{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "90 of 239",
    "document_number": "204",
    "date": "04/16/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 90 of 239\n4 at 1, 4). During the meeting, the attorneys referenced multiple individuals who worked for and/or helped Epstein, including Maxwell, but the attorneys primarily focused their presentation on Epstein. (See id. at 1-2, 4). The attorneys did not present particular criminal statutes that might be pursued by the USAO-SDNY or make suggestions about investigative steps, nor did they suggest the use of civil lawsuits as a means to conduct a criminal investigation. (Id. at 2-3). AUSA-1 did not tell the attorneys whether or not an investigation would be opened, consistent with her standard practice. (Id. at 3). After the meeting, AUSA-1 received a limited number of emails from the attorneys (see Exs. 6 & 7).30 AUSA-1 did not participate in a second meeting with those attorneys and has never met David Boies. (See Ex. 4 at 4).\nAUSA-1 recalls being aware of depositions as a general matter, but she does not recall having knowledge of who had been deposed or the substance of the depositions. (Id. at 5). AUSA-1 does recall thinking through the challenges of a potential perjury investigation, but she does not recall who specifically would have been he target of such an investigation. (Id.). AUSA-1 does not recall being asked if the USAO-SDNY would consider charging Maxwell with perjury. (Id.). Moreover, and critically for present purposes, the meeting described above pre-dated the depositions which give rise to the perjury counts in the instant Indictment, making it all but impossible that the attorneys suggested, during that February 2016 meeting, that Maxwell had committed perjury in depositions that, as detailed below, had yet to occur.\nThe Government has also conducted a review of AUSA-1's emails in an effort to determine whether any further contacts occurred. One email dated May 3, 2016 from Pottinger to AUSA-1 appears to suggest that AUSA-1 spoke with Pottinger on or about May 2, 2016 by telephone (see\n30 AUSA-1 left the USAO-SDNY in 2019. Since receiving the Defense Motions, the Government has searched AUSA-1's archived emails for any email communications with attorneys from Boies Schiller or the other attorneys who participated in the February 2016 meeting. The Government is producing all identified emails to defense counsel today.\n63\nDOJ-OGR-00003024",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 90 of 239",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "4 at 1, 4). During the meeting, the attorneys referenced multiple individuals who worked for and/or helped Epstein, including Maxwell, but the attorneys primarily focused their presentation on Epstein. (See id. at 1-2, 4). The attorneys did not present particular criminal statutes that might be pursued by the USAO-SDNY or make suggestions about investigative steps, nor did they suggest the use of civil lawsuits as a means to conduct a criminal investigation. (Id. at 2-3). AUSA-1 did not tell the attorneys whether or not an investigation would be opened, consistent with her standard practice. (Id. at 3). After the meeting, AUSA-1 received a limited number of emails from the attorneys (see Exs. 6 & 7).30 AUSA-1 did not participate in a second meeting with those attorneys and has never met David Boies. (See Ex. 4 at 4).",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "AUSA-1 recalls being aware of depositions as a general matter, but she does not recall having knowledge of who had been deposed or the substance of the depositions. (Id. at 5). AUSA-1 does recall thinking through the challenges of a potential perjury investigation, but she does not recall who specifically would have been he target of such an investigation. (Id.). AUSA-1 does not recall being asked if the USAO-SDNY would consider charging Maxwell with perjury. (Id.). Moreover, and critically for present purposes, the meeting described above pre-dated the depositions which give rise to the perjury counts in the instant Indictment, making it all but impossible that the attorneys suggested, during that February 2016 meeting, that Maxwell had committed perjury in depositions that, as detailed below, had yet to occur.",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Government has also conducted a review of AUSA-1's emails in an effort to determine whether any further contacts occurred. One email dated May 3, 2016 from Pottinger to AUSA-1 appears to suggest that AUSA-1 spoke with Pottinger on or about May 2, 2016 by telephone (see",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "30 AUSA-1 left the USAO-SDNY in 2019. Since receiving the Defense Motions, the Government has searched AUSA-1's archived emails for any email communications with attorneys from Boies Schiller or the other attorneys who participated in the February 2016 meeting. The Government is producing all identified emails to defense counsel today.",
      "position": "footnote"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "63",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003024",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Epstein",
      "Maxwell",
      "David Boies",
      "AUSA-1",
      "Pottinger"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "USAO-SDNY",
      "Boies Schiller"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "February 2016",
      "May 2, 2016",
      "May 3, 2016",
      "2019",
      "04/16/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 204",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003024"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. It discusses a meeting between attorneys and AUSA-1, and the lack of evidence suggesting Maxwell committed perjury. The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
}