{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "41",
    "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 41 of 127 41 LB15MAX2 papers which is why I ordered you just get them up on the docket rather than deprive the public of seeing the bulk of what is contained in the motions, but I looked at this one and I don't see a basis for sealing it in its entirety and I don't see a basis for redaction so I'm not going to grant that request. MS. MOE: Understood, your Honor. THE COURT: I think there is nothing further on 10. No issue for opening. We will figure out a process, once I have had a chance to rule on the remainder of the sealing requests, for putting on the docket any redactions that I don't approve of and we will take this up if it arises. I think everybody understands, obviously, that I trust, again, the defense will have a basis for an argument that they're making and to the extent this issue arises, raise it, so that we can deal with it. MS. STERNHEIM: We will. THE COURT: Thank you. Government 11. The final issue in the government's motion is request to preclude the defense from arguing that the defendant was a \"prevailing party in civil litigation.\" I will grant this motion. The fact that the defendant was deemed a prevailing party after a settlement in civil litigation seems irrelevant and highly prejudicial. The defendant, as I understand it, was deemed a prevailing party following a SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00007092",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 465 Filed 11/15/21 Page 41 of 127 41 LB15MAX2",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "papers which is why I ordered you just get them up on the docket rather than deprive the public of seeing the bulk of what is contained in the motions, but I looked at this one and I don't see a basis for sealing it in its entirety and I don't see a basis for redaction so I'm not going to grant that request. MS. MOE: Understood, your Honor. THE COURT: I think there is nothing further on 10. No issue for opening. We will figure out a process, once I have had a chance to rule on the remainder of the sealing requests, for putting on the docket any redactions that I don't approve of and we will take this up if it arises. I think everybody understands, obviously, that I trust, again, the defense will have a basis for an argument that they're making and to the extent this issue arises, raise it, so that we can deal with it. MS. STERNHEIM: We will. THE COURT: Thank you. Government 11. The final issue in the government's motion is request to preclude the defense from arguing that the defendant was a \"prevailing party in civil litigation.\" I will grant this motion. The fact that the defendant was deemed a prevailing party after a settlement in civil litigation seems irrelevant and highly prejudicial. The defendant, as I understand it, was deemed a prevailing party following a",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00007092",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "MS. MOE",
      "MS. STERNHEIM"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "11/15/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 465",
      "DOJ-OGR-00007092"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage to the document."
}