mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES001/DOJ-OGR-00002841.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "20",
    "document_number": "20-cv-00854",
    "date": "March 24, 2021",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": true,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "latter point, it is undisputed that the alternate mailing address defect actually led to an increase of representation of the very minority groups that Schulte contends were underrepresented. (Gov't Opp. Br. at 17.) Thus empiricism precludes the notion that the violation was “substantial” in nature. LaChance, 788 F.2d at 870 (explaining that the inquiry for whether a violation is substantial is the “extent of its effect on the wheels”); see also Allen, 2021 WL 431458, at *11 (rejecting same argument on the ground that it was merely a technical violation). In sum, the Court concludes that Schulte has not demonstrated a plausible violation of the JSSA.\n\nCONCLUSION\n\nFor the forgoing reasons, the motion to dismiss is DENIED.\n\nDated: New York, New York March 24, 2021 SO ORDERED\n\nPAUL A. CROTTY\nUnited States District Judge",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "latter point, it is undisputed that the alternate mailing address defect actually led to an increase of representation of the very minority groups that Schulte contends were underrepresented. (Gov't Opp. Br. at 17.) Thus empiricism precludes the notion that the violation was “substantial” in nature. LaChance, 788 F.2d at 870 (explaining that the inquiry for whether a violation is substantial is the “extent of its effect on the wheels”); see also Allen, 2021 WL 431458, at *11 (rejecting same argument on the ground that it was merely a technical violation). In sum, the Court concludes that Schulte has not demonstrated a plausible violation of the JSSA.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "CONCLUSION",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "For the forgoing reasons, the motion to dismiss is DENIED.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Dated: New York, New York March 24, 2021",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SO ORDERED",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "handwritten",
      "content": "Paul A. Crotty",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "PAUL A. CROTTY United States District Judge",
      "position": "bottom"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Schulte",
      "Paul A. Crotty"
    ],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "March 24, 2021"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "20-cv-00854",
      "788 F.2d",
      "2021 WL 431458"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court ruling with a clear conclusion and signature from the judge. The text is mostly printed, with the judge's signature being handwritten."
}