mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES001/DOJ-OGR-00002763.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "2",
    "document_number": "168",
    "date": "03/18/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-000330-AJN Document 168 Filed 03/18/21 Page 2 of 5\n\nThe proposed redactions mostly satisfy this test. First, the Government’s brief in opposition to the Defendant’s pre-trial motions is a “judicial document” for purposes of the first element of the Lugosch test. United States v. Amodeo (“Amodeo I”), 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995). The Court thus concludes that there is a common law and a First Amendment presumption of access. Id. at 146; see also Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 602 (1978). The question, then, is whether the redaction and sealing requests are narrowly tailored to serve substantial interests that overcome that presumption of access.\n\nLike the Government’s previous redaction and sealing requests in this case, the Government bases its requests on its contention that redactions and/or sealing are necessary to protect the integrity of an ongoing criminal investigation and to protect third parties’ personal privacy interests. As a general matter, these interests are legitimate and provide a basis for overcoming the presumption of access. See, e.g., Under Seal v. Under Seal, 273 F. Supp. 3d 460, 467 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); United States v. Madoff, 626 F. Supp. 2d 420, 427–28 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). As applied to this case, the Court concludes that the proposed redactions in the Government’s brief generally serve these interests. Exhibit 1 contains a single redaction—the name of a third party—and the Court concludes that that individual’s personal privacy interests outweigh the presumption of access that exists as to that limited portion of the exhibit. The proposed redactions to Exhibit 7 are similar in that they seek to protect from public access only the names and contact information of third parties. Here, too, the interest in protecting the safety and privacy of those individuals outweighs the presumption of access that attaches to those documents.\n\nThe Court overrules the Defendant’s objections to the redactions contained in Exhibit 5 of the Government’s brief and adopts the Government’s proposed redactions. The core of the\n\n2\n\nDOJ-OGR-00002763",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-000330-AJN Document 168 Filed 03/18/21 Page 2 of 5",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The proposed redactions mostly satisfy this test. First, the Government’s brief in opposition to the Defendant’s pre-trial motions is a “judicial document” for purposes of the first element of the Lugosch test. United States v. Amodeo (“Amodeo I”), 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995). The Court thus concludes that there is a common law and a First Amendment presumption of access. Id. at 146; see also Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 602 (1978). The question, then, is whether the redaction and sealing requests are narrowly tailored to serve substantial interests that overcome that presumption of access.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Like the Government’s previous redaction and sealing requests in this case, the Government bases its requests on its contention that redactions and/or sealing are necessary to protect the integrity of an ongoing criminal investigation and to protect third parties’ personal privacy interests. As a general matter, these interests are legitimate and provide a basis for overcoming the presumption of access. See, e.g., Under Seal v. Under Seal, 273 F. Supp. 3d 460, 467 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); United States v. Madoff, 626 F. Supp. 2d 420, 427–28 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). As applied to this case, the Court concludes that the proposed redactions in the Government’s brief generally serve these interests. Exhibit 1 contains a single redaction—the name of a third party—and the Court concludes that that individual’s personal privacy interests outweigh the presumption of access that exists as to that limited portion of the exhibit. The proposed redactions to Exhibit 7 are similar in that they seek to protect from public access only the names and contact information of third parties. Here, too, the interest in protecting the safety and privacy of those individuals outweighs the presumption of access that attaches to those documents.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Court overrules the Defendant’s objections to the redactions contained in Exhibit 5 of the Government’s brief and adopts the Government’s proposed redactions. The core of the",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00002763",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Amodeo",
      "Nixon",
      "Madoff"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government",
      "Court"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "03/18/21",
      "1995",
      "1978",
      "2017",
      "2009"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-000330-AJN",
      "Document 168",
      "DOJ-OGR-00002763"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case, discussing the proposed redactions and sealing of certain documents. The text is mostly printed, with no handwritten content or stamps visible."
}