDOJ-OGR-00009065",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 64 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "For its part, this Court expressed “confidence” that its voir dire process would “smoke out” a juror who was dishonest. Ms. Maxwell relied on the Court’s process. And the Court and the parties relied on the presumption to which everyone is entitled: that potential jurors would carefully and honestly engage in voir dire.",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Unfortunately, we now know that Juror No. 50 (and at least one other juror) did not honor their obligations to give “only truthful answers.” Ex. 1, p 3. They are no longer entitled to the presumption of honesty.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Because Ms. Maxwell’s jury was not the fair and impartial one guaranteed her by the United States Constitution, this Court should vacate the jury’s verdict and order a new trial. In the alternative, this Court should hold an evidentiary hearing and examine all twelve jurors.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Dated: January 19, 2022",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "57",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009065",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Ms. Maxwell"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [],
+    "locations": [
+      "United States"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "January 19, 2022",
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 613",
+      "Ex. 1",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009065"
+    ]
+  },
+  "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 64 of 66."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009066.json

@@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "65",
+    "document_number": "613",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 65 of 66 Respectfully submitted, s/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Menninger HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 Christian R. Everdell COHEN & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 Bobbi C. Sternheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim 225 Broadway, Suite 715 New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-243-1100 Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell 58 DOJ-OGR-00009066",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 65 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Respectfully submitted, s/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Menninger HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 Christian R. Everdell COHEN & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 Bobbi C. Sternheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim 225 Broadway, Suite 715 New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-243-1100 Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "58",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009066",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca",
+      "Laura A. Menninger",
+      "Christian R. Everdell",
+      "Bobbi C. Sternheim",
+      "Ghislaine Maxwell"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C.",
+      "COHEN & GRESSER LLP",
+      "Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "Denver, CO",
+      "New York, NY"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "613",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009066"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a list of attorneys representing Ghislaine Maxwell. The document is well-formatted and legible."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009067.json

@@ -0,0 +1,74 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "66",
+    "document_number": "613",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "Certificate of Service",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 66 of 66 Certificate of Service I hereby certify that on January 19, 2022, I electronically filed the foregoing Ghislaine Maxwell's Motion for a New Trial, with the Court and counsel for the government: Alison Moe Maurene Comey Andrew Rohrbach Lara Pomerantz U.S. Attorney's Office SDNY One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, NY 10007 Alison.moe@usdoj.gov Maurene.comey@usdoj.gov Andrew.Rohrbach@usdoj.gov Lara.Pomerantz@usdoj.gov s/ Nicole Simmons 59 DOJ-OGR-00009067",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 66 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Certificate of Service",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "I hereby certify that on January 19, 2022, I electronically filed the foregoing Ghislaine Maxwell's Motion for a New Trial, with the Court and counsel for the government:",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Alison Moe Maurene Comey Andrew Rohrbach Lara Pomerantz U.S. Attorney's Office SDNY One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, NY 10007 Alison.moe@usdoj.gov Maurene.comey@usdoj.gov Andrew.Rohrbach@usdoj.gov Lara.Pomerantz@usdoj.gov",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "signature",
+      "content": "s/ Nicole Simmons",
+      "position": "bottom"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "59",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009067",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+      "Alison Moe",
+      "Maurene Comey",
+      "Andrew Rohrbach",
+      "Lara Pomerantz",
+      "Nicole Simmons"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "U.S. Attorney's Office"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "New York"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "January 19, 2022",
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "613",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009067"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a Certificate of Service filed in a court case. It is a standard legal document with no visible redactions or damage."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009068.json

@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "1",
+    "document_number": "613-1",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "Exhibit",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613-1 Filed 02/24/22 Page 1 of 30 EXHIBIT 1 DOJ-OGR-00009068",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613-1 Filed 02/24/22 Page 1 of 30",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "EXHIBIT 1",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009068",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [],
+    "organizations": [
+      "DOJ"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "613-1",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009068"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a clear header and footer. The main content is labeled as 'EXHIBIT 1'."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009071.json

@@ -0,0 +1,66 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "4",
+    "document_number": "613-1",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "Jury summons or trial information",
+    "has_handwriting": true,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613-1 Filed 02/24/22 Page 4 of 30\n\nJuror ID: 50\n\nSCHEDULE\n\nPotential jurors will be called back for further questioning and jury selection from Tuesday, November 16, 2021, through Friday, November 19, 2021. Your availability during that week will be required.\n\nThe trial will commence on Monday, November 29, 2021. The trial is expected to last about six weeks. Generally, trial will be held five days per week, Monday through Friday, from 9:30 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. Trial will not be held on Friday, December 24, 2021 (Christmas Eve Day) and Friday, December 31, 2021 (New Year's Eve).\n\nIf you are selected as a juror, you will be required to be present for the taking of testimony and evidence for as long as the trial lasts. There are no plans to sequester the jury, which means you will go home every day after court.\n\nAll jury service involves some degree of hardship. Our court and justice system depends on citizens doing their civic duty to serve as jurors, which involves temporarily putting aside their regular business for jury service. The Court views service on a jury to be one of the highest duties a citizen owes to the United States. Mere inconvenience or the usual financial hardship of jury service will not be sufficient to excuse a prospective juror. You must show extraordinary personal or financial hardship to be excused from service.\n\n-5-\nDOJ-OGR-00009071",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613-1 Filed 02/24/22 Page 4 of 30",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "50",
+      "position": "margin"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Juror ID:",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "SCHEDULE\n\nPotential jurors will be called back for further questioning and jury selection from Tuesday, November 16, 2021, through Friday, November 19, 2021. Your availability during that week will be required.\n\nThe trial will commence on Monday, November 29, 2021. The trial is expected to last about six weeks. Generally, trial will be held five days per week, Monday through Friday, from 9:30 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. Trial will not be held on Friday, December 24, 2021 (Christmas Eve Day) and Friday, December 31, 2021 (New Year's Eve).\n\nIf you are selected as a juror, you will be required to be present for the taking of testimony and evidence for as long as the trial lasts. There are no plans to sequester the jury, which means you will go home every day after court.\n\nAll jury service involves some degree of hardship. Our court and justice system depends on citizens doing their civic duty to serve as jurors, which involves temporarily putting aside their regular business for jury service. The Court views service on a jury to be one of the highest duties a citizen owes to the United States. Mere inconvenience or the usual financial hardship of jury service will not be sufficient to excuse a prospective juror. You must show extraordinary personal or financial hardship to be excused from service.",
+      "position": "main"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "-5-",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009071",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [],
+    "organizations": [
+      "United States Department of Justice"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "United States"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "November 16, 2021",
+      "November 19, 2021",
+      "November 29, 2021",
+      "December 24, 2021",
+      "December 31, 2021",
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "613-1",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009071"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a jury summons or trial information document. It is well-formatted and legible, with clear headings and concise language. The handwritten '50' in the Juror ID field suggests that this document is related to a specific juror."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009072.json

@@ -0,0 +1,119 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "5",
+    "document_number": "613-1",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "Jury Questionnaire",
+    "has_handwriting": true,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613-1 Filed 02/24/22 Page 5 of 30 Juror ID: 50 PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: ABILITY TO SERVE Please note: In the event you are excused from service on this jury, you will likely not be excused from jury service in general. You will instead be required to report to the Court's Jury Clerk for placement on another panel for another case. 1. Do you have any unmovable commitments between November 16, 2021, and November 19, 2021, which is when jury selection will take place? Yes No 1a. If yes, please explain (without indicating the name of where you work or the names of any family members or friends, or other personal information that might identify who you are): 2. Do you have any unmovable commitments between November 29, 2021, and approximately January 15, 2022, which is the estimated length for trial? Yes No 2a. If yes, please explain (without indicating the name of where you work or the names of any family members or friends, or other personal information that might identify who you are): 3. Do you have any international travel plans between now and November 29, 2021? Yes No 4. Do any circumstances exist such that serving on the jury in this case would entail serious hardship or extreme inconvenience? Yes No 4a. If yes, please briefly describe the serious hardship or extreme inconvenience: -6- DOJ-OGR-00009072",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613-1 Filed 02/24/22 Page 5 of 30",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "50",
+      "position": "margin"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: ABILITY TO SERVE",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Please note: In the event you are excused from service on this jury, you will likely not be excused from jury service in general. You will instead be required to report to the Court's Jury Clerk for placement on another panel for another case.",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "1. Do you have any unmovable commitments between November 16, 2021, and November 19, 2021, which is when jury selection will take place? Yes No",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "No",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "1a. If yes, please explain (without indicating the name of where you work or the names of any family members or friends, or other personal information that might identify who you are):",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "2. Do you have any unmovable commitments between November 29, 2021, and approximately January 15, 2022, which is the estimated length for trial? Yes No",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "No",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "2a. If yes, please explain (without indicating the name of where you work or the names of any family members or friends, or other personal information that might identify who you are):",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "3. Do you have any international travel plans between now and November 29, 2021? Yes No",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "No",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "4. Do any circumstances exist such that serving on the jury in this case would entail serious hardship or extreme inconvenience? Yes No",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "No",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "4a. If yes, please briefly describe the serious hardship or extreme inconvenience:",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "-6-",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009072",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Court's Jury Clerk"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "November 16, 2021",
+      "November 19, 2021",
+      "November 29, 2021",
+      "January 15, 2022",
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "613-1",
+      "50",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009072"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document is a jury questionnaire with mostly printed text and some handwritten answers. The juror ID is handwritten as '50'. All answers are 'No'."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009073.json

@@ -0,0 +1,112 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "6",
+    "document_number": "613-1",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "Juror Questionnaire",
+    "has_handwriting": true,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613-1 Filed 02/24/22 Page 6 of 30 Juror ID: 50 5. Do you have any personal commitments that would make it difficult for you to get to court by 9:30 a.m., every day of trial, or remain at the courthouse until 5:00 p.m.? (Please note, the Court will arrange and provide transportation to and from the Courthouse each day for selected jurors). Yes No If yes, please explain why you would be unable to get to court by 9:30 a.m. or remain until 5:00 p.m.: 6. Do you have any difficulty reading, speaking, or understanding English? Yes No 7. Do you have any medical, physical, or mental condition or illness that makes you unable to serve on a jury, including difficulty hearing, seeing, reading, or concentrating? Yes No If yes, please briefly describe the condition or illness. If you believe you could serve as a juror if such condition were accommodated in some way, please state the accommodation. 8. Are you taking any medication which would prevent you from giving full attention to all the evidence at this trial? Yes No If yes, please explain: -7- DOJ-OGR-00009073",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613-1 Filed 02/24/22 Page 6 of 30",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "50",
+      "position": "margin"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Juror ID:",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "5. Do you have any personal commitments that would make it difficult for you to get to court by 9:30 a.m., every day of trial, or remain at the courthouse until 5:00 p.m.? (Please note, the Court will arrange and provide transportation to and from the Courthouse each day for selected jurors). Yes No",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "No",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "5a. If yes, please explain why you would be unable to get to court by 9:30 a.m. or remain until 5:00 p.m.:",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "6. Do you have any difficulty reading, speaking, or understanding English? Yes No",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "No",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "7. Do you have any medical, physical, or mental condition or illness that makes you unable to serve on a jury, including difficulty hearing, seeing, reading, or concentrating? Yes No",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "No",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "7a. If yes, please briefly describe the condition or illness. If you believe you could serve as a juror if such condition were accommodated in some way, please state the accommodation.",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "8. Are you taking any medication which would prevent you from giving full attention to all the evidence at this trial? Yes No",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "No",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "8a. If yes, please explain:",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "-7-",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009073",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Court",
+      "DOJ"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "Courthouse"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "613-1",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009073"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document is a juror questionnaire with mostly printed text and some handwritten responses. The juror ID is 50. All answers are 'No'."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009074.json

@@ -0,0 +1,119 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "7",
+    "document_number": "613-1",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "Jury Questionnaire",
+    "has_handwriting": true,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613-1 Filed 02/24/22 Page 7 of 30\n\nJuror ID: 50\n\n9. Do you have any religious, philosophical, or other beliefs that would make you unable to render a verdict in a criminal case?\nYes No\n\n9a. If yes, please explain:\n\n\n\n\n\nBASIC LEGAL PRINCIPLES AND MEDIA RESTRICTIONS\n\n10. Under the law, the facts are for the jury to determine and the law is for the Judge to determine. You are required to accept the law as the Judge explains it to you even if you do not like the law or disagree with it, and you must determine the facts according to those instructions. Do you accept this principle, and will you be able to follow the Judge's instructions if selected to serve on this jury?\nYes No\n\n10a. If no, please explain:\n\n\n\n\n\n11. The law provides that a defendant in a criminal case is presumed innocent at all stages of the trial and is not required to put on any defense at all. The Government is required to prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on each charge. Do you accept these principles, and will you be able to apply them if selected to serve on this jury?\nYes No\n\n11a. If no, please explain:\n\n\n\n\n\n-8-\n\nDOJ-OGR-00009074",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613-1 Filed 02/24/22 Page 7 of 30",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "50",
+      "position": "inline"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Juror ID:",
+      "position": "inline"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "9. Do you have any religious, philosophical, or other beliefs that would make you unable to render a verdict in a criminal case?",
+      "position": "inline"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Yes No",
+      "position": "inline"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "No",
+      "position": "inline"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "9a. If yes, please explain:",
+      "position": "inline"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "BASIC LEGAL PRINCIPLES AND MEDIA RESTRICTIONS",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "10. Under the law, the facts are for the jury to determine and the law is for the Judge to determine. You are required to accept the law as the Judge explains it to you even if you do not like the law or disagree with it, and you must determine the facts according to those instructions. Do you accept this principle, and will you be able to follow the Judge's instructions if selected to serve on this jury?",
+      "position": "inline"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Yes No",
+      "position": "inline"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "Yes",
+      "position": "inline"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "10a. If no, please explain:",
+      "position": "inline"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "11. The law provides that a defendant in a criminal case is presumed innocent at all stages of the trial and is not required to put on any defense at all. The Government is required to prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on each charge. Do you accept these principles, and will you be able to apply them if selected to serve on this jury?",
+      "position": "inline"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Yes No",
+      "position": "inline"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "Yes",
+      "position": "inline"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "11a. If no, please explain:",
+      "position": "inline"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "-8-",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009074",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Government"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "613-1",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009074"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document is a jury questionnaire with handwritten answers. The juror ID is 50. The document is page 7 of 30."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009075.json

@@ -0,0 +1,100 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "8",
+    "document_number": "613-1",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "Jury Questionnaire",
+    "has_handwriting": true,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613-1 Filed 02/24/22 Page 8 of 30\n\nJuror ID: 50\n\n12. The law provides that a defendant in a criminal case has an absolute right not to testify, and that a juror cannot hold it against the defendant if she chooses not to testify. Do you accept this principle, and will you be able to apply it if selected to serve on this jury?\nYes No\n12a. If no, please explain:\n\n13. A juror is required by law to make his or her decision based solely on the evidence or lack of evidence presented in Court, and not on the basis of conjecture, suspicion, bias, sympathy, or prejudice. Do you accept this principle, and will you be able to apply it if selected to serve on this jury?\nYes No\n13a. If no, please explain:\n\n14. Under the law, the question of punishment is for the Court alone to decide, and thus the issue of punishment must not enter into your deliberations as to whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty as charged. Do you accept this principle, and will you be able to apply it if selected to serve on this jury?\nYes No\n14a. If no, please explain:\n\n-9-\nDOJ-OGR-00009075",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613-1 Filed 02/24/22 Page 8 of 30",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "50",
+      "position": "margin"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Juror ID:",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "12. The law provides that a defendant in a criminal case has an absolute right not to testify, and that a juror cannot hold it against the defendant if she chooses not to testify. Do you accept this principle, and will you be able to apply it if selected to serve on this jury?",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "Yes",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "12a. If no, please explain:",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "13. A juror is required by law to make his or her decision based solely on the evidence or lack of evidence presented in Court, and not on the basis of conjecture, suspicion, bias, sympathy, or prejudice. Do you accept this principle, and will you be able to apply it if selected to serve on this jury?",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "Yes",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "13a. If no, please explain:",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "14. Under the law, the question of punishment is for the Court alone to decide, and thus the issue of punishment must not enter into your deliberations as to whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty as charged. Do you accept this principle, and will you be able to apply it if selected to serve on this jury?",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "Yes",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "14a. If no, please explain:",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "-9-",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009075",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Court",
+      "DOJ"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "613-1",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009075"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document is a jury questionnaire with handwritten answers. The juror ID is 50, and they answered 'Yes' to questions 12, 13, and 14."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009076.json

@@ -0,0 +1,91 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "9",
+    "document_number": "613-1",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "Jury Questionnaire",
+    "has_handwriting": true,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613-1 Filed 02/24/22 Page 9 of 30\n\nJuror ID: 50\n\n15. You may hear testimony in this case that law enforcement officers recovered certain evidence from searches. The Court will instruct you that those searches were legal and that the evidence obtained from those searches is admissible in this case. Do you have any feelings or opinions about searches conducted by law enforcement officers, or the use of evidence obtained from searches, that would affect your ability to be fair and impartial in this case?\n\nYes No\n\n15a. If yes, please explain:\n\n16. You also may hear testimony in this case from expert witnesses. Have you had any experiences with experts, or do you have any general feelings about the use of experts, that would affect your ability to be fair and impartial in this case?\n\nYes No\n\n16a. If yes, please explain:\n\n17. As instructed above, from now and until your jury service is complete, you are instructed to avoid all media coverage and not to go on the Internet with regard to this case for any purpose. That is, you are forbidden from consuming any news media or social media, or any discussion of this case (or of anyone participating in the case) outside of the courtroom whatsoever. You also must not discuss this case with anyone. This includes your family, friends, spouse, domestic partner, colleagues, and co-workers. These instructions apply from now and until you are either dismissed from jury selection or chosen as a juror and the trial is complete. When we return for the next step in jury selection, the Judge will ask you if you have followed this instruction.\n\nDo you have any reservations or concerns about your ability or willingness to follow this instruction?\n\nYes No\n\n-10-\n\nDOJ-OGR-00009076",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613-1 Filed 02/24/22 Page 9 of 30",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Juror ID: 50",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "15. You may hear testimony in this case that law enforcement officers recovered certain evidence from searches. The Court will instruct you that those searches were legal and that the evidence obtained from those searches is admissible in this case. Do you have any feelings or opinions about searches conducted by law enforcement officers, or the use of evidence obtained from searches, that would affect your ability to be fair and impartial in this case?",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "No",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "15a. If yes, please explain:",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "16. You also may hear testimony in this case from expert witnesses. Have you had any experiences with experts, or do you have any general feelings about the use of experts, that would affect your ability to be fair and impartial in this case?",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "No",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "16a. If yes, please explain:",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "17. As instructed above, from now and until your jury service is complete, you are instructed to avoid all media coverage and not to go on the Internet with regard to this case for any purpose. That is, you are forbidden from consuming any news media or social media, or any discussion of this case (or of anyone participating in the case) outside of the courtroom whatsoever. You also must not discuss this case with anyone. This includes your family, friends, spouse, domestic partner, colleagues, and co-workers. These instructions apply from now and until you are either dismissed from jury selection or chosen as a juror and the trial is complete. When we return for the next step in jury selection, the Judge will ask you if you have followed this instruction.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "No",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "-10-",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009076",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Court",
+      "Judge"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "613-1",
+      "50",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009076"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document is a jury questionnaire with handwritten responses. The juror ID is 50. The document is page 9 of 30."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009077.json

@@ -0,0 +1,139 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "10",
+    "document_number": "613-1",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "Juror Questionnaire",
+    "has_handwriting": true,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613-1 Filed 02/24/22 Page 10 of 30\nJuror ID: 50\n17a. If yes, please explain:\n\n\n\nPRIOR JURY SERVICE\n18. Have you ever served as a juror in a trial in any court?\nYes No\n19. Have you ever at any time served as a member of a grand jury, whether in federal, state, county, or city court?\nYes No\nEXPERIENCE AS A WITNESS, DEFENDANT, OR CRIME VICTIM\n20. Have you, or has any relative or close friend, ever participated in a state or federal court case, whether criminal or civil, as a witness, plaintiff, or defendant?\nYes (self) Yes (friend or family member) No\n20a. If yes, is there anything about that experience that would prevent you from acting as a fair and impartial juror in this case?\nYes No\n20b. If yes to 20a, please explain:\n\n\n\n21. Have you or any relative or close friend ever been involved or appeared as a witness in any investigation by a federal or state grand jury or by a congressional or state legislative committee, licensing authority, or governmental agency, or been questioned in any matter by any federal, state, or local law enforcement agency?\nYes (self) Yes (friend or family member) No\n-11-\nDOJ-OGR-00009077",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613-1 Filed 02/24/22 Page 10 of 30",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "50",
+      "position": "margin"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Juror ID:",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "17a. If yes, please explain:",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "PRIOR JURY SERVICE",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "18. Have you ever served as a juror in a trial in any court?",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "X",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "No",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "19. Have you ever at any time served as a member of a grand jury, whether in federal, state, county, or city court?",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "X",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "No",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "EXPERIENCE AS A WITNESS, DEFENDANT, OR CRIME VICTIM",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "20. Have you, or has any relative or close friend, ever participated in a state or federal court case, whether criminal or civil, as a witness, plaintiff, or defendant?",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "X",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "No",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "20a. If yes, is there anything about that experience that would prevent you from acting as a fair and impartial juror in this case?",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "20b. If yes to 20a, please explain:",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "21. Have you or any relative or close friend ever been involved or appeared as a witness in any investigation by a federal or state grand jury or by a congressional or state legislative committee, licensing authority, or governmental agency, or been questioned in any matter by any federal, state, or local law enforcement agency?",
+      "position": "bottom"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "X",
+      "position": "bottom"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "No",
+      "position": "bottom"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "-11-",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009077",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [],
+    "organizations": [
+      "DOJ"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "613-1",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009077"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document is a juror questionnaire with some handwritten marks indicating 'No' answers to questions 18, 19, 20, and 21. The juror ID is handwritten as '50'."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009078.json

@@ -0,0 +1,89 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "11 of 30",
+    "document_number": "613-1",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "Juror Questionnaire",
+    "has_handwriting": true,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613-1 Filed 02/24/22 Page 11 of 30\nJuror ID: 50\n21a. If yes, is there anything about that experience that would prevent you from acting as a fair and impartial juror in this case?\nYes No\n21b. If yes to 21a, please explain:\n22. Have you, or has any relative or close friend, ever been subpoenaed for any inquiry or investigation?\nYes (self) Yes (friend or family member) No\n22a. If yes, is there anything about that experience that would prevent you from acting as a fair and impartial juror in this case?\nYes No\n22b. If yes to 22a, please explain:\n23. Have you, or has any relative or close friend, ever been arrested or charged with a crime?\nYes (self) Yes (friend or family member) No\n23a. If yes, is there anything about that experience that would prevent you from acting as a fair and impartial juror in this case?\nYes No\n23b. If yes to 23a, please explain:\n-12-\nDOJ-OGR-00009078",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613-1 Filed 02/24/22 Page 11 of 30",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "50",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Juror ID:",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "21a. If yes, is there anything about that experience that would prevent you from acting as a fair and impartial juror in this case?\nYes No\n21b. If yes to 21a, please explain:",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "22. Have you, or has any relative or close friend, ever been subpoenaed for any inquiry or investigation?\nYes (self) Yes (friend or family member) No",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "X",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "22a. If yes, is there anything about that experience that would prevent you from acting as a fair and impartial juror in this case?\nYes No\n22b. If yes to 22a, please explain:",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "23. Have you, or has any relative or close friend, ever been arrested or charged with a crime?\nYes (self) Yes (friend or family member) No",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "X",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "23a. If yes, is there anything about that experience that would prevent you from acting as a fair and impartial juror in this case?\nYes No\n23b. If yes to 23a, please explain:",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "-12-",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009078",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [],
+    "organizations": [
+      "DOJ"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "613-1",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009078"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document is a juror questionnaire with some handwritten marks indicating 'No' to questions 22 and 23. The juror ID is handwritten as '50'."
+}