mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES001/DOJ-OGR-00001702.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "1",
    "document_number": "37",
    "date": "07/30/2020",
    "document_type": "MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": true
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 37 Filed 07/30/20 Page 1 of 3\nUSDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: DATE FILED:7/30/2020\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\nUnited States of America,\n-v-\nGhislaine Maxwell,\nDefendant.\n20-CR-330 (AJN)\nMEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER\nALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:\nBoth parties have asked for the Court to enter a protective order. While they agree on most of the language, two areas of dispute have emerged. First, Ms. Maxwell seeks language allowing her to publicly reference alleged victims or witnesses who have spoken on the public record to the media or in public fora, or in litigation relating to Ms. Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein.\nSecond, Ms. Maxwell seeks language restricting potential Government witnesses and their counsel from using discovery materials for any purpose other than preparing for the criminal trial in this action. The Government has proposed contrary language on both of these issues. For the following reasons, the Court adopts the Government's proposed protective order.\nUnder Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(d)(1), \"[a]t any time the court may, for good cause, deny, restrict, or defer discovery or inspection, or grant other appropriate relief.\"\nThe good cause standard \"requires courts to balance several interests, including whether dissemination of the discovery materials inflicts hazard to others . . . whether the imposition of the protective order would prejudice the defendant,\" and \"the public's interest in the information.\" United States v. Smith, 985 F. Supp. 2d 506, 522 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). The party seeking to restrict disclosure bears the burden of showing good cause. Cf. Gambale v. Deutsche Bank AG, 377 F.3d 133, 142 (2d Cir. 2004).\n1\nDOJ-OGR-00001702",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 37 Filed 07/30/20 Page 1 of 3",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "stamp",
      "content": "USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: DATE FILED:7/30/2020",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "United States of America,\n-v-\nGhislaine Maxwell,\nDefendant.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "20-CR-330 (AJN)\nMEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:\nBoth parties have asked for the Court to enter a protective order. While they agree on most of the language, two areas of dispute have emerged. First, Ms. Maxwell seeks language allowing her to publicly reference alleged victims or witnesses who have spoken on the public record to the media or in public fora, or in litigation relating to Ms. Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein.\nSecond, Ms. Maxwell seeks language restricting potential Government witnesses and their counsel from using discovery materials for any purpose other than preparing for the criminal trial in this action. The Government has proposed contrary language on both of these issues. For the following reasons, the Court adopts the Government's proposed protective order.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(d)(1), \"[a]t any time the court may, for good cause, deny, restrict, or defer discovery or inspection, or grant other appropriate relief.\"\nThe good cause standard \"requires courts to balance several interests, including whether dissemination of the discovery materials inflicts hazard to others . . . whether the imposition of the protective order would prejudice the defendant,\" and \"the public's interest in the information.\" United States v. Smith, 985 F. Supp. 2d 506, 522 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). The party seeking to restrict disclosure bears the burden of showing good cause. Cf. Gambale v. Deutsche Bank AG, 377 F.3d 133, 142 (2d Cir. 2004).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00001702",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ghislaine Maxwell",
      "Jeffrey Epstein",
      "Alison J. Nathan"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States District Court",
      "Southern District of New York",
      "Deutsche Bank AG"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "07/30/2020",
      "2004"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "Document 37",
      "20-CR-330 (AJN)",
      "DOJ-OGR-00001702"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a stamp indicating electronic filing. The text is clear and legible, with no visible redactions or damage."
}