mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00004938.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "15",
    "document_number": "311-4",
    "date": "07/02/21",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 311-4 Filed 07/02/21 Page 15 of 27\nTo Be Filed Under Seal\n\nOrder itself facilitated or furthered criminal activity; and the record contains no evidence of bad faith.\n\nThe second way in which a protective order might be \"improvidently granted\" is if the presiding judge did not require the moving party to show \"good cause\" for entering an order that permitted documents to be filed with the court under seal. It was long the law that the parties needed to make a document-by-document showing of good cause whenever discovery materials were filed with the court under seal. In re Agent Orange Prod. Liab. Litig., 821 F.2d 139, 148 (2d Cir. 1987) (Agent Orange).\n\nIn recent years, however, the Second Circuit has relaxed the Rule 26(c) \"good cause\" showing for discovery materials that are never filed with the court, in light of changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d at 233 n.11. The new, more lax standard recognizes that, \"Without an ability to restrict public dissemination of certain discovery materials that are never introduced at trial, litigants would be subject to needless annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.\" Iridium India Telecom Ltd. v. Motorola, Inc., 165 F. App'x 878, 881 (2d Cir. 2005) (summary order) (emphasis added) (quoting TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d at 229).\n\nAs a result, the \"good cause\" showing necessary for entry of a blanket pretrial protective order like the one entered in Giuffre is not onerous. Dorsett v. Cty. of Nassau, 289 F.R.D. 54, 67 (E.D.N.Y. 2012). \"[W]here \"a protective order (1) is entered on a showing of good cause as required by Rule 26(c), (2) is limited to the context of pretrial civil discovery, and (3) does not restrict the dissemination of the information if gained from other sources,\" it is not improvidently granted. Id. (quoting Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 37 (1984)); see also FragranceNet.com, Inc. v. FragranceX.com, Inc., No. 06-cv-2225, 2010 WL 11606632, at *4\n\n14\nSDNY_GM_00000888\nDOJ-OGR-00004938",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 311-4 Filed 07/02/21 Page 15 of 27",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "To Be Filed Under Seal",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Order itself facilitated or furthered criminal activity; and the record contains no evidence of bad faith.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The second way in which a protective order might be \"improvidently granted\" is if the presiding judge did not require the moving party to show \"good cause\" for entering an order that permitted documents to be filed with the court under seal. It was long the law that the parties needed to make a document-by-document showing of good cause whenever discovery materials were filed with the court under seal. In re Agent Orange Prod. Liab. Litig., 821 F.2d 139, 148 (2d Cir. 1987) (Agent Orange).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In recent years, however, the Second Circuit has relaxed the Rule 26(c) \"good cause\" showing for discovery materials that are never filed with the court, in light of changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d at 233 n.11. The new, more lax standard recognizes that, \"Without an ability to restrict public dissemination of certain discovery materials that are never introduced at trial, litigants would be subject to needless annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.\" Iridium India Telecom Ltd. v. Motorola, Inc., 165 F. App'x 878, 881 (2d Cir. 2005) (summary order) (emphasis added) (quoting TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d at 229).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "As a result, the \"good cause\" showing necessary for entry of a blanket pretrial protective order like the one entered in Giuffre is not onerous. Dorsett v. Cty. of Nassau, 289 F.R.D. 54, 67 (E.D.N.Y. 2012). \"[W]here \"a protective order (1) is entered on a showing of good cause as required by Rule 26(c), (2) is limited to the context of pretrial civil discovery, and (3) does not restrict the dissemination of the information if gained from other sources,\" it is not improvidently granted. Id. (quoting Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 37 (1984)); see also FragranceNet.com, Inc. v. FragranceX.com, Inc., No. 06-cv-2225, 2010 WL 11606632, at *4",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "14",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SDNY_GM_00000888",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00004938",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "Second Circuit",
      "Motorola, Inc.",
      "Iridium India Telecom Ltd.",
      "TheStreet.Com",
      "Seattle Times Co.",
      "FragranceNet.com, Inc.",
      "FragranceX.com, Inc.",
      "Cty. of Nassau"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "07/02/21",
      "1987",
      "2005",
      "2012",
      "1984",
      "2010"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "311-4",
      "821 F.2d 139",
      "273 F.3d",
      "165 F. App'x 878",
      "289 F.R.D. 54",
      "467 U.S. 20",
      "06-cv-2225",
      "SDNY_GM_00000888",
      "DOJ-OGR-00004938"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case, discussing the standards for protective orders in civil discovery. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is marked 'To Be Filed Under Seal' and contains references to various court cases and legal statutes."
}