mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00020512.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "26 of 92",
    "document_number": "3-2",
    "date": "07/08/2022",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 22-1426, Document 3-2, 07/08/2022, 3344434, Page26 of 92 subpoena as required by Rule 17(c)(3). On March 19, 2021, the Court received a letter from the law firm indicating that it can provide notice to alleged victims whose personal or confidential information may be elicited by the subpoena. The law firm shall provide notice to any such alleged victims it represents. In that letter, the law firm also interposed substantial objections on behalf of the law firm and the alleged victims it represents. Those objections are functionally the equivalent of a motion to quash, even though the subpoena has not yet issued. So that the Court can receive adversarial briefing on the proposed subpoena comparable to a motion to quash, the law firm shall enter an appearance and file its objections on the public docket. See United States v. Ray, No. 20-CR-110 (LJL), 2020 WL 6939677, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 25, 2020) (\"[I]f the Court determines that the subpoena calls for personal or confidential information about a victim, it requires the requesting party have given notice to the victim before it permits the service of the subpoena. If the victim objects, the Court will then determine whether to modify or quash the subpoena, including on grounds that Nixon was not satisfied.\") In advance of noticing an appearance and filing, the law firm shall meet and confer with defense counsel to see if any issues can be narrowed before formal briefing. Moreover, prior to filing, the law firm shall confer with defense counsel as to any proposed, necessary, and tailored redactions to the objections. The law firm's objections with any proposed redactions shall be filed on or before March 26, 2021. Any redactions must be justified consistent with Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Within one week of the filing of objections, defense counsel may respond to the subpoena objections. The law firm may reply within three days of the Defendant's response.(See Citation 1 on this Order). Counsel shall confer regarding any proposed redactions for all briefing. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 3/24/2021)(bw) (Entered: 03/24/2021) 03/24/2021 173 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Ghislaine Maxwell from 169 Order, Terminate Motions. (tp) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/1/2021: # 1 Appeal Fee) (tp). (Entered: 03/24/2021) 03/24/2021 Appeal Remark as to Ghislaine Maxwell re: 173 Notice of Appeal. $505.00 Appeal Fee Due. (tp) (Entered: 03/24/2021) 03/24/2021 Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Certified Copy of Docket Sheet as to Ghislaine Maxwell to US Court of Appeals re: 173 Notice of Appeal. (tp) (Entered: 03/24/2021) 03/24/2021 Appeal Record Sent to USCA (Electronic File). Certified Indexed record on Appeal Electronic Files as to Ghislaine Maxwell re: 173 Notice of Appeal were transmitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals. (tp) (Entered: 03/24/2021) 03/24/2021 174 SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (dn) (Entered: 03/24/2021) 03/24/2021 175 SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (dn) (Entered: 03/24/2021) 03/24/2021 176 SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (dn) (Entered: 03/24/2021) 03/24/2021 177 SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (dn) (Entered: 03/24/2021) 03/24/2021 178 SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (dn) (Entered: 03/24/2021) 03/24/2021 179 SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (dn) (Entered: 03/24/2021) 03/26/2021 180 NOTICE of Appearance of David Boies for Boies Schiller Flexner LLP and the Victims it Represents as to Ghislaine Maxwell (Boies, David) (Entered: 03/26/2021) 03/26/2021 181 NOTICE of Appearance of Sigrid S. McCawley for Boies Schiller Flexner LLP and the Victims it Represents as to Ghislaine Maxwell (McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 03/26/2021) 03/26/2021 182 MOTION on for Sigrid S. McCawley to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number ANYSDC-24312691. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff. Document filed by Boies Schiller Flexner LLP as to Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Sigrid S. McCawley, # 2 Florida Certificate of Good Standing, # 3 District of Columbia Certificate of Good Standing, # 4 Text of Proposed Order)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 03/26/2021) DOJ-OGR-00020512",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 3-2, 07/08/2022, 3344434, Page26 of 92",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "subpoena as required by Rule 17(c)(3). On March 19, 2021, the Court received a letter from the law firm indicating that it can provide notice to alleged victims whose personal or confidential information may be elicited by the subpoena. The law firm shall provide notice to any such alleged victims it represents. In that letter, the law firm also interposed substantial objections on behalf of the law firm and the alleged victims it represents. Those objections are functionally the equivalent of a motion to quash, even though the subpoena has not yet issued. So that the Court can receive adversarial briefing on the proposed subpoena comparable to a motion to quash, the law firm shall enter an appearance and file its objections on the public docket. See United States v. Ray, No. 20-CR-110 (LJL), 2020 WL 6939677, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 25, 2020) (\"[I]f the Court determines that the subpoena calls for personal or confidential information about a victim, it requires the requesting party have given notice to the victim before it permits the service of the subpoena. If the victim objects, the Court will then determine whether to modify or quash the subpoena, including on grounds that Nixon was not satisfied.\") In advance of noticing an appearance and filing, the law firm shall meet and confer with defense counsel to see if any issues can be narrowed before formal briefing. Moreover, prior to filing, the law firm shall confer with defense counsel as to any proposed, necessary, and tailored redactions to the objections. The law firm's objections with any proposed redactions shall be filed on or before March 26, 2021. Any redactions must be justified consistent with Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Within one week of the filing of objections, defense counsel may respond to the subpoena objections. The law firm may reply within three days of the Defendant's response.(See Citation 1 on this Order). Counsel shall confer regarding any proposed redactions for all briefing. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 3/24/2021)(bw) (Entered: 03/24/2021)",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "03/24/2021 173 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Ghislaine Maxwell from 169 Order, Terminate Motions. (tp) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/1/2021: # 1 Appeal Fee) (tp). (Entered: 03/24/2021)",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "03/26/2021 182 MOTION on for Sigrid S. McCawley to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number ANYSDC-24312691. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff. Document filed by Boies Schiller Flexner LLP as to Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Sigrid S. McCawley, # 2 Florida Certificate of Good Standing, # 3 District of Columbia Certificate of Good Standing, # 4 Text of Proposed Order)(McCawley, Sigrid) (Entered: 03/26/2021)",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00020512",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ghislaine Maxwell",
      "Alison J. Nathan",
      "David Boies",
      "Sigrid S. McCawley"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Boies Schiller Flexner LLP",
      "US Court of Appeals",
      "U.S. Court of Appeals"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y.",
      "Florida",
      "District of Columbia"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "March 19, 2021",
      "March 24, 2021",
      "March 26, 2021",
      "07/08/2022",
      "Nov. 25, 2020",
      "4/1/2021"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 22-1426",
      "Document 3-2",
      "3344434",
      "20-CR-110",
      "173",
      "169",
      "180",
      "181",
      "182",
      "ANYSDC-24312691",
      "DOJ-OGR-00020512"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court docket sheet with various entries related to a case involving Ghislaine Maxwell. The text is mostly printed, with some entries having additional attachments or notes. There are no visible stamps or handwritten text."
}