mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES007/DOJ-OGR-00019666.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "20",
    "document_number": "94",
    "date": "10/08/2020",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 20-3061, Document 94, 10/08/2020, 2948481, Page20 of 23\n\nGiuffre v. Maxwell but kept secret from Judge Preska and this Court.\n\nFinally, the government offers a halfhearted defense of its decision to intervene in Doe v. Indyke, No. 20-cv-00484 (S.D.N.Y.), while choosing to remain on the sidelines of Giuffre v. Maxwell. Ans.Br. 28-29 n.8. According to the government, there is no need to intervene in Giuffre v. Maxwell because discovery was already completed while discovery in Doe v. Indyke was just beginning. But this distinction ignores the government's position on the confidentiality of the criminal discovery material in this case. Again,\n\n\n\n\nIn the criminal case, the government insists\n\n\n\nthat Ms. Maxwell must not be allowed to share their contents with Judge Preska or this Court, even under seal. But if that's right, then the government should oppose unsealing any filings from Giuffre v. Maxwell\n\nThe government, of course, hasn't done that, and its answer brief offers no explanation why. The reason,\n17\nDOJ-OGR-00019666",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 20-3061, Document 94, 10/08/2020, 2948481, Page20 of 23",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Giuffre v. Maxwell but kept secret from Judge Preska and this Court.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Finally, the government offers a halfhearted defense of its decision to intervene in Doe v. Indyke, No. 20-cv-00484 (S.D.N.Y.), while choosing to remain on the sidelines of Giuffre v. Maxwell. Ans.Br. 28-29 n.8. According to the government, there is no need to intervene in Giuffre v. Maxwell because discovery was already completed while discovery in Doe v. Indyke was just beginning. But this distinction ignores the government's position on the confidentiality of the criminal discovery material in this case. Again,",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In the criminal case, the government insists that Ms. Maxwell must not be allowed to share their contents with Judge Preska or this Court, even under seal. But if that's right, then the government should oppose unsealing any filings from Giuffre v. Maxwell The government, of course, hasn't done that, and its answer brief offers no explanation why. The reason,",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "17",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00019666",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Judge Preska",
      "Ms. Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "government"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "10/08/2020"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "20-3061",
      "Document 94",
      "2948481",
      "20-cv-00484",
      "DOJ-OGR-00019666"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document contains redactions, indicated by black bars covering certain text."
}