mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES007/DOJ-OGR-00019419.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "20",
    "document_number": "60",
    "date": "09/24/2020",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 20-3061, Document 60, 09/24/2020, 2938278, Page20 of 58\n\nThe government's contentions to the contrary rely on two easily distinguishable cases and misunderstand Ms. Maxwell's arguments. Start with the two cases on which the government relies. Doc. 37, p 11 (citing United States v. Caparros, 800 F.2d 23, 24 (2d Cir. 1986); United States v. Pappas, 94 F.3d 795, 798 (2d Cir. 1996)). According to the government, Caparros and Pappas hold that \"protective orders regulating the use of documents exchanged by the parties during a criminal case are not subject to interlocutory appeal.\" Doc. 37, p 11. That is not correct.\n\nIn Caparros, this Court dismissed an appeal of a protective order issued in a criminal case preventing the defendant from making public certain documents allegedly concerning public safety. 800 F.2d at 23-24. According to the defendant, the prohibition on public disclosure was an unconstitutional prior restraint of speech. Id. at 24. This Court dismissed the appeal because it did not satisfy the three conditions precedent to interlocutory review, in particular the requirement that the issue must be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment. Id. at 24-26. Said the Court:\n\n[The issue] will not become moot on conviction and sentence or on acquittal because the order will have continuing prohibitive effect thereafter and the purported right to publish the documents, to the extent it now exists, will also continue. This is not a situation where an order, to be reviewed at all, must be reviewed before the proceedings\n\n15\n\nDOJ-OGR-00019419",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 20-3061, Document 60, 09/24/2020, 2938278, Page20 of 58",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The government's contentions to the contrary rely on two easily distinguishable cases and misunderstand Ms. Maxwell's arguments. Start with the two cases on which the government relies. Doc. 37, p 11 (citing United States v. Caparros, 800 F.2d 23, 24 (2d Cir. 1986); United States v. Pappas, 94 F.3d 795, 798 (2d Cir. 1996)). According to the government, Caparros and Pappas hold that \"protective orders regulating the use of documents exchanged by the parties during a criminal case are not subject to interlocutory appeal.\" Doc. 37, p 11. That is not correct.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In Caparros, this Court dismissed an appeal of a protective order issued in a criminal case preventing the defendant from making public certain documents allegedly concerning public safety. 800 F.2d at 23-24. According to the defendant, the prohibition on public disclosure was an unconstitutional prior restraint of speech. Id. at 24. This Court dismissed the appeal because it did not satisfy the three conditions precedent to interlocutory review, in particular the requirement that the issue must be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment. Id. at 24-26. Said the Court:",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "[The issue] will not become moot on conviction and sentence or on acquittal because the order will have continuing prohibitive effect thereafter and the purported right to publish the documents, to the extent it now exists, will also continue. This is not a situation where an order, to be reviewed at all, must be reviewed before the proceedings",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "15",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00019419",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "09/24/2020"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 20-3061",
      "Document 60",
      "2938278",
      "Doc. 37",
      "800 F.2d 23",
      "94 F.3d 795",
      "DOJ-OGR-00019419"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to Case 20-3061. It discusses legal precedents and cites specific court cases. The text is printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document includes a page number and a reference number at the bottom."
}