mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES007/DOJ-OGR-00019432.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "33",
    "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, Page33 of 58\n\nMaxwell seeks in this appeal is the ability to make these arguments to Judge Preska and Judge Nathan before it's too late.\n\nSecond, to preserve her fundamental constitutional right to a fair trial by an impartial jury, Ms. Maxwell intends to move to stay the unsealing process before Judge Preska. Ample authority supports staying a civil case pending resolution of a related criminal matter. E.g., Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. LY USA, Inc., 676 F.3d 83, 98 (2d Cir. 2012). But Ms. Maxwell cannot fairly make her case before Judge Preska for a stay unless Judge Preska knows all the relevant facts.\n\nIn particular, a central consideration in deciding whether to stay a civil case pending resolution of a criminal case is “the extent to which the issues in the criminal case overlap with those presented in the civil case.” Id. (quoting Trs. of Plumbers & Pipefitters Nat'l Pension Fund v. Transworld Mech., Inc., 886 F. Supp. 1134, 1139 (S.D.N.Y.1995)). Here, there is no question the two cases overlap,\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n. The criminal protective order, therefore,\n\n28\n\nDOJ-OGR-00019432",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 20-3061, Document 60, 09/24/2020, 2938278, Page33 of 58",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Maxwell seeks in this appeal is the ability to make these arguments to Judge Preska and Judge Nathan before it's too late.\n\nSecond, to preserve her fundamental constitutional right to a fair trial by an impartial jury, Ms. Maxwell intends to move to stay the unsealing process before Judge Preska. Ample authority supports staying a civil case pending resolution of a related criminal matter. E.g., Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. LY USA, Inc., 676 F.3d 83, 98 (2d Cir. 2012). But Ms. Maxwell cannot fairly make her case before Judge Preska for a stay unless Judge Preska knows all the relevant facts.\n\nIn particular, a central consideration in deciding whether to stay a civil case pending resolution of a criminal case is “the extent to which the issues in the criminal case overlap with those presented in the civil case.” Id. (quoting Trs. of Plumbers & Pipefitters Nat'l Pension Fund v. Transworld Mech., Inc., 886 F. Supp. 1134, 1139 (S.D.N.Y.1995)). Here, there is no question the two cases overlap,",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": ". The criminal protective order, therefore,",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "28",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00019432",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell",
      "Judge Preska",
      "Judge Nathan"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A.",
      "LY USA, Inc.",
      "Plumbers & Pipefitters Nat'l Pension Fund",
      "Transworld Mech., Inc."
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "09/24/2020",
      "1995"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "20-3061",
      "60",
      "2938278",
      "676 F.3d 83",
      "886 F. Supp. 1134",
      "DOJ-OGR-00019432"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Maxwell. The text is mostly printed, with some redacted sections. The document includes citations to legal cases and references to judges and court decisions."
}