mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES007/DOJ-OGR-00019434.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "35",
    "document_number": "60",
    "date": "09/24/2020",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 20-3061, Document 60, 09/24/2020, 2938278, Page35 of 58\nbelieved. According to the government, [REDACTED]\n[REDACTED]\n[REDACTED]\nBut if that's true, then the government should have moved to intervene before Judge Preska to oppose the unsealing of the deposition material, since, in the government's view, that material is confidential. The (unprincipled) reason for the government's decision not to intervene is obvious: If Ms. Maxwell's depositions are released to the public, the government will argue to Judge Nathan that any violation of Martindell was harmless.\nIt's immaterial that the court stayed Doe v. Indyke during discovery while discovery in Giuffre v. Maxwell finished in 2017. As this Court recognized in Louis Vuitton, \"if civil defendants do not elect to assert their Fifth Amendment privilege, and instead fully cooperate with discovery, their 'testimony . . . in their defense in the civil action is likely to constitute admissions of criminal conduct in their criminal prosecution.'\" 676 F.3d at 98 (quoting SEC v. Boock, No. 09 Civ. 8261(DLC), 2010 WL 2398918, at *2, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59498, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. June 15, 2010) (alteration in original)).\n30\nDOJ-OGR-00019434",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 20-3061, Document 60, 09/24/2020, 2938278, Page35 of 58",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "believed. According to the government, [REDACTED]\n[REDACTED]\n[REDACTED]",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "But if that's true, then the government should have moved to intervene before Judge Preska to oppose the unsealing of the deposition material, since, in the government's view, that material is confidential. The (unprincipled) reason for the government's decision not to intervene is obvious: If Ms. Maxwell's depositions are released to the public, the government will argue to Judge Nathan that any violation of Martindell was harmless.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "It's immaterial that the court stayed Doe v. Indyke during discovery while discovery in Giuffre v. Maxwell finished in 2017. As this Court recognized in Louis Vuitton, \"if civil defendants do not elect to assert their Fifth Amendment privilege, and instead fully cooperate with discovery, their 'testimony . . . in their defense in the civil action is likely to constitute admissions of criminal conduct in their criminal prosecution.'\" 676 F.3d at 98 (quoting SEC v. Boock, No. 09 Civ. 8261(DLC), 2010 WL 2398918, at *2, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59498, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. June 15, 2010) (alteration in original)).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "30",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00019434",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Judge Preska",
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Judge Nathan"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "government"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "09/24/2020",
      "2017",
      "June 15, 2010"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 20-3061",
      "Document 60",
      "2938278",
      "DOJ-OGR-00019434",
      "No. 09 Civ. 8261(DLC)"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document contains redactions and is a court document related to a legal case."
}