mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES007/DOJ-OGR-00019430.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "31",
    "document_number": "60",
    "date": "09/24/2020",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 20-3061, Document 60, 09/24/2020, 2938278, Page31 of 58\n\nGiuffre v. Maxwell unseal proceedings, into which Ms. Maxwell seeks to introduce criminal protective order-sealed information relevant to Judge Preska's unseal decisions.\n\nThis situation is fundamentally unfair to Ms. Maxwell. There is no reason all judicial officers presiding over any case implicating Ms. Maxwell's interests should not have access, whether under seal, in camera, or otherwise, to all relevant information, and there is no reason Ms. Maxwell should be barred from providing such relevant information to them.\n\nA. Preservation and standard of review.\n\nMs. Maxwell preserved this issue for appeal. App. 124-31, 293-98.\n\nThis Court reviews for an abuse of discretion an order denying a motion to modify a protective order. Martindell, 594 F.2d at 295. A district court by definition abuses its discretion when it makes an error of law. Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81, 100 (1996).\n\nB. The district court erred in declining to modify the protective order.\n\nFederal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(d)(1) authorizes district courts to enter or modify protective orders for good cause. Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(d)(1). In this case, several reasons exist for the narrow modification of the criminal protective order Ms. Maxwell proposes.\n\n26\n\nDOJ-OGR-00019430",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 20-3061, Document 60, 09/24/2020, 2938278, Page31 of 58",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Giuffre v. Maxwell unseal proceedings, into which Ms. Maxwell seeks to introduce criminal protective order-sealed information relevant to Judge Preska's unseal decisions.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "This situation is fundamentally unfair to Ms. Maxwell. There is no reason all judicial officers presiding over any case implicating Ms. Maxwell's interests should not have access, whether under seal, in camera, or otherwise, to all relevant information, and there is no reason Ms. Maxwell should be barred from providing such relevant information to them.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "A. Preservation and standard of review.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Ms. Maxwell preserved this issue for appeal. App. 124-31, 293-98.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "This Court reviews for an abuse of discretion an order denying a motion to modify a protective order. Martindell, 594 F.2d at 295. A district court by definition abuses its discretion when it makes an error of law. Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81, 100 (1996).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "B. The district court erred in declining to modify the protective order.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(d)(1) authorizes district courts to enter or modify protective orders for good cause. Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(d)(1). In this case, several reasons exist for the narrow modification of the criminal protective order Ms. Maxwell proposes.",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "26",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00019430",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Judge Preska"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "U.S."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "09/24/2020",
      "1996"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "20-3061",
      "60",
      "2938278",
      "124-31",
      "293-98",
      "594 F.2d",
      "518 U.S. 81",
      "16(d)(1)",
      "DOJ-OGR-00019430"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case Giuffre v. Maxwell. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 31 of 58."
}