mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES007/DOJ-OGR-00019548.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "3",
    "document_number": "372",
    "date": "July 30, 2020",
    "document_type": "Court Order",
    "has_handwriting": true,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case1:20-cr-00320-AJN Document 372 Filed 08/03/20 Page 3 of 63 stake. And as the Government's letter notes, see Dkt. No. 33 at 4, to the extent that the Defense needs an exception to the protective order for a specific investigative purpose, they can make applications to the Court on a case-by-case basis. Second, restrictions on the ability of potential witnesses and their counsel to use discovery materials for purposes other than preparing for trial in this case are unwarranted. The request appears unprecedented despite the fact that there have been many high-profile criminal matters that had related civil litigation. The Government labors under many restrictions including Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Privacy Act of 1974, and other policies of the Department of Justice and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, all of which the Court expects the Government to scrupulously follow. Furthermore, the Government indicates that it will likely only provide potential witnesses with materials that those witnesses already have in their possession. See Dkt. No. 33 at 6. And of course, those witnesses who do testify at trial would be subject to examination on the record as to what materials were provided or shown to them by the Government. Nothing in the Defense's papers explains how its unprecedented proposed restriction is somehow necessary to ensure a fair trial. For the foregoing reasons, the Court adopts the Government's proposed protective order, which will be entered on the docket. This resolves Dkt. No. 29. SO ORDERED. Dated: July 30, 2020 New York, New York ALISON J. NATHAN United States District Judge App.089 DOJ-OGR-00019548",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case1:20-cr-00320-AJN Document 372 Filed 08/03/20 Page 3 of 63",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "stake. And as the Government's letter notes, see Dkt. No. 33 at 4, to the extent that the Defense needs an exception to the protective order for a specific investigative purpose, they can make applications to the Court on a case-by-case basis. Second, restrictions on the ability of potential witnesses and their counsel to use discovery materials for purposes other than preparing for trial in this case are unwarranted. The request appears unprecedented despite the fact that there have been many high-profile criminal matters that had related civil litigation. The Government labors under many restrictions including Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Privacy Act of 1974, and other policies of the Department of Justice and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, all of which the Court expects the Government to scrupulously follow. Furthermore, the Government indicates that it will likely only provide potential witnesses with materials that those witnesses already have in their possession. See Dkt. No. 33 at 6. And of course, those witnesses who do testify at trial would be subject to examination on the record as to what materials were provided or shown to them by the Government. Nothing in the Defense's papers explains how its unprecedented proposed restriction is somehow necessary to ensure a fair trial.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "For the foregoing reasons, the Court adopts the Government's proposed protective order, which will be entered on the docket. This resolves Dkt. No. 29.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SO ORDERED.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Dated: July 30, 2020 New York, New York",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "handwritten",
      "content": "Alison J. Nathan",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "ALISON J. NATHAN United States District Judge",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "App.089 DOJ-OGR-00019548",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Alison J. Nathan"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Department of Justice",
      "U.S. Attorney's Office"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York",
      "Southern District of New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "July 30, 2020",
      "1974"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Dkt. No. 33",
      "Dkt. No. 29",
      "Case1:20-cr-00320-AJN",
      "Document 372",
      "App.089",
      "DOJ-OGR-00019548"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document is a court order signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan. It appears to be a formal legal document with proper formatting and language. There are no visible redactions or damage to the document."
}