mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00004789.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "5",
    "document_number": "307",
    "date": "06/25/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 307 Filed 06/25/21 Page 5 of 21\n\nSecond Circuit later held that the court in the civil case withheld far too many documents from public view and ordered that many of them be made publicly available. Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 53 (2d Cir. 2019). Much of what the Government obtained through its subpoena, including the bulk of the deposition transcripts Maxwell now seeks to suppress, have since been unsealed by court order in the civil case. See Giuffre, No. 15-cv-7433, Dkt. Nos. 1137, 1212.\n\nII. Discussion\n\nMaxwell objects both to the Government obtaining documents covered by the protective order and to the Government's conduct in doing so. She contends that she agreed to testify in the civil case only because of the protective order, and thus that the Government's use of her deposition testimony against her would violate her right against compelled self-incrimination. She contends that she had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the documents covered by the protective order, and thus that the Government should not have been able to obtain them without a warrant. And she contends that the Government circumvented the requirements of Martindell and violated her due process rights by misleading Judge McMahon about the Government's prior communications with BSF.\n\nThe Court finds that none of these arguments support suppression of evidence or justify an evidentiary hearing. The Court begins with Maxwell's claim that the Government violated her right against compelled self-incrimination by obtaining her deposition testimony from the civil case. It next turns to her claim that the Government violated her right against unreasonable searches and seizures. Finally, it addresses Maxwell's claim that the Government misled Judge McMahon in seeking modification of the protective order in the earlier civil case.\n\n5\n\nDOJ-OGR-00004789",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 307 Filed 06/25/21 Page 5 of 21",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Second Circuit later held that the court in the civil case withheld far too many documents from public view and ordered that many of them be made publicly available. Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 53 (2d Cir. 2019). Much of what the Government obtained through its subpoena, including the bulk of the deposition transcripts Maxwell now seeks to suppress, have since been unsealed by court order in the civil case. See Giuffre, No. 15-cv-7433, Dkt. Nos. 1137, 1212.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "II. Discussion",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Maxwell objects both to the Government obtaining documents covered by the protective order and to the Government's conduct in doing so. She contends that she agreed to testify in the civil case only because of the protective order, and thus that the Government's use of her deposition testimony against her would violate her right against compelled self-incrimination. She contends that she had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the documents covered by the protective order, and thus that the Government should not have been able to obtain them without a warrant. And she contends that the Government circumvented the requirements of Martindell and violated her due process rights by misleading Judge McMahon about the Government's prior communications with BSF.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Court finds that none of these arguments support suppression of evidence or justify an evidentiary hearing. The Court begins with Maxwell's claim that the Government violated her right against compelled self-incrimination by obtaining her deposition testimony from the civil case. It next turns to her claim that the Government violated her right against unreasonable searches and seizures. Finally, it addresses Maxwell's claim that the Government misled Judge McMahon in seeking modification of the protective order in the earlier civil case.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "5",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00004789",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell",
      "Giuffre",
      "McMahon"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government",
      "BSF",
      "Second Circuit",
      "Court"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "06/25/21",
      "2019"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "307",
      "15-cv-7433",
      "1137",
      "1212",
      "929 F.3d 41, 53",
      "DOJ-OGR-00004789"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing in a criminal case, discussing the defendant's objections to the government's use of certain documents and testimony. The text is printed and legible, with no apparent damage or redactions."
}