mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES007/DOJ-OGR-00019667.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "21",
    "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, Page21 of 23\nthough, is obvious: The government wants to shield itself from Ms. Maxwell's forthcoming motion before Judge Nathan challenging its circumvention of Martindell. This Court should not prejudge the Martindell issue as the government seeks.\nConclusion\nAt bottom, when asked to justify why Judge Preska and this Court should remain in the dark, the government offers little more than this: because the protective order says so. But in the face of all the reasons why the relevant judicial decision makers should have all the relevant information, the government's answer is not good enough.\nThis Court should reverse the district court's order denying Ms. Maxwell's motion to modify the protective order.\nOctober 8, 2020.\n18\nDOJ-OGR-00019667",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 20-3061, Document 94, 10/08/2020, 2948481, Page21 of 23",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "though, is obvious: The government wants to shield itself from Ms. Maxwell's forthcoming motion before Judge Nathan challenging its circumvention of Martindell. This Court should not prejudge the Martindell issue as the government seeks.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Conclusion",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "At bottom, when asked to justify why Judge Preska and this Court should remain in the dark, the government offers little more than this: because the protective order says so. But in the face of all the reasons why the relevant judicial decision makers should have all the relevant information, the government's answer is not good enough.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "This Court should reverse the district court's order denying Ms. Maxwell's motion to modify the protective order.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "October 8, 2020.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "18",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00019667",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Judge Nathan",
      "Judge Preska"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Court"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "October 8, 2020",
      "10/08/2020"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "20-3061",
      "94",
      "2948481",
      "DOJ-OGR-00019667"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a case involving Ms. Maxwell. The text is well-formatted and printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document includes a case number, document number, and date at the top."
}