mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008973.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "2",
    "document_number": "605",
    "date": "02/18/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 605 Filed 02/18/22 Page 2 of 3\n8, lines 16-19;\n9, lines 3-6, 9-11;\n16, lines 5-14;\n22, lines 6-7;\n32, line 2;\n37, line 16;\n37 n.17, line 2\nDefense Reply at:\n18, lines 3-4, 11-28;\n23 n.11, lines 1-12;\n23, line 12-14;\n24, lines 1-8, 13-15.\nThere are also clear inconsistencies between the Defendant's intended redactions, as stated in her accompanying letter, and her proposed redactions, compare Dkt. No. 602, with Proposed Redactions to Maxwell Br. at 48-49, and between some of the proposed redactions themselves, compare Proposed Redactions to Gov. Br. at 35-36, with Proposed Redactions to Maxwell Reply at 22.\nThe Defendant also proposes redactions related to \"Juror 50's exact responses to the questions on his jury questionnaire\" because it is \"being kept temporarily under seal.\" Dkt. No. 602. The Court notifies the parties that Juror 50's completed questionnaire will be docketed in accordance with a forthcoming Order. The Defendant must accordingly eliminate proposed redactions premised on the sealing of Juror 50's questionnaire.\n2\nDOJ-OGR-00008973",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 605 Filed 02/18/22 Page 2 of 3",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "8, lines 16-19;\n9, lines 3-6, 9-11;\n16, lines 5-14;\n22, lines 6-7;\n32, line 2;\n37, line 16;\n37 n.17, line 2\nDefense Reply at:\n18, lines 3-4, 11-28;\n23 n.11, lines 1-12;\n23, line 12-14;\n24, lines 1-8, 13-15.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "There are also clear inconsistencies between the Defendant's intended redactions, as stated in her accompanying letter, and her proposed redactions, compare Dkt. No. 602, with Proposed Redactions to Maxwell Br. at 48-49, and between some of the proposed redactions themselves, compare Proposed Redactions to Gov. Br. at 35-36, with Proposed Redactions to Maxwell Reply at 22.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Defendant also proposes redactions related to \"Juror 50's exact responses to the questions on his jury questionnaire\" because it is \"being kept temporarily under seal.\" Dkt. No. 602. The Court notifies the parties that Juror 50's completed questionnaire will be docketed in accordance with a forthcoming Order. The Defendant must accordingly eliminate proposed redactions premised on the sealing of Juror 50's questionnaire.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00008973",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "02/18/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "605",
      "602",
      "48-49",
      "35-36",
      "22",
      "50",
      "DOJ-OGR-00008973"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}