mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00022103.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "7",
    "document_number": "36",
    "date": "06/09/20",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 36 Filed 06/09/20 Page 7 of 9\ndisclose.\" Gov't Opp. at 21-22. The Court cannot grant a motion to compel the Government to produce a report that, at the time of this order, does not exist.1\n\nAccordingly, Thomas' motion to compel disclosure of materials related to the Inspector General's investigation is DENIED.\n\nIII. BOP Materials\n\nThomas also seeks disclosure of \"reports generated by investigators within the [BOP] regarding\" Epstein's death, and \"any and all documents, reports, witness statements and disciplinary records of any and all MCC employees who have engaged in conduct\" similar to that alleged against Thomas. Motion at 6. However, Thomas has adduced no evidence that the Government reviewed information arising from a BOP investigation. Nor has he shown that BOP officials \"participated in the prosecution's witness interviews,\" were \"involved in presenting the case to the grand jury,\" \"reviewed documents gathered by or shared documents with the prosecution,\" \"played a role in the development of prosecutorial strategy,\" \"accompanied the prosecution to court proceedings,\" or in any other way played a role in the investigation that led to the charges against him. Collins, 409 F. Supp. 3d at 239 (internal quotation marks, citation, and alteration omitted). There is, therefore, no evidence that BOP personnel participated in the criminal investigation that led to Thomas' indictment. Thus, the Court concludes that the BOP was not part of the prosecution team for purposes of Rule 16 and Brady.\n\nTo be sure, the BOP is a component of the Department of Justice, but that fact standing alone is not sufficient to make the BOP an arm of the prosecution. \"The court cannot find that\n\n1 Because the Court denies Thomas' motion on the ground that no material exists to disclose, it does not address whether the Inspector General's report might contain information material to his defense, nor whether it is protected by the deliberative process privilege. See Gov't Opp. at 12-15, 22-23.\n7\nDOJ-OGR-00022103",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 36 Filed 06/09/20 Page 7 of 9",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "disclose.\" Gov't Opp. at 21-22. The Court cannot grant a motion to compel the Government to produce a report that, at the time of this order, does not exist.1\n\nAccordingly, Thomas' motion to compel disclosure of materials related to the Inspector General's investigation is DENIED.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "III. BOP Materials\n\nThomas also seeks disclosure of \"reports generated by investigators within the [BOP] regarding\" Epstein's death, and \"any and all documents, reports, witness statements and disciplinary records of any and all MCC employees who have engaged in conduct\" similar to that alleged against Thomas. Motion at 6. However, Thomas has adduced no evidence that the Government reviewed information arising from a BOP investigation. Nor has he shown that BOP officials \"participated in the prosecution's witness interviews,\" were \"involved in presenting the case to the grand jury,\" \"reviewed documents gathered by or shared documents with the prosecution,\" \"played a role in the development of prosecutorial strategy,\" \"accompanied the prosecution to court proceedings,\" or in any other way played a role in the investigation that led to the charges against him. Collins, 409 F. Supp. 3d at 239 (internal quotation marks, citation, and alteration omitted). There is, therefore, no evidence that BOP personnel participated in the criminal investigation that led to Thomas' indictment. Thus, the Court concludes that the BOP was not part of the prosecution team for purposes of Rule 16 and Brady.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "To be sure, the BOP is a component of the Department of Justice, but that fact standing alone is not sufficient to make the BOP an arm of the prosecution. \"The court cannot find that",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 Because the Court denies Thomas' motion on the ground that no material exists to disclose, it does not address whether the Inspector General's report might contain information material to his defense, nor whether it is protected by the deliberative process privilege. See Gov't Opp. at 12-15, 22-23.",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "7",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00022103",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Thomas",
      "Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "BOP",
      "Department of Justice",
      "MCC"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "06/09/20"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:19-cr-00830-AT",
      "Document 36",
      "DOJ-OGR-00022103"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is mostly printed, with no handwritten content or stamps visible. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}