mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES001/DOJ-OGR-00002495.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "29",
    "document_number": "136-9",
    "date": "02/04/21",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "MS. MCCAWLEY: Yes, that's fine with me, your Honor.\nI also have one housekeeping matter once Ms. Menninger is done.\nTHE COURT: A week from Friday is fine with me.\nMS. MENNINGER: Thank you. Those were all that I had.\nTHE COURT: Ms. McCawley.\nMS. MCCAWLEY: Thank you, your Honor.\nMy question relates to those Does in the bucket that did not object. Each time we go through these, obviously, there is a burden to redact those names, which is lessened if we don't have to worry about the individuals who have not objected. Is there a mechanism by which we can address that so we won't have to labor through those in each section?\nTHE COURT: Ms. Menninger, what do you have to say?\nMS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, I think the parties have taken two pretty different views of this.\nOne, Ms. McCawley asked in her briefing on this round that if someone didn't file an objection, then we should release their names. As I pointed out in another letter to your Honor on this topic, it's apparent that many of the Does didn't actually receive the notice from the Court. And so I still believe that the Court has to evaluate, as the Second Circuit did, Does even if we didn't receive an objection from them.\nSo, unfortunately, I think it still means we go\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "MS. MCCAWLEY: Yes, that's fine with me, your Honor.\nI also have one housekeeping matter once Ms. Menninger is done.\nTHE COURT: A week from Friday is fine with me.\nMS. MENNINGER: Thank you. Those were all that I had.\nTHE COURT: Ms. McCawley.\nMS. MCCAWLEY: Thank you, your Honor.\nMy question relates to those Does in the bucket that did not object. Each time we go through these, obviously, there is a burden to redact those names, which is lessened if we don't have to worry about the individuals who have not objected. Is there a mechanism by which we can address that so we won't have to labor through those in each section?\nTHE COURT: Ms. Menninger, what do you have to say?\nMS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, I think the parties have taken two pretty different views of this.\nOne, Ms. McCawley asked in her briefing on this round that if someone didn't file an objection, then we should release their names. As I pointed out in another letter to your Honor on this topic, it's apparent that many of the Does didn't actually receive the notice from the Court. And so I still believe that the Court has to evaluate, as the Second Circuit did, Does even if we didn't receive an objection from them.\nSo, unfortunately, I think it still means we go",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. McCawley",
      "Ms. Menninger"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.",
      "Second Circuit"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "02/04/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "136-9",
      "DOJ-OGR-00002495"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage to the document."
}