mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES007/DOJ-OGR-00019321.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "4 of 3",
    "document_number": "15 Civ. 7433 (LAP)",
    "date": "August 10, 2020",
    "document_type": "Letter",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Haddon Morgan Foreman\nAugust 10, 2020\n\nHonorable Loretta A. Preska\nUnited States District Court\nSouthern District of New York\n500 Pearl Street\nNew York, NY 10007\n\nRe: August 3, 2020 Order (Doc. 1096)\nGiuffre v. Ghislaine Maxwell, No. 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP)\n\nDear Judge Preska:\n\nI write in response to the Court's Order of August 3, 2020 (Doc. 1069), the Order and Protocol for Unsealing Decided Motions (Doc. 1044) (\"Protocol\"), and to raise with the Court the legal effect of new information that came to the attention of counsel for Ms. Maxwell on Friday, August 7, 2020.\n\nNew information: On Friday, August 7, 2020, counsel for Ms. Maxwell learned of critical new information that impacts both this action and U.S. v. Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) (the \"Criminal Action\"). The information implicates Ms. Maxwell's right to due process and fairness in this civil action and affects the Second Circuit's review of the Court's unsealing order of July 23, 2020. Additionally, the information implicates her rights as a criminal defendant guaranteed under the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments.\n\nCounsel makes the representations about implications of the new information as an officer of this Court. At this time, counsel is not at liberty to disclose the information because it is subject to a protective order in the Criminal Action, which forbids its use \"for any civil proceeding or any purpose other than the defense\" of the criminal action absent \"further order of the Court.\" Protective Order, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) at ¶¶ 1(a), 18 (Exhibit A). As required by that Protective Order and Judge Nathan's Individual Practices in Criminal Cases, counsel initiated a conferral with the U.S. Attorney's Office over the weekend concerning a modification of the Protective Order to share the information with this Court and the Second Circuit. Barring agreement, Ms. Maxwell intends to seek modification of the Protective Order in the Criminal Action from Judge Nathan forthwith to permit sharing the information with this Court, ex parte and in camera if necessary, and with the Second Circuit (likewise under seal if necessary).\n\nDOJ-OGR-00019321",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Haddon Morgan Foreman\nLaura A. Menninger\n150 East 10th Avenue\nDenver, Colorado 80203\nPH 303.831.7364 FX 303.832.2628\nwww.hmflaw.com\nLMenninger@hmflaw.com",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "August 10, 2020\n\nHonorable Loretta A. Preska\nUnited States District Court\nSouthern District of New York\n500 Pearl Street\nNew York, NY 10007\n\nRe: August 3, 2020 Order (Doc. 1096)\nGiuffre v. Ghislaine Maxwell, No. 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP)\n\nDear Judge Preska:",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "I write in response to the Court's Order of August 3, 2020 (Doc. 1069), the Order and Protocol for Unsealing Decided Motions (Doc. 1044) (\"Protocol\"), and to raise with the Court the legal effect of new information that came to the attention of counsel for Ms. Maxwell on Friday, August 7, 2020.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "New information: On Friday, August 7, 2020, counsel for Ms. Maxwell learned of critical new information that impacts both this action and U.S. v. Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) (the \"Criminal Action\"). The information implicates Ms. Maxwell's right to due process and fairness in this civil action and affects the Second Circuit's review of the Court's unsealing order of July 23, 2020. Additionally, the information implicates her rights as a criminal defendant guaranteed under the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Counsel makes the representations about implications of the new information as an officer of this Court. At this time, counsel is not at liberty to disclose the information because it is subject to a protective order in the Criminal Action, which forbids its use \"for any civil proceeding or any purpose other than the defense\" of the criminal action absent \"further order of the Court.\" Protective Order, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) at ¶¶ 1(a), 18 (Exhibit A). As required by that Protective Order and Judge Nathan's Individual Practices in Criminal Cases, counsel initiated a conferral with the U.S. Attorney's Office over the weekend concerning a modification of the Protective Order to share the information with this Court and the Second Circuit. Barring agreement, Ms. Maxwell intends to seek modification of the Protective Order in the Criminal Action from Judge Nathan forthwith to permit sharing the information with this Court, ex parte and in camera if necessary, and with the Second Circuit (likewise under seal if necessary).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00019321",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Loretta A. Preska",
      "Ghislaine Maxwell",
      "Laura A. Menninger",
      "Nathan"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Haddon Morgan Foreman",
      "United States District Court",
      "Southern District of New York",
      "U.S. Attorney's Office",
      "Second Circuit"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Denver",
      "Colorado",
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "August 10, 2020",
      "August 3, 2020",
      "August 7, 2020",
      "July 23, 2020"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "15 Civ. 7433 (LAP)",
      "20 Cr. 330 (AJN)",
      "Doc. 1096",
      "Doc. 1069",
      "Doc. 1044",
      "DOJ-OGR-00019321"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a letter from Laura A. Menninger to Judge Loretta A. Preska regarding a court case involving Ghislaine Maxwell. The letter discusses new information that has come to light and its implications for the case. The document is printed and contains no handwritten text or stamps."
}