{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "4",
    "document_number": "168",
    "date": "03/18/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 168 Filed 03/18/21 Page 4 of 5\n\nOnondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 124 (2d Cir. 2006). Courts have noted that \"disclosing the details of the Government's efforts to obtain evidence will undoubtedly hamper the investigation, as the individuals and entities under investigation would be put on notice.\" United States v. Madoff, 626 F. Supp. 2d 420, 427-28 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). And the Government's interest in protecting an ongoing investigation from the \"danger of impairing law enforcement\" may be a countervailing factor that outweighs the presumption of access. See Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 120. But the Government advances no non-conclusory basis as to why its investigation at this stage of the matter would be imperiled by the disclosure of the information regarding how it obtained the information in question, and the requested redactions are far from narrowly tailored. As a result, the Court denies the Government's redaction requests in pages 1-128 and denies its request to file Exhibits 8 and 9 under seal, since those documents relate to this very issue and the same reasoning applies to them. The Court will give the Government an opportunity to seek more tailored redactions if it wishes and to specifically justify the ongoing need to redact the requested information and documents. By March 22, 2021, the Government may file a letter with the Court—under seal, if necessary—justifying the specific redaction and sealing requests. Alternatively, by that date the Government can indicate that it will not seek to renew the request.\n\nFurthermore, the Court agrees with the Defendant's objections to the redactions contained in pages 187-188 of the Government's brief. While the Court previously had granted the request to redact the same information, see Dkt. No. 99, the Court no longer sees a basis for keeping this information under seal in light of the strong presumption of access. The information does not in itself contain any personally identifying information, and the Court concludes that any minimal threat of interference with the Government's investigation through the disclosure of this information is outweighed by the presumption of access that attaches to those portions. As\n\n4\nDOJ-OGR-00002765",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 168 Filed 03/18/21 Page 4 of 5",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 124 (2d Cir. 2006). Courts have noted that \"disclosing the details of the Government's efforts to obtain evidence will undoubtedly hamper the investigation, as the individuals and entities under investigation would be put on notice.\" United States v. Madoff, 626 F. Supp. 2d 420, 427-28 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). And the Government's interest in protecting an ongoing investigation from the \"danger of impairing law enforcement\" may be a countervailing factor that outweighs the presumption of access. See Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 120. But the Government advances no non-conclusory basis as to why its investigation at this stage of the matter would be imperiled by the disclosure of the information regarding how it obtained the information in question, and the requested redactions are far from narrowly tailored. As a result, the Court denies the Government's redaction requests in pages 1-128 and denies its request to file Exhibits 8 and 9 under seal, since those documents relate to this very issue and the same reasoning applies to them. The Court will give the Government an opportunity to seek more tailored redactions if it wishes and to specifically justify the ongoing need to redact the requested information and documents. By March 22, 2021, the Government may file a letter with the Court—under seal, if necessary—justifying the specific redaction and sealing requests. Alternatively, by that date the Government can indicate that it will not seek to renew the request.",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Furthermore, the Court agrees with the Defendant's objections to the redactions contained in pages 187-188 of the Government's brief. While the Court previously had granted the request to redact the same information, see Dkt. No. 99, the Court no longer sees a basis for keeping this information under seal in light of the strong presumption of access. The information does not in itself contain any personally identifying information, and the Court concludes that any minimal threat of interference with the Government's investigation through the disclosure of this information is outweighed by the presumption of access that attaches to those portions. As",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "4",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00002765",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Madoff"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government",
      "Court"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y.",
      "2d Cir."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "March 22, 2021",
      "03/18/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "Document 168",
      "Dkt. No. 99",
      "DOJ-OGR-00002765"
    ]
  },
  "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 page 4 of 5."
}