mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00004135.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "2",
    "document_number": "284",
    "date": "05/17/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": true,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 284 Filed 05/17/21 Page 2 of 2\nPage 2\nThe Government respectfully submits that Exhibits C, E, F, G, H, and I should be filed entirely under seal in order to protect the privacy interests of victims and third parties implicated in the documents. The Court has accepted similar exhibits under seal in this case to protect such privacy interests. (See, e.g., Dkt. No. 168, 232).\nRespectfully submitted,\nAUDREY STRAUSS\nUnited States Attorney\nBy: s/\nMaurene Comey\nAlison Moe\nLara Pomerantz\nAndrew Rohrbach\nAssistant United States Attorneys\nSouthern District of New York\nCc: Defense counsel (By ECF)\nThe Court grants in part the Government's redaction and sealing requests. Its conclusion is guided by the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006).\nThe Court concludes that these are judicial documents and that the First Amendment and common law presumptions of access attach. Id. at 119–20. In balancing competing considerations against the presumption of access, the Court finds that the arguments the Government has put forward in this letter, including the need to protect the privacy interests of third parties and alleged victims, favor the narrowly tailored redactions. See United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1050 (2d Cir. 1995). Similarly, the Court concludes that the Government has shown that Exhibits E, F, G, H, and I should be filed under seal.\nWith respect to Exhibit C, however, the Court concludes that narrowly tailored redactions are sufficient to advance the privacy interests the Government has identified. Accordingly, the Government is ORDERED to confer with defense counsel and submit proposed redactions to Exhibit C by May 20, 2021.\nSO ORDERED.\nSO ORDERED.\nDOJ-OGR-00004135",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 284 Filed 05/17/21 Page 2 of 2",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Government respectfully submits that Exhibits C, E, F, G, H, and I should be filed entirely under seal in order to protect the privacy interests of victims and third parties implicated in the documents. The Court has accepted similar exhibits under seal in this case to protect such privacy interests. (See, e.g., Dkt. No. 168, 232).",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Respectfully submitted,\nAUDREY STRAUSS\nUnited States Attorney\nBy: s/\nMaurene Comey\nAlison Moe\nLara Pomerantz\nAndrew Rohrbach\nAssistant United States Attorneys\nSouthern District of New York",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Cc: Defense counsel (By ECF)",
      "position": "margin"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Court grants in part the Government's redaction and sealing requests. Its conclusion is guided by the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006).\nThe Court concludes that these are judicial documents and that the First Amendment and common law presumptions of access attach. Id. at 119–20. In balancing competing considerations against the presumption of access, the Court finds that the arguments the Government has put forward in this letter, including the need to protect the privacy interests of third parties and alleged victims, favor the narrowly tailored redactions. See United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1050 (2d Cir. 1995). Similarly, the Court concludes that the Government has shown that Exhibits E, F, G, H, and I should be filed under seal.\nWith respect to Exhibit C, however, the Court concludes that narrowly tailored redactions are sufficient to advance the privacy interests the Government has identified. Accordingly, the Government is ORDERED to confer with defense counsel and submit proposed redactions to Exhibit C by May 20, 2021.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "handwritten",
      "content": "Alison J. Nathan",
      "position": "signature"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SO ORDERED.\nALISON J. NATHAN, U.S.D.J.",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SO ORDERED.",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00004135",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Audrey Strauss",
      "Maurene Comey",
      "Alison Moe",
      "Lara Pomerantz",
      "Andrew Rohrbach",
      "Alison J. Nathan"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States Attorney",
      "Southern District of New York",
      "Second Circuit"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York",
      "Onondaga"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "05/17/21",
      "May 20, 2021"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "284",
      "168",
      "232",
      "435 F.3d 110",
      "71 F.3d 1044",
      "DOJ-OGR-00004135"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a signature from Judge Alison J. Nathan. The document is related to a criminal case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE) and discusses the sealing of certain exhibits."
}