mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES007/DOJ-OGR-00019546.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "1",
    "document_number": "20-CR-330 (AJN)",
    "date": "7/30/2020",
    "document_type": "MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": true
  },
  "full_text": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK United States of America, -v- Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. 20-CR-330 (AJN) MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: Both parties have asked for the Court to enter a protective order. While they agree on most of the language, two areas of dispute have emerged. First, Ms. Maxwell seeks language allowing her to publicly reference alleged victims or witnesses who have spoken on the public record to the media or in public fora, or in litigation relating to Ms. Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein. Second, Ms. Maxwell seeks language restricting potential Government witnesses and their counsel from using discovery materials for any purpose other than preparing for the criminal trial in this action. The Government has proposed contrary language on both of these issues. For the following reasons, the Court adopts the Government's proposed protective order. Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(d)(1), \"[a]t any time the court may, for good cause, deny, restrict, or defer discovery or inspection, or grant other appropriate relief.\" The good cause standard \"requires courts to balance several interests, including whether dissemination of the discovery materials inflicts hazard to others . . . whether the imposition of the protective order would prejudice the defendant,\" and \"the public's interest in the information.\" United States v. Smith, 985 F. Supp. 2d 506, 522 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). The party seeking to restrict disclosure bears the burden of showing good cause. Cf. Gambale v. Deutsche Bank AG, 377 F.3d 133, 142 (2d Cir. 2004). 1 App.087 DOJ-OGR-00019546",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "United States of America, -v- Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "20-CR-330 (AJN) MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: Both parties have asked for the Court to enter a protective order. While they agree on most of the language, two areas of dispute have emerged. First, Ms. Maxwell seeks language allowing her to publicly reference alleged victims or witnesses who have spoken on the public record to the media or in public fora, or in litigation relating to Ms. Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein. Second, Ms. Maxwell seeks language restricting potential Government witnesses and their counsel from using discovery materials for any purpose other than preparing for the criminal trial in this action. The Government has proposed contrary language on both of these issues. For the following reasons, the Court adopts the Government's proposed protective order.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(d)(1), \"[a]t any time the court may, for good cause, deny, restrict, or defer discovery or inspection, or grant other appropriate relief.\" The good cause standard \"requires courts to balance several interests, including whether dissemination of the discovery materials inflicts hazard to others . . . whether the imposition of the protective order would prejudice the defendant,\" and \"the public's interest in the information.\" United States v. Smith, 985 F. Supp. 2d 506, 522 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). The party seeking to restrict disclosure bears the burden of showing good cause. Cf. Gambale v. Deutsche Bank AG, 377 F.3d 133, 142 (2d Cir. 2004).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "App.087",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "stamp",
      "content": "USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: DATE FILED: 7/30/2020",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00019546",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ghislaine Maxwell",
      "Jeffrey Epstein",
      "Alison J. Nathan"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States District Court",
      "United States of America",
      "Deutsche Bank AG"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "7/30/2020",
      "2004"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "20-CR-330 (AJN)",
      "985 F. Supp. 2d 506",
      "377 F.3d 133",
      "DOJ-OGR-00019546"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document is a court filing with a stamp indicating it was electronically filed on 7/30/2020. The document appears to be a memorandum opinion and order in a criminal case."
}