mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES006/DOJ-OGR-00015055.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "1",
    "document_number": "794",
    "date": "07/23/25",
    "document_type": "Court Order",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 794 Filed 07/23/25 Page 1 of 3\n\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n\n-v-\n\nGHISLAINE MAXWELL,\n\nDefendant.\n\n20 Cr. 330 (PAE)\n\nORDER\n\nPAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge:\n\nThe Court has received a motion by counsel for defendant Ghislaine Maxwell seeking access to grand jury transcripts in her case. Dkt. 793. The stated basis of that motion is to enable Maxwell to comment on the Government's pending motion to unseal these transcripts, Dkt. 785, as to which the Court has ordered expedited briefing, Dkt. 789.\n\nThe Court denies Maxwell's motion. It is black-letter law that defendants generally are not entitled to access to grand jury materials. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e); see also, e.g., United States v. Procter & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677, 682 (\"Th[e] indispensable secrecy of grand jury proceedings must not be broken except where there is a compelling necessity.\" (citation omitted)); United States v. Schlegel, 687 F. App'x 26, 30 (2d Cir. 2017) (\"Grand jury proceedings are presumptively secret, and a defendant seeking the disclosure of grand jury materials bears a heavy burden.\"). Post-trial motions by defendants seeking such access are almost invariably denied, for failure to make a showing of compelling necessity.1\n\n1 See, e.g., United States v. Carneglia, 675 F. App'x 84, 86 (2d Cir. 2017) (affirming denial of defendant's post-conviction bid to access grand jury materials where he did not show that such was \"needed to avoid a possible injustice in' any subsequent habeas proceedings\" (quoting Douglas Oil Co. of Calif. v. Petrol Stops Nw., 441 U.S. 211, 222 (1979))); United States v. Archuleta, No. 2 Cr. 1060, 2018 WL 8646703, at *6-7 (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 2018) (denying request\n\nDOJ-OGR-00015055",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 794 Filed 07/23/25 Page 1 of 3",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, -v- GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "20 Cr. 330 (PAE) ORDER",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge: The Court has received a motion by counsel for defendant Ghislaine Maxwell seeking access to grand jury transcripts in her case. Dkt. 793. The stated basis of that motion is to enable Maxwell to comment on the Government's pending motion to unseal these transcripts, Dkt. 785, as to which the Court has ordered expedited briefing, Dkt. 789.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Court denies Maxwell's motion. It is black-letter law that defendants generally are not entitled to access to grand jury materials. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e); see also, e.g., United States v. Procter & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677, 682 (\"Th[e] indispensable secrecy of grand jury proceedings must not be broken except where there is a compelling necessity.\" (citation omitted)); United States v. Schlegel, 687 F. App'x 26, 30 (2d Cir. 2017) (\"Grand jury proceedings are presumptively secret, and a defendant seeking the disclosure of grand jury materials bears a heavy burden.\"). Post-trial motions by defendants seeking such access are almost invariably denied, for failure to make a showing of compelling necessity.1",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 See, e.g., United States v. Carneglia, 675 F. App'x 84, 86 (2d Cir. 2017) (affirming denial of defendant's post-conviction bid to access grand jury materials where he did not show that such was \"needed to avoid a possible injustice in' any subsequent habeas proceedings\" (quoting Douglas Oil Co. of Calif. v. Petrol Stops Nw., 441 U.S. 211, 222 (1979))); United States v. Archuleta, No. 2 Cr. 1060, 2018 WL 8646703, at *6-7 (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 2018) (denying request",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00015055",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ghislaine Maxwell",
      "Paul A. Engel Mayer"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States District Court",
      "United States of America"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "07/23/25",
      "July 31, 2018"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 794",
      "20 Cr. 330 (PAE)",
      "Dkt. 793",
      "Dkt. 785",
      "Dkt. 789",
      "DOJ-OGR-00015055"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court order from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The document is well-formatted and legible, with no visible redactions or damage."
}