mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES007/DOJ-OGR-00019431.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "32",
    "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, Page32 of 58\n\nFirst, Judge Preska might well reconsider her decision to unseal the deposition material if she knew how the government obtained the material despite the civil protective order.5 In particular, keeping the deposition material sealed preserves Ms. Maxwell's ability to litigate before Judge Nathan in the criminal case the propriety of the government's circumvention of this Court's decision in Martindell, which expressly contemplates an affected party's right to move to quash a grand jury subpoena seeking access to information shielded by a valid protective order. Martindell, 524 F.2d at 294. If the deposition material is unsealed, Judge Preska will never have the opportunity to reconsider her decision armed with the knowledge\n\nAnd if the deposition material is unsealed, it may foreclose any argument from Ms. Maxwell to Judge Nathan that the perjury counts should be dismissed or other remedies imposed based on the government's circumvention of Martindell. All Ms.\n\n5 It's irrelevant that Ms. Maxwell originally consented to the provision of the criminal protective order that presently prevents her from sharing with Judge Preska App. 91-92. At the time Ms. Maxwell consented to that provision Ms. Maxwell's earlier consent to this provision in the protective order does not bear on whether good cause exist for its modification.\n\n27\nDOJ-OGR-00019431",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 20-3061, Document 60, 09/24/2020, 2938278, Page32 of 58",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "First, Judge Preska might well reconsider her decision to unseal the deposition material if she knew how the government obtained the material despite the civil protective order.5 In particular, keeping the deposition material sealed preserves Ms. Maxwell's ability to litigate before Judge Nathan in the criminal case the propriety of the government's circumvention of this Court's decision in Martindell, which expressly contemplates an affected party's right to move to quash a grand jury subpoena seeking access to information shielded by a valid protective order. Martindell, 524 F.2d at 294. If the deposition material is unsealed, Judge Preska will never have the opportunity to reconsider her decision armed with the knowledge",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "And if the deposition material is unsealed, it may foreclose any argument from Ms. Maxwell to Judge Nathan that the perjury counts should be dismissed or other remedies imposed based on the government's circumvention of Martindell. All Ms.",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "5 It's irrelevant that Ms. Maxwell originally consented to the provision of the criminal protective order that presently prevents her from sharing with Judge Preska App. 91-92. At the time Ms. Maxwell consented to that provision Ms. Maxwell's earlier consent to this provision in the protective order does not bear on whether good cause exist for its modification.",
      "position": "footnote"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "27",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00019431",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Judge Preska",
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Judge Nathan"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Court"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "09/24/2020"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "20-3061",
      "60",
      "2938278",
      "DOJ-OGR-00019431"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a case involving Ms. Maxwell. The text discusses the potential consequences of unsealing deposition material and the government's actions regarding a protective order. There are no visible redactions or damage to the document."
}