mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES001/DOJ-OGR-00002344.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "1",
    "document_number": "132",
    "date": "02/04/21",
    "document_type": "Court Order",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": true
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 132 Filed 02/04/21 Page 1 of 2\n\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\nUnited States of America,\n\n-v-\n\nGhislaine Maxwell,\nDefendant.\n\n20-CR-330 (AJN)\n\nORDER\n\nALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:\n\nOn January 25, 2021, the Defendant filed twelve pre-trial motions. Four of those were filed on the public docket, but the Defendant filed the other eight under temporary seal because pending the Court's resolution of her request to redact sensitive or confidential information. See Dkt. No. 127. The Government responded that it did not oppose the Defendant's proposed redactions, but with respect to her motion to suppress under the Due Process Clause (Motion 3), the Government requested a limited set of additional redactions in order to be consistent with the other proposed redactions. Dkt. No. 128.\n\nThe Court will adopt the Defendant's proposed redactions as to Motions 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 10, and 11; as to Motion 3, the Court adopts the Defendant's original redactions and the additional redactions that the Government proposed. The Court's reasoning is guided by the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Under this test, the Court must: (i) determine whether the documents in question are \"judicial documents;\" (ii) assess the weight of the common law presumption of access to the materials; and (iii) balance competing considerations against the presumption of access. Id. at 119-20. \"Such countervailing factors include but are not limited to 'the danger of impairing law\n\n1\n\nDOJ-OGR-00002344",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 132 Filed 02/04/21 Page 1 of 2",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "United States of America,\n\n-v-\n\nGhislaine Maxwell,\nDefendant.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "20-CR-330 (AJN)\n\nORDER",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "On January 25, 2021, the Defendant filed twelve pre-trial motions. Four of those were filed on the public docket, but the Defendant filed the other eight under temporary seal because pending the Court's resolution of her request to redact sensitive or confidential information. See Dkt. No. 127. The Government responded that it did not oppose the Defendant's proposed redactions, but with respect to her motion to suppress under the Due Process Clause (Motion 3), the Government requested a limited set of additional redactions in order to be consistent with the other proposed redactions. Dkt. No. 128.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Court will adopt the Defendant's proposed redactions as to Motions 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 10, and 11; as to Motion 3, the Court adopts the Defendant's original redactions and the additional redactions that the Government proposed. The Court's reasoning is guided by the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Under this test, the Court must: (i) determine whether the documents in question are \"judicial documents;\" (ii) assess the weight of the common law presumption of access to the materials; and (iii) balance competing considerations against the presumption of access. Id. at 119-20. \"Such countervailing factors include but are not limited to 'the danger of impairing law",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00002344",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "stamp",
      "content": "USDC SDNY\nDOCUMENT\nELECTRONICALLY FILED\nDOC #: \nDATE FILED: 2/4/21",
      "position": "margin"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ghislaine Maxwell",
      "Alison J. Nathan"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States District Court",
      "Southern District of New York",
      "Second Circuit"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York",
      "Onondaga"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "January 25, 2021",
      "02/04/21",
      "2006"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "Document 132",
      "20-CR-330 (AJN)",
      "Dkt. No. 127",
      "Dkt. No. 128",
      "435 F.3d 110",
      "DOJ-OGR-00002344"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document is a court order from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. It appears to be a formal, typed document with no handwritten text. The document contains a stamp indicating it was electronically filed."
}