mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00003034.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "100",
    "document_number": "204",
    "date": "04/16/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 100 of 239\non which Maxwell or anyone else might reasonably have relied is that Giuffre or her lawyers would not do what the defendant in Chemical Bank did—that is, forward discovery materials in their possession to prosecutors for the purpose of fomenting an investigation. But I am not faced with that situation.” (Id. at 21). Chief Judge McMahon further stated, “Nothing in this record suggests to me that Giuffre or Boies Schiller had anything to do with the Government’s decision to convene a grand jury to look into the matters that were the subject of the [civil lawsuit].” (Id.). Instead, she explained that the Government informed the Court that it had “contacted Boies Schiller as part of its search for parties who might have been victims in its investigation; and that Boies Schiller told the Government that it could not consensually produce at least some documents in its files because of the existence of the Protective Order.” (Id.). Chief Judge McMahon concluded that it was “quite clear that Boies Schiller did not foment the Government’s investigation.” (Id.).\nAmong other conclusions, Chief Judge McMahon found that because Maxwell’s reliance on the protective order in that case as a “shield [. . .] from the court-ordered disclosure of Confidential Materials pursuant to a grand jury subpoena was unreasonable, the Court may exercise its discretion to grant the Government’s application.” (Id. at 22). The Court further concluded that “[t]he Government has persuasively demonstrated extraordinary circumstances, which would entitle it to modification in any event.” (Id.). She also noted that “while in other circumstances the breadth of the subpoena might be troubling, here the Government is in no position to narrow its request, because [the civil case] was litigated almost entirely under seal.” (Id. at 25).\nChief Judge McMahon permitted that the Government share the order—and only that order, which itself prohibited further dissemination, and not including any other materials associated with the Government’s application—with Boies Schiller. The relevant order was\n73\nDOJ-OGR-00003034",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 100 of 239",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "on which Maxwell or anyone else might reasonably have relied is that Giuffre or her lawyers would not do what the defendant in Chemical Bank did—that is, forward discovery materials in their possession to prosecutors for the purpose of fomenting an investigation. But I am not faced with that situation.” (Id. at 21). Chief Judge McMahon further stated, “Nothing in this record suggests to me that Giuffre or Boies Schiller had anything to do with the Government’s decision to convene a grand jury to look into the matters that were the subject of the [civil lawsuit].” (Id.). Instead, she explained that the Government informed the Court that it had “contacted Boies Schiller as part of its search for parties who might have been victims in its investigation; and that Boies Schiller told the Government that it could not consensually produce at least some documents in its files because of the existence of the Protective Order.” (Id.). Chief Judge McMahon concluded that it was “quite clear that Boies Schiller did not foment the Government’s investigation.” (Id.).",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Among other conclusions, Chief Judge McMahon found that because Maxwell’s reliance on the protective order in that case as a “shield [. . .] from the court-ordered disclosure of Confidential Materials pursuant to a grand jury subpoena was unreasonable, the Court may exercise its discretion to grant the Government’s application.” (Id. at 22). The Court further concluded that “[t]he Government has persuasively demonstrated extraordinary circumstances, which would entitle it to modification in any event.” (Id.). She also noted that “while in other circumstances the breadth of the subpoena might be troubling, here the Government is in no position to narrow its request, because [the civil case] was litigated almost entirely under seal.” (Id. at 25).",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Chief Judge McMahon permitted that the Government share the order—and only that order, which itself prohibited further dissemination, and not including any other materials associated with the Government’s application—with Boies Schiller. The relevant order was",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "73",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003034",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell",
      "Giuffre",
      "McMahon"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Boies Schiller",
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "04/16/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 204",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003034"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case involving Maxwell. The text discusses the government's investigation and the role of Boies Schiller in the case. The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
}