mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00005446.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "53 of 54",
    "document_number": "380",
    "date": "10/29/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 380 Filed 10/29/21 Page 53 of 54\n\nthe court to declare the defendant the prevailing party in that suit, because Minor Victim-2 had dismissed the case with prejudice in connection with the settlement agreement. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) (“[C]osts . . . should be allowed to the prevailing party.”). The defendant further filed a motion for costs, demanding that Minor Victim-2 pay the defendant [REDACTED] in costs, because, by virtue of the dismissal, the defendant was technically the “prevailing party.” See [REDACTED] While Minor Victim-2 did “not agree that the Defendant is the prevailing party,” she agreed to pay the costs rather than engage in motion practice that would “far exceed the above cost.” [REDACTED]\n\nAt trial, the defense should be precluded from suggesting to the jury—during cross examination or otherwise—that the defendant prevailed in civil litigation. Such evidence is irrelevant and confusing and would potentially mislead the jury into believing that the civil matter was adjudicated on the merits and resolved in the defendant’s favor. Although the Government has no objection to the defense cross-examining Minor Victim-2 about filing a civil lawsuit and obtaining a settlement, the defense should be precluded from claiming at trial that the defendant prevailed in civil litigation.13\n\n13\n\n52\n\nDOJ-OGR-00005446",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 380 Filed 10/29/21 Page 53 of 54",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "the court to declare the defendant the prevailing party in that suit, because Minor Victim-2 had dismissed the case with prejudice in connection with the settlement agreement. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) (“[C]osts . . . should be allowed to the prevailing party.”). The defendant further filed a motion for costs, demanding that Minor Victim-2 pay the defendant [REDACTED] in costs, because, by virtue of the dismissal, the defendant was technically the “prevailing party.” See [REDACTED] While Minor Victim-2 did “not agree that the Defendant is the prevailing party,” she agreed to pay the costs rather than engage in motion practice that would “far exceed the above cost.” [REDACTED]",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "At trial, the defense should be precluded from suggesting to the jury—during cross examination or otherwise—that the defendant prevailed in civil litigation. Such evidence is irrelevant and confusing and would potentially mislead the jury into believing that the civil matter was adjudicated on the merits and resolved in the defendant’s favor. Although the Government has no objection to the defense cross-examining Minor Victim-2 about filing a civil lawsuit and obtaining a settlement, the defense should be precluded from claiming at trial that the defendant prevailed in civil litigation.13",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "13",
      "position": "margin"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "52",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00005446",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Minor Victim-2",
      "Defendant"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "10/29/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 380",
      "DOJ-OGR-00005446"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document contains redactions, likely to protect sensitive information about the case or individuals involved."
}