mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010746.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "3",
    "document_number": "682",
    "date": "06/24/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 682 Filed 06/24/22 Page 3 of 4\n\nThe Defendant also seeks partial or full redactions of some of the statements, citing references to issues that were not disclosed by the Government or revealed during the victims' trial testimony (with respect to Annie Farmer and Kate); concerns about credibility (with respect to Giuffre); and due process concerns (with respect to the remaining individuals) Def.'s Ltr. 5–7. This request for redactions is denied.\n\nThe Court has little difficulty concluding that the statements at issue are judicial documents to which the common law and First Amendment presumptions of public access attach. See, e.g., United States v. Alcantara, 396 F.3d 189, 199 (2d Cir. 2005) (“[A] qualified First Amendment right of public access attaches to sentencing proceedings.”); United States v. Sours Edwards, No. 1:19-CR-64 (GHW), 2022 WL 1158561, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 18, 2022) (“[These documents] are judicial documents. They were presented to the Court in connection with Dr. Sours Edwards' sentencing.”); United States v. Sattar, 471 F. Supp. 2d 380, 385 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (“These documents were submitted to the Court to provide information with respect to the crucial judicial function of sentencing [and accordingly are judicial documents].”).\n\nThe Court need not determine the weight of the presumption in favor of public access in this context, “because, whatever weight the presumption has here, there are . . . no countervailing interests that would justify sealing.” United States v. Avenatti, 550 F. Supp. 3d 36, 48 n.3 (S.D.N.Y. 2021). The Defendant's proffered justifications for sealing elide the reality that the decision-maker at this stage of proceedings is not a jury but the Court, which is fully capable of considering the submissions for what they are worth and without prejudice. Moreover, the proposed redactions would not safeguard the interests the Defendant points to. The decisionmaker—the Court—will have access to unredacted copies of the documents, so the only accomplishment of the proposed redactions will be to obscure information from public view. As\n\n3\n\nDOJ-OGR-00010746",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 682 Filed 06/24/22 Page 3 of 4",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Defendant also seeks partial or full redactions of some of the statements, citing references to issues that were not disclosed by the Government or revealed during the victims' trial testimony (with respect to Annie Farmer and Kate); concerns about credibility (with respect to Giuffre); and due process concerns (with respect to the remaining individuals) Def.'s Ltr. 5–7. This request for redactions is denied.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Court has little difficulty concluding that the statements at issue are judicial documents to which the common law and First Amendment presumptions of public access attach. See, e.g., United States v. Alcantara, 396 F.3d 189, 199 (2d Cir. 2005) (“[A] qualified First Amendment right of public access attaches to sentencing proceedings.”); United States v. Sours Edwards, No. 1:19-CR-64 (GHW), 2022 WL 1158561, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 18, 2022) (“[These documents] are judicial documents. They were presented to the Court in connection with Dr. Sours Edwards' sentencing.”); United States v. Sattar, 471 F. Supp. 2d 380, 385 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (“These documents were submitted to the Court to provide information with respect to the crucial judicial function of sentencing [and accordingly are judicial documents].”).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Court need not determine the weight of the presumption in favor of public access in this context, “because, whatever weight the presumption has here, there are . . . no countervailing interests that would justify sealing.” United States v. Avenatti, 550 F. Supp. 3d 36, 48 n.3 (S.D.N.Y. 2021). The Defendant's proffered justifications for sealing elide the reality that the decision-maker at this stage of proceedings is not a jury but the Court, which is fully capable of considering the submissions for what they are worth and without prejudice. Moreover, the proposed redactions would not safeguard the interests the Defendant points to. The decisionmaker—the Court—will have access to unredacted copies of the documents, so the only accomplishment of the proposed redactions will be to obscure information from public view. As",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "3",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00010746",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Annie Farmer",
      "Kate",
      "Giuffre",
      "Dr. Sours Edwards",
      "Avenatti"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government",
      "Court"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "06/24/22",
      "Apr. 18, 2022",
      "2006",
      "2021"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "682",
      "1:19-CR-64 (GHW)",
      "DOJ-OGR-00010746"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage to the document."
}