mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00003860.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "8",
    "document_number": "218",
    "date": "04/19/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": true,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 218 Filed 04/19/21 Page 8 of 8\nThe Hon. Alison J. Nathan\nApril 15, 2021\nPage 8\nsought by the subpoenas is not confidential. The government argues, based on the Boies Schiller response, that the \"diary\" would be considered confidential. The government's hyperbole about the alleged confidential nature of the diary is inaccurate, and in any event, Boies Schiller is capable or raising confidentiality and requesting a protective order where applicable. Of course, to the extent any of the information is legitimately confidential, Ms. Maxwell will not object to an appropriate protective order negotiated between the third party and Ms. Maxwell and approved by the Court.\nVI. Conclusion\nThe government could easily address the issues raised in its April 5, 2021 letter by simply obtaining the relevant exculpatory evidence. But it refuses to fairly investigate this case, and it should not be permitted to interfere with the defense function. Accordingly, the various requests made in its letter motion should be denied.\nRespectfully submitted,\nJeffrey S. Pagliuca\nCC: Counsel of Record",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 218 Filed 04/19/21 Page 8 of 8",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Hon. Alison J. Nathan\nApril 15, 2021\nPage 8",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "sought by the subpoenas is not confidential. The government argues, based on the Boies Schiller response, that the \"diary\" would be considered confidential. The government's hyperbole about the alleged confidential nature of the diary is inaccurate, and in any event, Boies Schiller is capable or raising confidentiality and requesting a protective order where applicable. Of course, to the extent any of the information is legitimately confidential, Ms. Maxwell will not object to an appropriate protective order negotiated between the third party and Ms. Maxwell and approved by the Court.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "VI. Conclusion",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The government could easily address the issues raised in its April 5, 2021 letter by simply obtaining the relevant exculpatory evidence. But it refuses to fairly investigate this case, and it should not be permitted to interfere with the defense function. Accordingly, the various requests made in its letter motion should be denied.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "handwritten",
      "content": "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca",
      "position": "signature"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Respectfully submitted,",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "CC: Counsel of Record",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Alison J. Nathan",
      "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca",
      "Ms. Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Boies Schiller"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "April 15, 2021",
      "April 5, 2021",
      "04/19/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 218"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a signature from Jeffrey S. Pagliuca. The content discusses a legal case involving Ms. Maxwell and the government's handling of subpoenas and confidential information."
}