mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00021541.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "17",
    "document_number": "22-1426, Document 78",
    "date": "06/29/2023",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 22-1426, Document 78, 06/29/2023, 3536039, Page111 of 217 SA-365 Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 620 Filed 02/25/22 Page 17 of 21 public hearing with input from counsel. The parties may submit questions consistent with this ruling, including what the Court holds in this Opinion are the limitations imposed by Rule 606 and the appropriate scope of the hearing. Once again, the scope of the inquiry is whether Juror 50's answers were false; if so, what is the explanation for the answers; and how Juror 50 would have responded to follow-up questions if accurate answers had been provided. Per this Court's prior order, the parties must submit the proposed questions under temporary seal to ensure the integrity of the inquiry. See Dkt. No. 596 at 4. Proposed questions must be submitted via email on or before March 1, 2022. The proposed questions will be unsealed following the hearing. B. The Defendant's subpoena requests are denied The Defendant seeks two sets of subpoenas to conduct discovery in advance of the hearing. Maxwell Br. at 48-49. First, from Juror 50, the Defendant seeks any emails or other communications between Juror 50 and any alleged victim or witness; any other juror; any other person or media organization about Juror 50's jury service; and, finally, any record of payments for any interview or information that Juror 50 gave about his jury service. Second, from Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram, and other social media platforms, the Defendant seeks all communications to and from Juror 50 regarding his jury service; all posts, comments, or photographs by Juror 50 regarding his jury service; and all documents reflecting when Juror 50 opened or closed his accounts. In her initial brief, the Defendant simply lists these requests without justification. In her reply, she provides only a short rebuttal to the Government's objections and does not explain why each request is relevant or proper. The Court denies these requests as vexatious, intrusive, unjustified, and a fishing expedition. Given the focused inquiry the Court is ordering, the evidentiary hearing's scope 17 DOJ-OGR-00021541",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 78, 06/29/2023, 3536039, Page111 of 217 SA-365",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 620 Filed 02/25/22 Page 17 of 21",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "public hearing with input from counsel. The parties may submit questions consistent with this ruling, including what the Court holds in this Opinion are the limitations imposed by Rule 606 and the appropriate scope of the hearing. Once again, the scope of the inquiry is whether Juror 50's answers were false; if so, what is the explanation for the answers; and how Juror 50 would have responded to follow-up questions if accurate answers had been provided.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Per this Court's prior order, the parties must submit the proposed questions under temporary seal to ensure the integrity of the inquiry. See Dkt. No. 596 at 4. Proposed questions must be submitted via email on or before March 1, 2022. The proposed questions will be unsealed following the hearing.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "B. The Defendant's subpoena requests are denied",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Defendant seeks two sets of subpoenas to conduct discovery in advance of the hearing. Maxwell Br. at 48-49. First, from Juror 50, the Defendant seeks any emails or other communications between Juror 50 and any alleged victim or witness; any other juror; any other person or media organization about Juror 50's jury service; and, finally, any record of payments for any interview or information that Juror 50 gave about his jury service. Second, from Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram, and other social media platforms, the Defendant seeks all communications to and from Juror 50 regarding his jury service; all posts, comments, or photographs by Juror 50 regarding his jury service; and all documents reflecting when Juror 50 opened or closed his accounts. In her initial brief, the Defendant simply lists these requests without justification. In her reply, she provides only a short rebuttal to the Government's objections and does not explain why each request is relevant or proper.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Court denies these requests as vexatious, intrusive, unjustified, and a fishing expedition. Given the focused inquiry the Court is ordering, the evidentiary hearing's scope",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "17",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00021541",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Juror 50"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Facebook",
      "Twitter",
      "LinkedIn",
      "Instagram"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "06/29/2023",
      "02/25/22",
      "March 1, 2022"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 22-1426, Document 78",
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 620",
      "Dkt. No. 596",
      "DOJ-OGR-00021541"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is mostly printed, with no handwritten content or stamps visible. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}