mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES007/DOJ-OGR-00019650.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "4",
    "document_number": "94",
    "date": "10/08/2020",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 20-3061, Document 94, 10/08/2020, 2948481, Page4 of 23\n\nIntroduction\n\nThe government's brief suffers from two fundamental flaws. It obscures the relief Ms. Maxwell actually seeks, and it confuses the arguments she actually makes.\n\nAs to the relief she seeks, Ms. Maxwell's request is specific and narrow: She seeks permission to share relevant information, under seal, with other Article III judicial officers, specifically Judge Preska and the panel of this Court deciding the appeal of Judge Preska's order unsealing the civil deposition material, Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 20-2413. Only by obscuring what Ms. Maxwell actually seeks can the government claim with a straight face that this appeal won't be moot if this Court declines to exercise jurisdiction now.\n\nAs to the arguments she makes, there are several (fairly obvious) reasons why Judge Preska and this Court should know just how prosecutors obtained the deposition material and who turned it over to them. If Judge Preska knew this information, she might very well decline to unseal Ms. Maxwell's deposition transcripts to protect Ms. Maxwell's ability in the criminal case to litigate the government's violation of Martindell v. International Telephone & Telegraph Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979), cited with approval in In re Teligent, Inc., 640 F.3d 53, 58 (2d Cir. 2011). She might also reconsider whether Ms. Maxwell reasonably relied\n\n1\n\nDOJ-OGR-00019650",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 20-3061, Document 94, 10/08/2020, 2948481, Page4 of 23",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Introduction",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The government's brief suffers from two fundamental flaws. It obscures the relief Ms. Maxwell actually seeks, and it confuses the arguments she actually makes.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "As to the relief she seeks, Ms. Maxwell's request is specific and narrow: She seeks permission to share relevant information, under seal, with other Article III judicial officers, specifically Judge Preska and the panel of this Court deciding the appeal of Judge Preska's order unsealing the civil deposition material, Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 20-2413. Only by obscuring what Ms. Maxwell actually seeks can the government claim with a straight face that this appeal won't be moot if this Court declines to exercise jurisdiction now.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "As to the arguments she makes, there are several (fairly obvious) reasons why Judge Preska and this Court should know just how prosecutors obtained the deposition material and who turned it over to them. If Judge Preska knew this information, she might very well decline to unseal Ms. Maxwell's deposition transcripts to protect Ms. Maxwell's ability in the criminal case to litigate the government's violation of Martindell v. International Telephone & Telegraph Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979), cited with approval in In re Teligent, Inc., 640 F.3d 53, 58 (2d Cir. 2011). She might also reconsider whether Ms. Maxwell reasonably relied",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00019650",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Judge Preska"
    ],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "10/08/2020"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 20-3061",
      "Document 94",
      "No. 20-2413",
      "DOJ-OGR-00019650"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case Giuffre v. Maxwell. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 4 of 23."
}