mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES006/DOJ-OGR-00015111.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "16",
    "document_number": "804",
    "date": "08/06/25",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 804 Filed 08/06/25 Page 16 of 27\n\nHonorable Paul A. Engelmayer\nCase No.: 1:20-cr-00330 (PAE)\nPage 3\n\nsome, the Maxwell conviction is the only meaningful measure of criminal accountability; its erosion would be devastating.1\n\nOf significant concern, the same government that failed to provide notice to the victims before moving this Court to unseal the grand jury materials is now the government representing to this Court that it has provided appropriate notice to the victims or their counsel and has conducted a proper review and redaction of the materials it seeks to release. Several clients have contacted us expressing deep anxiety over whether the redactions were in fact adequate. Consequently, we requested yesterday that the government identify which of our clients were referenced to the grand jury. The government responded promptly and provided clarification. However, we have strong reason to believe that additional individuals—whom we also represent—were likely referenced in those materials but were not identified to us by the government.\n\nIt remains unclear whether notice was instead provided to prior counsel, whether their omission was a government oversight, whether the government does not consider them to be victims, or whether these individuals were, in fact, not mentioned to the grand jury. Regardless of the explanation, this ambiguity raises a serious issue that must be resolved before any materials are publicly released.\n\nAgainst this backdrop, any disclosure of grand jury material—especially material that could expose or help identify victims in any way—directly affects the CVRA’s fairness, privacy, conferral, and protection guarantees. To ensure those rights are protected, it is essential that the protocol outlined in the relief requested below is adopted by this Court.\n\nII. Rule 6(e) and Eleventh Circuit Authority Require Heightened Caution and Narrow Tailoring.\n\nGrand jury secrecy is a “long-established policy” safeguarded by Rule 6(e). Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Nw., 441 U.S. 211, 219-23 (1979). Even where disclosure may be considered, the movant must establish a particularized need that outweighs the countervailing interests in secrecy, and any disclosure should be no broader than necessary. Id. at 222–23. The Eleventh Circuit has further held that district courts lack inherent authority to order grand jury disclosure outside the exceptions in Rule 6(e). Pitch v. United States, 953 F.3d 1226, 1237–38 (11th Cir. 2020) (en banc); see also McKeever v. Barr, 920 F.3d 842, 845–46 (D.C. Cir. 2019).\n\nHere, even if the Court were to find a Rule 6(e) path to limited disclosure, victims’ CVRA rights and the traditional interests protected by grand jury secrecy converge in favor of extraordinary care: rigorous judicial screening, robust redactions, minimization of any risk of re-identification, and meaningful victim participation before anything is made public. Related privacy provisions reinforce\n\n1 Several victims have already died by suicide, drug overdose, or under tragic circumstances tied directly to the trauma caused by Epstein and Maxwell. The psychological toll of this abuse is ongoing. A pardon, issued in silence or secrecy, would reignite deep trauma, destabilize the already-fragile healing process of many survivors, and could result in further irreparable harm—including loss of life. It would suggest to victims everywhere that powerful predators are once again above the law.\n\nDOJ-OGR-0001511",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 804 Filed 08/06/25 Page 16 of 27",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Honorable Paul A. Engelmayer\nCase No.: 1:20-cr-00330 (PAE)\nPage 3",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "some, the Maxwell conviction is the only meaningful measure of criminal accountability; its erosion would be devastating.1\n\nOf significant concern, the same government that failed to provide notice to the victims before moving this Court to unseal the grand jury materials is now the government representing to this Court that it has provided appropriate notice to the victims or their counsel and has conducted a proper review and redaction of the materials it seeks to release. Several clients have contacted us expressing deep anxiety over whether the redactions were in fact adequate. Consequently, we requested yesterday that the government identify which of our clients were referenced to the grand jury. The government responded promptly and provided clarification. However, we have strong reason to believe that additional individuals—whom we also represent—were likely referenced in those materials but were not identified to us by the government.\n\nIt remains unclear whether notice was instead provided to prior counsel, whether their omission was a government oversight, whether the government does not consider them to be victims, or whether these individuals were, in fact, not mentioned to the grand jury. Regardless of the explanation, this ambiguity raises a serious issue that must be resolved before any materials are publicly released.\n\nAgainst this backdrop, any disclosure of grand jury material—especially material that could expose or help identify victims in any way—directly affects the CVRA’s fairness, privacy, conferral, and protection guarantees. To ensure those rights are protected, it is essential that the protocol outlined in the relief requested below is adopted by this Court.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "II. Rule 6(e) and Eleventh Circuit Authority Require Heightened Caution and Narrow Tailoring.\n\nGrand jury secrecy is a “long-established policy” safeguarded by Rule 6(e). Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Nw., 441 U.S. 211, 219-23 (1979). Even where disclosure may be considered, the movant must establish a particularized need that outweighs the countervailing interests in secrecy, and any disclosure should be no broader than necessary. Id. at 222–23. The Eleventh Circuit has further held that district courts lack inherent authority to order grand jury disclosure outside the exceptions in Rule 6(e). Pitch v. United States, 953 F.3d 1226, 1237–38 (11th Cir. 2020) (en banc); see also McKeever v. Barr, 920 F.3d 842, 845–46 (D.C. Cir. 2019).\n\nHere, even if the Court were to find a Rule 6(e) path to limited disclosure, victims’ CVRA rights and the traditional interests protected by grand jury secrecy converge in favor of extraordinary care: rigorous judicial screening, robust redactions, minimization of any risk of re-identification, and meaningful victim participation before anything is made public. Related privacy provisions reinforce",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 Several victims have already died by suicide, drug overdose, or under tragic circumstances tied directly to the trauma caused by Epstein and Maxwell. The psychological toll of this abuse is ongoing. A pardon, issued in silence or secrecy, would reignite deep trauma, destabilize the already-fragile healing process of many survivors, and could result in further irreparable harm—including loss of life. It would suggest to victims everywhere that powerful predators are once again above the law.",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-0001511",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Paul A. Engelmayer",
      "Epstein",
      "Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Court",
      "Eleventh Circuit",
      "Department of Justice"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/06/25",
      "1979",
      "2020",
      "2019"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 804",
      "DOJ-OGR-0001511"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Maxwell, with concerns about the disclosure of grand jury materials and the potential impact on victims."
}