mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES007/DOJ-OGR-00019451.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "7",
    "document_number": "20-cv-01484-DG-RML",
    "date": null,
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "out, both the Indictment in the criminal case and the Complaint in this action contain allegations that Maxwell \"groomed\" minor victims by taking them to the movies or shopping, that Epstein paid for victims' education, and that Maxwell facilitated Epstein's abusive conduct. (See 8/19/20 Menninger Ltr., at 3 (summarizing certain allegations made in both actions and noting that particular allegations in the Indictment \"are very similar in time frame and content to those in the Complaint\").) The Government, in its submission, has confirmed that the allegations pleaded in this case will necessarily \"touch on matters relating to the pending Indictment\" (9/4/20 Gov't Ltr., at 2), and has also noted that \"given the factual overlap between the civil and criminal cases, allowing the criminal matter to be resolved in the first instance may result in a narrowing of the factual and legal issues before this Court\" (id., at 3). Plaintiff, in her opposition, does not contest that there is substantial overlap between the cases, in terms of the people involved, the relevant evidence, or the facts sought to be established. (See generally 8/27/20 Glassman Ltr.) Thus, this factor weighs in favor of granting a stay.\n\n2. Status of the Criminal Case\n\nThe arguments favoring a stay are also stronger where the criminal case is not merely hypothetical or anticipated, but rather is actively proceeding. In fact, as Maxwell notes, \"[w]hether the defendant has been indicted has been described as 'the most important factor' to be considered in the balance of factors.\" (8/19/20 Menninger Ltr., at 4 (quoting Maldanado v. City of New York, No. 17cv6618 (AJN), 2018 WL 2561026, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. June 1, 2018)); see also In re Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. Sec. Litig., 133 F.R.D. 12, 13-14 (S.D.N.Y. 1990) (noting that \"[t]he weight of authority in this Circuit indicates that courts will stay a civil proceeding when the criminal investigation has ripened into an indictment\" (collecting cases).)",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "out, both the Indictment in the criminal case and the Complaint in this action contain allegations that Maxwell \"groomed\" minor victims by taking them to the movies or shopping, that Epstein paid for victims' education, and that Maxwell facilitated Epstein's abusive conduct. (See 8/19/20 Menninger Ltr., at 3 (summarizing certain allegations made in both actions and noting that particular allegations in the Indictment \"are very similar in time frame and content to those in the Complaint\").) The Government, in its submission, has confirmed that the allegations pleaded in this case will necessarily \"touch on matters relating to the pending Indictment\" (9/4/20 Gov't Ltr., at 2), and has also noted that \"given the factual overlap between the civil and criminal cases, allowing the criminal matter to be resolved in the first instance may result in a narrowing of the factual and legal issues before this Court\" (id., at 3). Plaintiff, in her opposition, does not contest that there is substantial overlap between the cases, in terms of the people involved, the relevant evidence, or the facts sought to be established. (See generally 8/27/20 Glassman Ltr.) Thus, this factor weighs in favor of granting a stay.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2. Status of the Criminal Case",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The arguments favoring a stay are also stronger where the criminal case is not merely hypothetical or anticipated, but rather is actively proceeding. In fact, as Maxwell notes, \"[w]hether the defendant has been indicted has been described as 'the most important factor' to be considered in the balance of factors.\" (8/19/20 Menninger Ltr., at 4 (quoting Maldanado v. City of New York, No. 17cv6618 (AJN), 2018 WL 2561026, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. June 1, 2018)); see also In re Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. Sec. Litig., 133 F.R.D. 12, 13-14 (S.D.N.Y. 1990) (noting that \"[t]he weight of authority in this Circuit indicates that courts will stay a civil proceeding when the criminal investigation has ripened into an indictment\" (collecting cases).)",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "7",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00019451",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell",
      "Epstein",
      "Maldanado",
      "Menninger",
      "Glassman"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "8/19/20",
      "9/4/20",
      "8/27/20",
      "June 1, 2018",
      "1990"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "20-cv-01484-DG-RML",
      "17cv6618 (AJN)"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Maxwell, discussing the status of a criminal case and its relation to a civil proceeding. The text is well-formatted and legible, with no visible redactions or damage."
}