mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES006/DOJ-OGR-00015154.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "22",
    "document_number": "809",
    "date": "08/11/25",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 809 Filed 08/11/25 Page 22 of 31\n\npublic-record trial testimony of firsthand witnesses, and thus is not of significant historical or public interest, there is arguably no charter for even undertaking the In re Craig inquiry. After all, the \"special circumstances\" exception to Rule 6(e) only applies in \"exceptional circumstances,\" not to \"garden variety\" grand jury testimony. In re Craig, 131 F.3d at 103 (citation omitted); see also Gov't Mem. at 3-4 (\"acknowledg[ing] the extraordinary nature of [its] request\").\n\nNonetheless, for completeness, the Court evaluates the Government's motion in light of the non-exhaustive factors listed in In re Craig. The Court also addresses two other factors implicated by the motion: the perspectives of Epstein's and Maxwell's victims, as expressed in letters to the Court; and the systemic interest in grand jury secrecy.\n\nAs this assessment shows, the Government has failed, by a wide margin, to carry its burden. These factors, considered together, favor denial of its motion to unseal.\n\n1. Identity of the Party Seeking Disclosure\n\nThis factor ordinarily carries \"great weight,\" and \"the government's position should be paid considerable heed.\" In re Craig, 131 F.3d at 106. But the Government's position is \"not dispositive.\" Id. \"Government support cannot 'confer' disclosure, nor can government opposition preclude it.\" Id. And courts in this District, applying the In re Craig factors, have ruled against the Government's position. See In re National Security Archive, 104 F. Supp. 3d at 628-29 (ordering, over Government's objection, disclosure of testimony of two witnesses before grand jury that indicated Julius and Ethel Rosenberg for espionage); In re AHA, 49 F. Supp. 2d at 278, 297-98 (ordering, over Government's objection, disclosure of testimony before grand juries that investigated and/or indicted Alger Hiss for espionage).\n\nThis factor favors disclosure. But for two reasons, the Court accords this factor limited weight.\n\n22\n\nDOJ-OGR-00015154",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 809 Filed 08/11/25 Page 22 of 31",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "public-record trial testimony of firsthand witnesses, and thus is not of significant historical or public interest, there is arguably no charter for even undertaking the In re Craig inquiry. After all, the \"special circumstances\" exception to Rule 6(e) only applies in \"exceptional circumstances,\" not to \"garden variety\" grand jury testimony. In re Craig, 131 F.3d at 103 (citation omitted); see also Gov't Mem. at 3-4 (\"acknowledg[ing] the extraordinary nature of [its] request\").\n\nNonetheless, for completeness, the Court evaluates the Government's motion in light of the non-exhaustive factors listed in In re Craig. The Court also addresses two other factors implicated by the motion: the perspectives of Epstein's and Maxwell's victims, as expressed in letters to the Court; and the systemic interest in grand jury secrecy.\n\nAs this assessment shows, the Government has failed, by a wide margin, to carry its burden. These factors, considered together, favor denial of its motion to unseal.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1. Identity of the Party Seeking Disclosure\n\nThis factor ordinarily carries \"great weight,\" and \"the government's position should be paid considerable heed.\" In re Craig, 131 F.3d at 106. But the Government's position is \"not dispositive.\" Id. \"Government support cannot 'confer' disclosure, nor can government opposition preclude it.\" Id. And courts in this District, applying the In re Craig factors, have ruled against the Government's position. See In re National Security Archive, 104 F. Supp. 3d at 628-29 (ordering, over Government's objection, disclosure of testimony of two witnesses before grand jury that indicated Julius and Ethel Rosenberg for espionage); In re AHA, 49 F. Supp. 2d at 278, 297-98 (ordering, over Government's objection, disclosure of testimony before grand juries that investigated and/or indicted Alger Hiss for espionage).\n\nThis factor favors disclosure. But for two reasons, the Court accords this factor limited weight.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "22",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00015154",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Epstein",
      "Maxwell",
      "Julius Rosenberg",
      "Ethel Rosenberg",
      "Alger Hiss"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/11/25"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 809",
      "DOJ-OGR-00015154"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case involving Epstein and Maxwell. The text discusses the government's motion to unseal certain documents and the court's evaluation of the motion based on various factors."
}