{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "64",
    "document_number": "465",
    "date": "11/15/21",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 465 Filed 11/15/21 Page 64 of 127 64 LB15MAX2 opening. MS. MOE: That's correct, your Honor. THE COURT: Ms. Menninger, anything further on that? MS. MENNINGER: Nothing further on that, your Honor. THE COURT: OK. Anything further in this general category that needs to be addressed now, Ms. Menninger? MS. MENNINGER: If there is no other evidence that the government intends to offer via Rule 404(b), then no. There was a reference to another exhibit -- GX- 416 -- in the government's briefing. That was not one of the exhibits that was mentioned in the Rule 404(b) letter. I assume because it was not mentioned in that letter it cannot be offered through 404(b). It is of a same type and characteristic of the e-mail that your Honor has excluded so I don't know what the intent is there. THE COURT: Ms. Moe? MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. We didn't include that exhibit in our notice. We are offering it as direct evidence, unlike the other evidence which were included in our notice. That document is a series of notes. The metadata for that exhibit reflects that the defendant created that series of notes but, unlike the other exhibits outlined in our letter, it doesn't appear that that was directed at a third-party as opposed to Mr. Epstein, SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00007115",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 465 Filed 11/15/21 Page 64 of 127 64 LB15MAX2",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00007115",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "opening. MS. MOE: That's correct, your Honor. THE COURT: Ms. Menninger, anything further on that? MS. MENNINGER: Nothing further on that, your Honor. THE COURT: OK. Anything further in this general category that needs to be addressed now, Ms. Menninger? MS. MENNINGER: If there is no other evidence that the government intends to offer via Rule 404(b), then no. There was a reference to another exhibit -- GX- 416 -- in the government's briefing. That was not one of the exhibits that was mentioned in the Rule 404(b) letter. I assume because it was not mentioned in that letter it cannot be offered through 404(b). It is of a same type and characteristic of the e-mail that your Honor has excluded so I don't know what the intent is there. THE COURT: Ms. Moe? MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. We didn't include that exhibit in our notice. We are offering it as direct evidence, unlike the other evidence which were included in our notice. That document is a series of notes. The metadata for that exhibit reflects that the defendant created that series of notes but, unlike the other exhibits outlined in our letter, it doesn't appear that that was directed at a third-party as opposed to Mr. Epstein,",
      "position": "main content"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Moe",
      "Ms. Menninger",
      "Mr. Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "11/15/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 465",
      "GX-416",
      "DOJ-OGR-00007115"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and readable format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}