mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES006/DOJ-OGR-00015118.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "23",
    "document_number": "804",
    "date": "08/06/25",
    "document_type": "Letter",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 804 Filed 08/06/25 Page 23 of 27\n\nNeil S. Binder\nBinder & Schwartz LLP\n675 Third Avenue, 26th Floor\nNew York, NY 10017\n(T) 212.510.7031\n(F) 212.510.7299\nnbinder@binderschwartz.com\n\nCONFIDENTIAL - SUBMITTED UNDER SEAL\n\nAugust 5, 2025\n\nHon. Paul A. Engelmayer\nUnited States District Judge\nThurgood Marshall United States Courthouse\n40 Foley Square\nNew York, NY 10007\n\nRe: United States v. Maxwell, No. 20-cr-330 (S.D.N.Y.)\n\nDear Judge Engelmayer:\n\nWe represent [REDACTED]. On the late afternoon of Friday, August 1, [REDACTED] through different counsel, were informed by the U.S. Department of Justice (\"DOJ\" or \"the government\") that they are referenced in some capacity in the sealed grand jury materials that are the subject of DOJ's recent motion for unsealing. See U.S. Mot. to Unseal Grand Jury Trs., July 18, 2025, Dkt. No. 785. [REDACTED] are named in these materials in order to inform our arguments regarding the continued sealing of the grand jury materials. The government has declined to provide us with any information. Absent such information, we cannot respond with specificity to any reference in the record concerning [REDACTED]. Specificity in this context may not be required, however, as Supreme Court precedent and caselaw in this Circuit make clear what this Court recognized in its July 22, 2025 Order-i.e., that there is \"long-established policy [of] maintain[ing] the secrecy of the grand jury proceedings in the federal courts.\" United States v. Procter & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677, 681 (1958); see also In re Grand Jury Investigation of Cuisinarts, Inc., 665 F.2d 24, 28 (2d Cir. 1981) (\"This time-honored policy of secrecy has been the most essential, indispensable, characteristic of grand jury proceedings.\") Indeed, this requirement of secrecy has been codified in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e). While the Second Circuit has recognized that there are certain \"special circumstances\" outside of Rule 6(e) that may justify the unsealing of grand jury records, the burden of demonstrating those special circumstances is even greater than the already heavy burden of demonstrating the applicability of one of the exceptions enumerated in Rule 6(e). See In re Petition of Craig, 131 F.3d 99, 106 n.10 (2d Cir. 1997).\n\n1 The government does not point to any of the statutory exceptions enumerated in Rule 6(e) to justify the need for disclosure here, instead relying solely on \"special circumstances\" outside the bounds of those exceptions as articulated in In re Petition of Craig, 131 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 1997). U.S. Mot. to Unseal Grand Jury Trs. at 3, July 18, 2025, Dkt. No. 785.\n\nDOJ-OGR-00015118",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 804 Filed 08/06/25 Page 23 of 27",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Neil S. Binder\nBinder & Schwartz LLP\n675 Third Avenue, 26th Floor\nNew York, NY 10017\n(T) 212.510.7031\n(F) 212.510.7299\nnbinder@binderschwartz.com",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "CONFIDENTIAL - SUBMITTED UNDER SEAL",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "August 5, 2025\n\nHon. Paul A. Engelmayer\nUnited States District Judge\nThurgood Marshall United States Courthouse\n40 Foley Square\nNew York, NY 10007",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Re: United States v. Maxwell, No. 20-cr-330 (S.D.N.Y.)",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Dear Judge Engelmayer:",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "We represent [REDACTED]. On the late afternoon of Friday, August 1, [REDACTED] through different counsel, were informed by the U.S. Department of Justice (\"DOJ\" or \"the government\") that they are referenced in some capacity in the sealed grand jury materials that are the subject of DOJ's recent motion for unsealing. See U.S. Mot. to Unseal Grand Jury Trs., July 18, 2025, Dkt. No. 785. [REDACTED] are named in these materials in order to inform our arguments regarding the continued sealing of the grand jury materials. The government has declined to provide us with any information. Absent such information, we cannot respond with specificity to any reference in the record concerning [REDACTED]. Specificity in this context may not be required, however, as Supreme Court precedent and caselaw in this Circuit make clear what this Court recognized in its July 22, 2025 Order-i.e., that there is \"long-established policy [of] maintain[ing] the secrecy of the grand jury proceedings in the federal courts.\" United States v. Procter & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677, 681 (1958); see also In re Grand Jury Investigation of Cuisinarts, Inc., 665 F.2d 24, 28 (2d Cir. 1981) (\"This time-honored policy of secrecy has been the most essential, indispensable, characteristic of grand jury proceedings.\") Indeed, this requirement of secrecy has been codified in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e). While the Second Circuit has recognized that there are certain \"special circumstances\" outside of Rule 6(e) that may justify the unsealing of grand jury records, the burden of demonstrating those special circumstances is even greater than the already heavy burden of demonstrating the applicability of one of the exceptions enumerated in Rule 6(e). See In re Petition of Craig, 131 F.3d 99, 106 n.10 (2d Cir. 1997).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 The government does not point to any of the statutory exceptions enumerated in Rule 6(e) to justify the need for disclosure here, instead relying solely on \"special circumstances\" outside the bounds of those exceptions as articulated in In re Petition of Craig, 131 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 1997). U.S. Mot. to Unseal Grand Jury Trs. at 3, July 18, 2025, Dkt. No. 785.",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00015118",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Neil S. Binder",
      "Paul A. Engelmayer",
      "Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Binder & Schwartz LLP",
      "U.S. Department of Justice",
      "United States District Court"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "August 5, 2025",
      "August 1",
      "July 18, 2025",
      "July 22, 2025"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 804",
      "20-cr-330",
      "Dkt. No. 785"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document contains redactions and is marked as 'CONFIDENTIAL - SUBMITTED UNDER SEAL'."
}