mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010264.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "49",
    "document_number": "645",
    "date": "03/11/22",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 645 Filed 03/11/22 Page 49 of 50 M38YMAX2\n1\nTHE COURT: All right. I think simultaneous briefing is appropriate. For one, I have responsive briefing on the legal issues, and so really what we're talking about is argument following based on today's record.\nOne week from today, the 15th. Simultaneous briefing, I don't care if you call it letter briefing or otherwise. As you know, all I care is that it's double-spaced so I can read it on my iPad. Fifteen pages max per side.\nAnything else from the government?\nMS. POMERANTZ: No, your Honor. Thank you.\nMS. STERNHEIM: Your Honor, I would just request that our submission of questions which was sent to chambers be made a part of this record.\nTHE COURT: Yes. As I've said, I will docket everything. There's identifying information of Juror 50 in your submitted questions. So that needs to be redacted.\nBut other than Juror 50 identifying information, the redactions for all materials, I believe, for all materials based on the post-trial briefing and the submitted questions can be publicly docketed.\nIs that correct? As well as my opinion had two lines of redactions. So I'll docket my opinion without redactions.\nI'll ask the parties to -- actually, I think we can handle the submitted questions, the redactions for identifying information.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00010264",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 645 Filed 03/11/22 Page 49 of 50 M38YMAX2",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "THE COURT: All right. I think simultaneous briefing is appropriate. For one, I have responsive briefing on the legal issues, and so really what we're talking about is argument following based on today's record.\nOne week from today, the 15th. Simultaneous briefing, I don't care if you call it letter briefing or otherwise. As you know, all I care is that it's double-spaced so I can read it on my iPad. Fifteen pages max per side.\nAnything else from the government?\nMS. POMERANTZ: No, your Honor. Thank you.\nMS. STERNHEIM: Your Honor, I would just request that our submission of questions which was sent to chambers be made a part of this record.\nTHE COURT: Yes. As I've said, I will docket everything. There's identifying information of Juror 50 in your submitted questions. So that needs to be redacted.\nBut other than Juror 50 identifying information, the redactions for all materials, I believe, for all materials based on the post-trial briefing and the submitted questions can be publicly docketed.\nIs that correct? As well as my opinion had two lines of redactions. So I'll docket my opinion without redactions.\nI'll ask the parties to -- actually, I think we can handle the submitted questions, the redactions for identifying information.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00010264",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "MS. POMERANTZ",
      "MS. STERNHEIM",
      "Juror 50"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "03/11/22",
      "the 15th"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 645",
      "DOJ-OGR-00010264"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and readable format. There are no visible redactions or damage to the document."
}