mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES007/DOJ-OGR-00019641.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "34",
    "document_number": "82",
    "date": "10/02/2020",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 20-3061, Document 82, 10/02/2020, 2944267, Page34 of 37\n28\nMaxwell can argue on the public record that unsealing the materials would have a prejudicial effect on her right to a fair trial. To the extent Maxwell complains that unsealing filings in a civil case may result in unfair pretrial publicity in her criminal case, she will have the opportunity to request that the District Court establish practices to help ensure she gets a fair and impartial jury.8 If she is displeased with those efforts,\n8 Maxwell makes much of the Government having moved to intervene and stay the proceedings in Doe v. Indyke, noting that the Government has not moved to intervene in Giuffre v. Maxwell, to stay the unsealing process. (Br. 29). Maxwell suggests that the Government's decision to not do so is motivated by \"unprincipled\" reasons. (Br. 29-30). Setting Maxwell's conspiracy theories aside, Doe v. Indyke and Giuffre v. Maxwell are in completely different procedural postures, which implicate different concerns regarding a pending criminal case. The latter was resolved in 2017 and the determination of what material should remain sealed remains the only open issue. Accordingly, there is no more discovery to be conducted in the Giuffre case and no possible concern to the Government that, for example, its trial witnesses in the criminal case might be deposed in that civil case. Additionally, the fact that a document may be unsealed through an independent process before Judge Preska would not reveal the Government's investigative focus or techniques.\nIn Doe v. Indyke, on the other hand, discovery was just beginning, and if discovery were to have proceeded, multiple witnesses or potential witnesses at\nDOJ-OGR-00019641",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 20-3061, Document 82, 10/02/2020, 2944267, Page34 of 37",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "28",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Maxwell can argue on the public record that unsealing the materials would have a prejudicial effect on her right to a fair trial. To the extent Maxwell complains that unsealing filings in a civil case may result in unfair pretrial publicity in her criminal case, she will have the opportunity to request that the District Court establish practices to help ensure she gets a fair and impartial jury.8 If she is displeased with those efforts,",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "8 Maxwell makes much of the Government having moved to intervene and stay the proceedings in Doe v. Indyke, noting that the Government has not moved to intervene in Giuffre v. Maxwell, to stay the unsealing process. (Br. 29). Maxwell suggests that the Government's decision to not do so is motivated by \"unprincipled\" reasons. (Br. 29-30). Setting Maxwell's conspiracy theories aside, Doe v. Indyke and Giuffre v. Maxwell are in completely different procedural postures, which implicate different concerns regarding a pending criminal case. The latter was resolved in 2017 and the determination of what material should remain sealed remains the only open issue. Accordingly, there is no more discovery to be conducted in the Giuffre case and no possible concern to the Government that, for example, its trial witnesses in the criminal case might be deposed in that civil case. Additionally, the fact that a document may be unsealed through an independent process before Judge Preska would not reveal the Government's investigative focus or techniques.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In Doe v. Indyke, on the other hand, discovery was just beginning, and if discovery were to have proceeded, multiple witnesses or potential witnesses at",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00019641",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell",
      "Indyke",
      "Giuffre",
      "Preska"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "District Court",
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "10/02/2020",
      "2017"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "20-3061",
      "82",
      "2944267",
      "DOJ-OGR-00019641"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Maxwell. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document is likely a page from a larger legal document."
}