mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES001/DOJ-OGR-00002872.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "1",
    "document_number": "189",
    "date": "03/29/21",
    "document_type": "Court Order",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": true
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 189 Filed 03/29/21 Page 1 of 2\n\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\nUnited States of America,\n\n-v-\n\nGhislaine Maxwell,\n\nDefendant.\n\n20-CR-330 (AJN)\n\nORDER\n\nALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:\n\nThe Court is in receipt of the Government's letter responding to its March 18, 2021 order regarding redactions to its omnibus memorandum of law in opposition to the Defendant's twelve pretrial motions. Dkt. No. 170.\n\nAs the Government now indicates, the information that the Defendant sought to redact on pages 129–134 of the brief is already part of the public record in this case. S1 Superseding Indictment, Dkt. No. 17, at 16–17. Once information has become part of the public record, any interests that might have supported keeping it confidential largely dissipate. See United States v. Nejad, No. 18-CR-224 (AJN), 2021 WL 681427, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 22, 2021); Cunningham v. Cornell Univ., No. 16-CV-6525 (PKC), 2019 WL 10892081, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2019).\n\nIn light of this fact and because the Court has been provided no further explanation for the request to keep this redacted, the Court ORDERS that the information contained on pages 129–134 of the Government's brief be unredacted.\n\nWith respect to the proposed redactions to pages 118-119 and Exhibit 11, the Court now understands that the parties seek redactions on the basis that the material has been maintained under seal in Giuffre v. Maxwell, Case No. 15-cv-7433 (S.D.N.Y.). In light of the presumption of access, however, the Court requires a separate justification, and must engage in its own\n1\nDOJ-OGR-00002872",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 189 Filed 03/29/21 Page 1 of 2",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "United States of America, -v- Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "20-CR-330 (AJN) ORDER",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: The Court is in receipt of the Government's letter responding to its March 18, 2021 order regarding redactions to its omnibus memorandum of law in opposition to the Defendant's twelve pretrial motions. Dkt. No. 170.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "As the Government now indicates, the information that the Defendant sought to redact on pages 129–134 of the brief is already part of the public record in this case. S1 Superseding Indictment, Dkt. No. 17, at 16–17. Once information has become part of the public record, any interests that might have supported keeping it confidential largely dissipate. See United States v. Nejad, No. 18-CR-224 (AJN), 2021 WL 681427, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 22, 2021); Cunningham v. Cornell Univ., No. 16-CV-6525 (PKC), 2019 WL 10892081, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2019).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In light of this fact and because the Court has been provided no further explanation for the request to keep this redacted, the Court ORDERS that the information contained on pages 129–134 of the Government's brief be unredacted.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "With respect to the proposed redactions to pages 118-119 and Exhibit 11, the Court now understands that the parties seek redactions on the basis that the material has been maintained under seal in Giuffre v. Maxwell, Case No. 15-cv-7433 (S.D.N.Y.). In light of the presumption of access, however, the Court requires a separate justification, and must engage in its own",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "stamp",
      "content": "USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: DATE FILED: 3/29/21",
      "position": "margin"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00002872",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ghislaine Maxwell",
      "Alison J. Nathan"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States District Court",
      "Southern District of New York",
      "Cornell Univ."
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "03/29/21",
      "March 18, 2021",
      "Feb. 22, 2021",
      "Sept. 27, 2019"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 189",
      "20-CR-330 (AJN)",
      "Dkt. No. 170",
      "Dkt. No. 17",
      "No. 18-CR-224 (AJN)",
      "No. 16-CV-6525 (PKC)",
      "Case No. 15-cv-7433"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document is a court order from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. It appears to be a formal, typed document with a stamp indicating electronic filing. There are no visible redactions or damage to the document."
}