{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "126",
    "document_number": "755",
    "date": "08/10/22",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 755 Filed 08/10/22 Page 126 of 262 1831 LC8VMAX4 Rodgers - direct individuals. I plan on cross-examining to name individuals that are not going to link up to anybody who needs to be anonymized. The examples we just looked at are perfect examples. I don't see why that's not permissible. THE COURT: I was going to say, this struck me as overly redacted in any number of ways, including from the fact that you read from parts that are redacted. So I recognize it's labor, but this needs to be more narrowly tailored. I don't know why it wouldn't be permissible. MR. EVERDELL: That's my understanding too, your Honor. MS. COMEY: Your Honor, there was no particular reason why I wasn't referencing the names of those other people other than I didn't think that they were relevant to the question I was asking. So I have no objection to Mr. Everdell saying the names of other individuals, except for obviously those who have been granted anonymity by the Court. I also understand the Court's view on narrowly tailoring these redactions. That will be very time-intensive, your Honor. I would ask for permission to do that over the long weekend break that we have coming up. THE COURT: Okay. That's fine. Let's do that. Relatedly, the message pads, I think you only have one or two unredacted exemplars, but most of those -- other than SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00018988",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 755 Filed 08/10/22 Page 126 of 262 1831 LC8VMAX4 Rodgers - direct",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "individuals. I plan on cross-examining to name individuals that are not going to link up to anybody who needs to be anonymized. The examples we just looked at are perfect examples. I don't see why that's not permissible. THE COURT: I was going to say, this struck me as overly redacted in any number of ways, including from the fact that you read from parts that are redacted. So I recognize it's labor, but this needs to be more narrowly tailored. I don't know why it wouldn't be permissible. MR. EVERDELL: That's my understanding too, your Honor. MS. COMEY: Your Honor, there was no particular reason why I wasn't referencing the names of those other people other than I didn't think that they were relevant to the question I was asking. So I have no objection to Mr. Everdell saying the names of other individuals, except for obviously those who have been granted anonymity by the Court. I also understand the Court's view on narrowly tailoring these redactions. That will be very time-intensive, your Honor. I would ask for permission to do that over the long weekend break that we have coming up. THE COURT: Okay. That's fine. Let's do that. Relatedly, the message pads, I think you only have one or two unredacted exemplars, but most of those -- other than",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00018988",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "MR. EVERDELL",
      "MS. COMEY"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "755",
      "DOJ-OGR-00018988"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and readable format. There are no visible redactions or damage on this page."
}