mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00003651.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "1",
    "document_number": "205",
    "date": "04/16/21",
    "document_type": "Court Order",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": true
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 205 Filed 04/16/21 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 March 15, 2021, the Defendant filed under seal her reply briefs to the Government memorandum of law opposing Defendants' twelve pre-trial motions. She filed the briefs, along with the corresponding exhibits, temporarily under seal in order to permit the Government and the Court to review certain proposed redactions. Of the twelve reply briefs, Reply Briefs 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 11, and 12 did not contain any redaction or sealing requests. Reply Briefs 1, 3, 5, 6, and 10 contain limited proposed redactions. Reply Briefs 3, 6, and 10 also contain exhibits that the Defendant proposes be filed under seal.\n\nAs set forth in the Defendant's cover letter, the premise of the proposed redactions is that the materials were produced in discovery and subject to the protective order that has been entered in this case. The mere existence of a confidentiality agreement or a protective order covering judicial documents is insufficient to overcome the presumption of access. See Aioi Nissay Dowa Ins. Co. v. ProSight Specialty Mgmt. Co., Inc., 12-cv-3274 (JPO), 2012 WL 3583176, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2012). And the Court did not receive specific requests or justifications to redact or seal any of the materials.\n\n1\n\nDOJ-OGR-00003651",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 205 Filed 04/16/21 Page 1 of 2",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "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 March 15, 2021, the Defendant filed under seal her reply briefs to the Government memorandum of law opposing Defendants' twelve pre-trial motions. She filed the briefs, along with the corresponding exhibits, temporarily under seal in order to permit the Government and the Court to review certain proposed redactions. Of the twelve reply briefs, Reply Briefs 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 11, and 12 did not contain any redaction or sealing requests. Reply Briefs 1, 3, 5, 6, and 10 contain limited proposed redactions. Reply Briefs 3, 6, and 10 also contain exhibits that the Defendant proposes be filed under seal.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "As set forth in the Defendant's cover letter, the premise of the proposed redactions is that the materials were produced in discovery and subject to the protective order that has been entered in this case. The mere existence of a confidentiality agreement or a protective order covering judicial documents is insufficient to overcome the presumption of access. See Aioi Nissay Dowa Ins. Co. v. ProSight Specialty Mgmt. Co., Inc., 12-cv-3274 (JPO), 2012 WL 3583176, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2012). And the Court did not receive specific requests or justifications to redact or seal any of the materials.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003651",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "stamp",
      "content": "USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: DATE FILED: 4/16/21",
      "position": "header"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ghislaine Maxwell",
      "Alison J. Nathan"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States of America",
      "United States District Court",
      "Southern District of New York"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "March 15, 2021",
      "04/16/21",
      "Aug. 21, 2012"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 205",
      "20-CR-330 (AJN)",
      "12-cv-3274 (JPO)"
    ]
  },
  "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 is related to the case of Ghislaine Maxwell."
}