mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00003848.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "2",
    "document_number": "217",
    "date": "04/19/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 217 Filed 04/19/21 Page 2 of 6\nThe Hon. Alison J. Nathan\nApril 1, 2021\nPage 2\nGiuffre v. Maxwell, No. 15-cv-7466-LAP, Tr. of Jan. 19, 2021 at 6-7. Ms. Maxwell moved to suppress use of her deposition testimony, including these quotes, based on the government's violations of due process and the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. See Dkt. Nos. 134 & 140.\nThe quotes at issue only constitute \"part of the public record in this case\" -- in the Indictment -- because the government circumvented Second Circuit precedent and made material misrepresentations to Judge McMahon in seeking modification of the Protective Order entered by Judge Sweet.\nMs. Maxwell objects to their public re-release for several reasons. As the Second Circuit explained, \"the privacy interests of innocent third parties as well as those of defendants that may be harmed by disclosure . . . should weigh heavily in a court's balancing equation in determining what portions of motion papers in question should remain sealed or should be redacted.\" Matter of New York Times, 828 F.2d 110, 116 (2d Cir. 1987) (emphasis supplied).1 In the context of considering whether to unseal wiretap evidence during a motion to suppress, the Second Circuit explained that \"[p]roceedings may be closed and, by analogy, documents may be sealed if 'specific, on the record findings are made demonstrating that 'closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.'\" Id. at 116 (quoting Press-Enterprise Co. v. Sup. Ct., 478 U.S. 1, 12 (1986) (\"Press-Enterprise II\")).\n1 Ms. Maxwell assumes for purposes of this argument that the Omnibus Response and Exhibit 11 are \"judicial documents.\" Matter of New York Times, 828 at 115-116 (recognizing qualified right of public access to papers filed in connection with a motion to suppress).\nDOJ-OGR-00003848",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 217 Filed 04/19/21 Page 2 of 6",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Hon. Alison J. Nathan\nApril 1, 2021\nPage 2",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 15-cv-7466-LAP, Tr. of Jan. 19, 2021 at 6-7. Ms. Maxwell moved to suppress use of her deposition testimony, including these quotes, based on the government's violations of due process and the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. See Dkt. Nos. 134 & 140.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The quotes at issue only constitute \"part of the public record in this case\" -- in the Indictment -- because the government circumvented Second Circuit precedent and made material misrepresentations to Judge McMahon in seeking modification of the Protective Order entered by Judge Sweet.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Ms. Maxwell objects to their public re-release for several reasons. As the Second Circuit explained, \"the privacy interests of innocent third parties as well as those of defendants that may be harmed by disclosure . . . should weigh heavily in a court's balancing equation in determining what portions of motion papers in question should remain sealed or should be redacted.\" Matter of New York Times, 828 F.2d 110, 116 (2d Cir. 1987) (emphasis supplied).1 In the context of considering whether to unseal wiretap evidence during a motion to suppress, the Second Circuit explained that \"[p]roceedings may be closed and, by analogy, documents may be sealed if 'specific, on the record findings are made demonstrating that 'closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.'\" Id. at 116 (quoting Press-Enterprise Co. v. Sup. Ct., 478 U.S. 1, 12 (1986) (\"Press-Enterprise II\")).",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 Ms. Maxwell assumes for purposes of this argument that the Omnibus Response and Exhibit 11 are \"judicial documents.\" Matter of New York Times, 828 at 115-116 (recognizing qualified right of public access to papers filed in connection with a motion to suppress).",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003848",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Alison J. Nathan",
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Judge McMahon",
      "Judge Sweet"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Second Circuit",
      "DOJ"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "April 1, 2021",
      "Jan. 19, 2021",
      "04/19/21",
      "1986",
      "1987"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 217",
      "No. 15-cv-7466-LAP",
      "Dkt. Nos. 134 & 140",
      "828 F.2d 110",
      "478 U.S. 1",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003848"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case Giuffre v. Maxwell. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document is well-formatted and of good quality."
}