{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "58",
    "document_number": "452",
    "date": "11/12/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 452 Filed 11/12/21 Page 58 of 84\n\nnotice, co-conspirator statements, and Government witness list,\" as well as the \"Defendant's proposal\" that the Government disclose its proposed exhibit list that same day. (Order at 1, Dkt. No. 297). This order did not expressly require the Government to specifically identify co-conspirator statements within its other productions.\n\nIn the defendant's second round of pretrial motions, she asked the Court to order the Government to disclose a series of information about the Indictment. That list contained a renewed request for the Government to identify uncharged co-conspirators, but it did not contain a new request for the Government to separately identify co-conspirator statements within its discovery production. (Mem. of Law at 23-24, Dkt. No. 293). On August 13, 2021, the Court denied the defense's motion, but in a footnote, explained that it \"presume[d] the Government intends to disclose\" the \"identi[ties of] the unnamed co-conspirators who allegedly participated in the conspiracies charged in the S2 Indictment,\" since the Government had not previously opposed that request. (Op. & Order, Dkt. No. 317 at 12 n.1). The order said nothing about identifying co-conspirator's statements. (Id.).\n\nThe Government filed a letter opposing the request for the Government to \"identify [the defendant]'s unnamed co-conspirators.\" (Letter at 1, Dkt. No. 320). The defendant filed a new letter in response, raising \"two issues.\" (Letter at 1, Dkt. No. 331). First, the defendant sought the identities of co-conspirators. (Id. at 1-2). Second, the defendant took a third bite at the apple, once again seeking \"disclosure of the purported co-conspirator statements [the Government] intends to offer at trial.\" (Id. at 3). The defendant also argued that the Court's scheduling order had already required the Government to specifically identify co-conspirator statements. (Id. at 3-4).\n\n57\n\nDOJ-OGR-00006766",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 452 Filed 11/12/21 Page 58 of 84",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "notice, co-conspirator statements, and Government witness list,\" as well as the \"Defendant's proposal\" that the Government disclose its proposed exhibit list that same day. (Order at 1, Dkt. No. 297). This order did not expressly require the Government to specifically identify co-conspirator statements within its other productions.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In the defendant's second round of pretrial motions, she asked the Court to order the Government to disclose a series of information about the Indictment. That list contained a renewed request for the Government to identify uncharged co-conspirators, but it did not contain a new request for the Government to separately identify co-conspirator statements within its discovery production. (Mem. of Law at 23-24, Dkt. No. 293). On August 13, 2021, the Court denied the defense's motion, but in a footnote, explained that it \"presume[d] the Government intends to disclose\" the \"identi[ties of] the unnamed co-conspirators who allegedly participated in the conspiracies charged in the S2 Indictment,\" since the Government had not previously opposed that request. (Op. & Order, Dkt. No. 317 at 12 n.1). The order said nothing about identifying co-conspirator's statements. (Id.).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Government filed a letter opposing the request for the Government to \"identify [the defendant]'s unnamed co-conspirators.\" (Letter at 1, Dkt. No. 320). The defendant filed a new letter in response, raising \"two issues.\" (Letter at 1, Dkt. No. 331). First, the defendant sought the identities of co-conspirators. (Id. at 1-2). Second, the defendant took a third bite at the apple, once again seeking \"disclosure of the purported co-conspirator statements [the Government] intends to offer at trial.\" (Id. at 3). The defendant also argued that the Court's scheduling order had already required the Government to specifically identify co-conspirator statements. (Id. at 3-4).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "57",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00006766",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "Government",
      "Court"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "11/12/21",
      "August 13, 2021"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "452",
      "297",
      "293",
      "317",
      "320",
      "331",
      "DOJ-OGR-00006766"
    ]
  },
  "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 58 of 84."
}