mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES007/DOJ-OGR-00019600.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "9",
    "document_number": "69",
    "date": "09/28/2020",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "remain in the dark. For another thing, this appeal will become moot if review awaits a final judgment in the criminal case, even if the protective order continues to have prohibitive effect following the criminal trial. That's because what Ms. Maxwell seeks is permission to share information with Judge Preska now, information that should be part of Judge Preska's decisionmaking in the unsealing process and any decision whether to stay that process. And unless Ms. Maxwell can share the information now, the request will become moot because there is no way to \"re-seal\" a document Judge Preska prematurely unseals without the benefit of knowing all the facts.\n\nPappas also doesn't help the government. In Pappas, this Court dismissed in part an appeal challenging a protective order prohibiting the defendant from disclosing classified information he obtained from the government as part of discovery. 94 F.3d at 797. At the same time, the Court accepted jurisdiction over the portion of the appeal that challenged the protective order's bar on disclosure of information the defendant acquired from the government before the litigation. Id. at 798. This Court distinguished the differing results based on the breadth of the protective order's ban. Id. As this Court said, \"to the extent that the order prohibits Pappas from disclosure of information he acquired from the Government prior to the litigation, the order is not a typical protective order regulating\n\n8\n\nDOJ-OGR-00019600",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "remain in the dark. For another thing, this appeal will become moot if review awaits a final judgment in the criminal case, even if the protective order continues to have prohibitive effect following the criminal trial. That's because what Ms. Maxwell seeks is permission to share information with Judge Preska now, information that should be part of Judge Preska's decisionmaking in the unsealing process and any decision whether to stay that process. And unless Ms. Maxwell can share the information now, the request will become moot because there is no way to \"re-seal\" a document Judge Preska prematurely unseals without the benefit of knowing all the facts.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Pappas also doesn't help the government. In Pappas, this Court dismissed in part an appeal challenging a protective order prohibiting the defendant from disclosing classified information he obtained from the government as part of discovery. 94 F.3d at 797. At the same time, the Court accepted jurisdiction over the portion of the appeal that challenged the protective order's bar on disclosure of information the defendant acquired from the government before the litigation. Id. at 798. This Court distinguished the differing results based on the breadth of the protective order's ban. Id. As this Court said, \"to the extent that the order prohibits Pappas from disclosure of information he acquired from the Government prior to the litigation, the order is not a typical protective order regulating",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "8",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00019600",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Judge Preska",
      "Pappas"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government",
      "Court"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "09/28/2020"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 20-3061",
      "Document 69",
      "2940206",
      "94 F.3d at 797",
      "DOJ-OGR-00019600"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a case involving Ms. Maxwell and a protective order. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 9 of 15."
}