mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00003056.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "122",
    "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 122 of 239\n\nThe defendant asks the Court for a drastic remedy, namely suppression of all evidence the Government obtained pursuant to the subpoena, as well as the dismissal of Counts Five and Six. In so doing, the defendant seeks a windfall to which she is not entitled based on unprecedented claims that ignore the facts and the law. Suppression of all materials the Government obtained pursuant to the subpoena is unwarranted here, particularly where certain of the materials have been subsequently unsealed by Judge Preska in the underlying civil litigation, including Maxwell's April 2016 deposition transcript. (See 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP), Dkt. No. 1077). The Second Circuit affirmed Judge Preska's ruling in October 2020, finding that the Court \"correctly held that the deposition materials are judicial documents to which the presumption of public access attaches, and did not abuse its discretion in rejecting Maxwell's meritless arguments that her interests superseded the presumption of access.\" Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 20-2413 (2d Cir.), (Dkt. No. 140-1 at 3).42 On October 22, 2020, the defendant's April 2016 deposition was publicly filed. (See 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP), Dkt. No. 1137-13). In February 2021, a redacted version of the defendant's July 2016 deposition was publicly filed. (See 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP), Dkt. No. 1212-1). In other words, had the Government not obtained an order modifying the protective order, the Government inevitably would have discovered and obtained, at a minimum, the defendant's April 2016 deposition transcript and a portion of the July 2016 transcript that form the basis of the charges in Counts Five and Six.\n\n42 Relatedly, the defendant moved to modify the criminal protective order in order to use confidential criminal discovery materials in filings she intended to submit in civil litigation. The defendant raised this precise point—that if the Court ultimately decided that it was inappropriate for the Government to proceed by subpoena, the Government would claim inevitable discovery. (Dkt. No. 54 at 3). The defendant offered no coherent explanation of how the criminal discovery materials could have any conceivable impact on the issues pending in civil litigation. She cited no case law suggesting that, for example, the possibility of an inevitable discovery argument by the Government should foreclose unsealing in a civil case. This Court rejected the defendant's motion to modify the criminal protective order. (Dkt. No. 51). The Second Circuit also dismissed the defendant's appeal for want of jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 71).\n\n95",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 122 of 239",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The defendant asks the Court for a drastic remedy, namely suppression of all evidence the Government obtained pursuant to the subpoena, as well as the dismissal of Counts Five and Six. In so doing, the defendant seeks a windfall to which she is not entitled based on unprecedented claims that ignore the facts and the law. Suppression of all materials the Government obtained pursuant to the subpoena is unwarranted here, particularly where certain of the materials have been subsequently unsealed by Judge Preska in the underlying civil litigation, including Maxwell's April 2016 deposition transcript. (See 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP), Dkt. No. 1077). The Second Circuit affirmed Judge Preska's ruling in October 2020, finding that the Court \"correctly held that the deposition materials are judicial documents to which the presumption of public access attaches, and did not abuse its discretion in rejecting Maxwell's meritless arguments that her interests superseded the presumption of access.\" Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 20-2413 (2d Cir.), (Dkt. No. 140-1 at 3).42 On October 22, 2020, the defendant's April 2016 deposition was publicly filed. (See 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP), Dkt. No. 1137-13). In February 2021, a redacted version of the defendant's July 2016 deposition was publicly filed. (See 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP), Dkt. No. 1212-1). In other words, had the Government not obtained an order modifying the protective order, the Government inevitably would have discovered and obtained, at a minimum, the defendant's April 2016 deposition transcript and a portion of the July 2016 transcript that form the basis of the charges in Counts Five and Six.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "42 Relatedly, the defendant moved to modify the criminal protective order in order to use confidential criminal discovery materials in filings she intended to submit in civil litigation. The defendant raised this precise point—that if the Court ultimately decided that it was inappropriate for the Government to proceed by subpoena, the Government would claim inevitable discovery. (Dkt. No. 54 at 3). The defendant offered no coherent explanation of how the criminal discovery materials could have any conceivable impact on the issues pending in civil litigation. She cited no case law suggesting that, for example, the possibility of an inevitable discovery argument by the Government should foreclose unsealing in a civil case. This Court rejected the defendant's motion to modify the criminal protective order. (Dkt. No. 51). The Second Circuit also dismissed the defendant's appeal for want of jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 71).",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "95",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government",
      "Second Circuit",
      "Court"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "April 2016",
      "October 2020",
      "October 22, 2020",
      "February 2021",
      "July 2016"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 204",
      "15 Civ. 7433 (LAP)",
      "Dkt. No. 1077",
      "No. 20-2413",
      "Dkt. No. 140-1",
      "Dkt. No. 1137-13",
      "Dkt. No. 1212-1",
      "Dkt. No. 54",
      "Dkt. No. 51",
      "Dkt. No. 71"
    ]
  },
  "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 well-formatted and legible."
}