mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00003052.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "118",
    "document_number": "204",
    "date": "04/16/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 118 of 239\nwas a protective order that would govern at least some of the materials, and that is why we ultimately made the application to the Court.))\nWhile the Government appreciates, with the benefit of hindsight, that an answer that had also referenced the February 2016 meeting (and the fact that USAO-SDNY took no action as a result of that meeting) would have provided additional context—and would have further reinforced that this was not a “Chemical Bank situation”—as noted above, the Government’s response accurately described its contacts with Boies Schiller as relevant to “your investigation” and the issuance of the subpoena at hand. Indeed, there is no reason to believe that a description of the February 2016 meeting would have been material to Chief Judge McMahon’s analysis of whether she was facing a “Chemical Bank kind of situation.” (Def. Mot. 3, Ex. E at 2).\nIn Chemical Bank, counsel for a civil party approached the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office “suggesting that it had evidence of criminal violations relating to the case.” 154 F.R.D. at 93. In response, a grand jury subpoena was issued and “confidential documents were produced by the defendant without complying with any of the specific procedures or exceptions provided in the [confidentiality] orders.” Id. Here, by contrast, the Government accurately conveyed to Chief Judge McMahon the opening of its investigation in late 2018, the reason it made contact with Boies Schiller shortly thereafter and served a subpoena in February 2019, and that no documents governed by the protective order had yet been produced. Aside from rank speculation loosely premised on an anonymously sourced news report, the defendant offers nothing to support her assertion that “Boies Schiller was instrumental in fomenting the Maxwell prosecution” (Def. Mot. 3 at 2) (emphasis in original), or that AUSA-1’s February 2016 meeting with Boies Schiller (as it actually occurred) undercut the accuracy of the Government’s representations to Chief Judge McMahon, or played any role in the Government opening its investigation in November 2018.\n91\nDOJ-OGR-00003052",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 118 of 239",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "was a protective order that would govern at least some of the materials, and that is why we ultimately made the application to the Court.))\nWhile the Government appreciates, with the benefit of hindsight, that an answer that had also referenced the February 2016 meeting (and the fact that USAO-SDNY took no action as a result of that meeting) would have provided additional context—and would have further reinforced that this was not a “Chemical Bank situation”—as noted above, the Government’s response accurately described its contacts with Boies Schiller as relevant to “your investigation” and the issuance of the subpoena at hand. Indeed, there is no reason to believe that a description of the February 2016 meeting would have been material to Chief Judge McMahon’s analysis of whether she was facing a “Chemical Bank kind of situation.” (Def. Mot. 3, Ex. E at 2).\nIn Chemical Bank, counsel for a civil party approached the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office “suggesting that it had evidence of criminal violations relating to the case.” 154 F.R.D. at 93. In response, a grand jury subpoena was issued and “confidential documents were produced by the defendant without complying with any of the specific procedures or exceptions provided in the [confidentiality] orders.” Id. Here, by contrast, the Government accurately conveyed to Chief Judge McMahon the opening of its investigation in late 2018, the reason it made contact with Boies Schiller shortly thereafter and served a subpoena in February 2019, and that no documents governed by the protective order had yet been produced. Aside from rank speculation loosely premised on an anonymously sourced news report, the defendant offers nothing to support her assertion that “Boies Schiller was instrumental in fomenting the Maxwell prosecution” (Def. Mot. 3 at 2) (emphasis in original), or that AUSA-1’s February 2016 meeting with Boies Schiller (as it actually occurred) undercut the accuracy of the Government’s representations to Chief Judge McMahon, or played any role in the Government opening its investigation in November 2018.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "91",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003052",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Chief Judge McMahon"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Boies Schiller",
      "USAO-SDNY",
      "Manhattan District Attorney's Office",
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "SDNY"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "February 2016",
      "late 2018",
      "February 2019",
      "November 2018",
      "04/16/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 204",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003052"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 118 of 239."
}