mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00006024.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "2",
    "document_number": "399",
    "date": "10/29/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 399 Filed 10/29/21 Page 2 of 4\nPage 2\nDefense Justification\nThe defense proposes a more limited set of redactions than the government. To the extent that the government and the defense agree on proposed redactions and sealing requests, the Court should consider them joint requests by both parties. However, the defense objects to the government’s proposed redactions and sealing requests that are broader than those of the defense.\nThe defense respectfully submits that the following redactions and sealing requests are appropriate under the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) because they are narrowly tailored to protect the interests articulated below.\n1. The defense’s proposed redactions to Ms. Maxwell’s Motion to Exclude Evidence Offered by the Government Pursuant to Rule 404(b), and Exhibit A to that motion, are necessary to protect privacy interests of third parties who are not currently parties or witnesses to the case and because the defense has objected to the admission of this evidence. If the evidence is made public before the Court determines its admissibility, it would be extremely prejudicial to Ms. Maxwell’s ability to receive a fair trial (the defense will provide the proposed redactions to the Court under seal).\n2. The defense’s proposed redactions to Ms. Maxwell’s Motion to Exclude Evidence Related to Accuser-3 are necessary because they contain grand jury testimony covered by Rule 6(e) (the defense will provide the proposed redactions to the Court under seal).\n3. The defense agrees with the government that Exhibits A and B to Ms. Maxwell’s Motion to Exclude Evidence Related to Accuser-3 should be filed under seal because they contain grand jury testimony covered by Rule 6(e).\n4. The defense agrees with the government that Exhibit 1 to Ms. Maxwell’s Motion to DOJ-OGR-00006024",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 399 Filed 10/29/21 Page 2 of 4",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Page 2",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Defense Justification",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The defense proposes a more limited set of redactions than the government. To the extent that the government and the defense agree on proposed redactions and sealing requests, the Court should consider them joint requests by both parties. However, the defense objects to the government’s proposed redactions and sealing requests that are broader than those of the defense.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The defense respectfully submits that the following redactions and sealing requests are appropriate under the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) because they are narrowly tailored to protect the interests articulated below.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1. The defense’s proposed redactions to Ms. Maxwell’s Motion to Exclude Evidence Offered by the Government Pursuant to Rule 404(b), and Exhibit A to that motion, are necessary to protect privacy interests of third parties who are not currently parties or witnesses to the case and because the defense has objected to the admission of this evidence. If the evidence is made public before the Court determines its admissibility, it would be extremely prejudicial to Ms. Maxwell’s ability to receive a fair trial (the defense will provide the proposed redactions to the Court under seal).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2. The defense’s proposed redactions to Ms. Maxwell’s Motion to Exclude Evidence Related to Accuser-3 are necessary because they contain grand jury testimony covered by Rule 6(e) (the defense will provide the proposed redactions to the Court under seal).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "3. The defense agrees with the government that Exhibits A and B to Ms. Maxwell’s Motion to Exclude Evidence Related to Accuser-3 should be filed under seal because they contain grand jury testimony covered by Rule 6(e).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "4. The defense agrees with the government that Exhibit 1 to Ms. Maxwell’s Motion to",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00006024",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Second Circuit"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Onondaga"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "10/29/21",
      "2006"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "399",
      "DOJ-OGR-00006024"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ms. Maxwell. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document is well-formatted and easy to read."
}