mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES007/DOJ-OGR-00019325.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "3",
    "document_number": "15 Civ. 7433 (LAP)",
    "date": "August 11, 2020",
    "document_type": "Court Order",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE, Plaintiff, -against- GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. No. 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP) ORDER LORETTA A. PRESKA, Senior United States District Judge: The Court has reviewed the parties' letters dated August 10 and August 11, 2020. (See dkt. nos. 1099-1101.) The Court writes specifically to address Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell's request for a three-week stay of the unsealing process due to the availability of \"critical new information\" related both to this action and to the pending criminal case against her, U.S. v. Maxwell, No. 20 Cr. 330 (AJN). (See dkt. no. 1100 at 1-2.)1 Ms. Maxwell's request is denied. Given that Ms. Maxwell is not at liberty to disclose this new information because it is subject to the protective order in the criminal action, (id. at 1), the Court has no reasonable basis to impose a stay. And, as Ms. Maxwell knows, her ipse dixit does not provide compelling 1 Pursuant to the Court's Order dated August 3, 2020 [dkt. no. 1094], the parties have also submitted to the Court for resolution various disputes related to (1) methods for streamlining the unsealing process, and (2) the next set of docket entries to be reviewed for potential unsealing. The Court will address those disputes at a later date. 1 DOJ-OGR-00019325",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE, Plaintiff, -against- GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "No. 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP) ORDER",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "LORETTA A. PRESKA, Senior United States District Judge: The Court has reviewed the parties' letters dated August 10 and August 11, 2020. (See dkt. nos. 1099-1101.) The Court writes specifically to address Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell's request for a three-week stay of the unsealing process due to the availability of \"critical new information\" related both to this action and to the pending criminal case against her, U.S. v. Maxwell, No. 20 Cr. 330 (AJN). (See dkt. no. 1100 at 1-2.)1 Ms. Maxwell's request is denied. Given that Ms. Maxwell is not at liberty to disclose this new information because it is subject to the protective order in the criminal action, (id. at 1), the Court has no reasonable basis to impose a stay. And, as Ms. Maxwell knows, her ipse dixit does not provide compelling",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 Pursuant to the Court's Order dated August 3, 2020 [dkt. no. 1094], the parties have also submitted to the Court for resolution various disputes related to (1) methods for streamlining the unsealing process, and (2) the next set of docket entries to be reviewed for potential unsealing. The Court will address those disputes at a later date.",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 DOJ-OGR-00019325",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Virginia L. Giuffre",
      "Ghislaine Maxwell",
      "Loretta A. Preska"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT",
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "August 10, 2020",
      "August 11, 2020",
      "August 3, 2020"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "15 Civ. 7433 (LAP)",
      "20 Cr. 330 (AJN)",
      "dkt. nos. 1099-1101",
      "dkt. no. 1100",
      "dkt. no. 1094",
      "DOJ-OGR-00019325"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document is a court order from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. It appears to be a formal and official document, with no visible redactions or damage."
}