mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00022090.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "28 of 34",
    "document_number": "35",
    "date": "04/24/20",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "been completed, let alone reached a point where the final version will be disclosed to the public. It is also deliberative in that it will likely make recommendations about the BOP, and those recommendations will be under discussion within the Office of the Inspector General prior to being finalized and publicly announced. Internal deliberations are an important tool for agencies in reaching decisions, including recommendations in DOJ-OIG reports. The ability to have these discussions is important in identifying a broad range of policy and legal issues. Here, disclosure of any draft report or other work product related to the preparation of the Report will undermine the DOJ-OIG's ability to engage in meaningful discussions of the issues at the BOP relating to inmate security and staffing, among other topics, and will potentially stifle rigorous discourse on the issues. Accordingly, Thomas's motion should be denied for the reason that the materials sought are protected by the deliberative process privilege. Klamath, 532 U.S. at 9. Second, Thomas has offered no support for his contention that drafts of the Inspector General's Report itself (and any related work product)—as opposed to the underlying materials upon which the Report is based—are subject to disclosure. To the extent that the forthcoming Inspector General's Report relies on information gathered during the instant investigation and prosecution, those underlying materials—which focus primarily on the events of August 9 and 10, 2019, the incarceration of Jeffrey Epstein, and related MCC records—have already been disclosed to the defendants. Thomas contends that those tasked with preparing the Report may “possibl[y]” have generated additional witness statements and “other information” that has not been produced by the Government to date. (Mot. 5). Thomas provides no support for such assertions besides mere speculation. The prosecution has inquired of the Washington D.C.-based attorneys who are preparing the Inspector General's Report. Based on those conversations, it is the prosecution's understanding that those attorneys have not conducted any additional interviews or otherwise 23 DOJ-OGR-00022090",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "been completed, let alone reached a point where the final version will be disclosed to the public. It is also deliberative in that it will likely make recommendations about the BOP, and those recommendations will be under discussion within the Office of the Inspector General prior to being finalized and publicly announced. Internal deliberations are an important tool for agencies in reaching decisions, including recommendations in DOJ-OIG reports. The ability to have these discussions is important in identifying a broad range of policy and legal issues. Here, disclosure of any draft report or other work product related to the preparation of the Report will undermine the DOJ-OIG's ability to engage in meaningful discussions of the issues at the BOP relating to inmate security and staffing, among other topics, and will potentially stifle rigorous discourse on the issues. Accordingly, Thomas's motion should be denied for the reason that the materials sought are protected by the deliberative process privilege. Klamath, 532 U.S. at 9.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Second, Thomas has offered no support for his contention that drafts of the Inspector General's Report itself (and any related work product)—as opposed to the underlying materials upon which the Report is based—are subject to disclosure. To the extent that the forthcoming Inspector General's Report relies on information gathered during the instant investigation and prosecution, those underlying materials—which focus primarily on the events of August 9 and 10, 2019, the incarceration of Jeffrey Epstein, and related MCC records—have already been disclosed to the defendants. Thomas contends that those tasked with preparing the Report may “possibl[y]” have generated additional witness statements and “other information” that has not been produced by the Government to date. (Mot. 5). Thomas provides no support for such assertions besides mere speculation. The prosecution has inquired of the Washington D.C.-based attorneys who are preparing the Inspector General's Report. Based on those conversations, it is the prosecution's understanding that those attorneys have not conducted any additional interviews or otherwise",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "23",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00022090",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Thomas",
      "Jeffrey Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "BOP",
      "Office of the Inspector General",
      "DOJ-OIG",
      "MCC"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Washington D.C."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "August 9 and 10, 2019",
      "04/24/20"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:19-cr-00830-AT",
      "Document 35",
      "532 U.S. at 9",
      "DOJ-OGR-00022090"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case involving Jeffrey Epstein. The text discusses the deliberative process privilege and the disclosure of draft reports and work product related to the Inspector General's Report. The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
}