mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00006175.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "1",
    "document_number": "41165",
    "date": "November 4, 2021",
    "document_type": "Letter",
    "has_handwriting": true,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case#: 2020cr00308(AJN Document#: 41165 Filed#: 11/05/2021 Page#: 1 of 3\nU.S. Department of Justice\nUnited States Attorney\nSouthern District of New York\nThe Silvio J. Mollo Building\nOne Saint Andrew's Plaza\nNew York, New York 10007\nNovember 4, 2021\nUSDC SDNY\nDOCUMENT\nELECTRONICALLY FILED\nDOC #:\nDATE FILED: 11/5/21\nBY ECF\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nUnited States District Court\nSouthern District of New York\nUnited States Courthouse\n40 Foley Square\nNew York, New York 10007\nRe: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)\nDear Judge Nathan:\nThe Government respectfully submits this letter in response to the Court's Order dated November 3, 2021 (the \"Order,\" Dkt. No. 413), directing the Government to respond to the defendant's November 3, 2021 motion for reconsideration regarding the disclosure of juror names (Dkt. No. 407). The Government respectfully submits that the defendant's motion for reconsideration should be denied.\nThe standard for granting reconsideration \"is strict, and reconsideration will generally be denied unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked—matters, in other words, that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court.\" Boyd v. United States, No. 12 Civ. 474 (JSR), 2015 WL 1345809, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 20, 2015) (quoting Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995)); see also S.D.N.Y. Local Criminal Rule 49.1(d). \"The major grounds justifying reconsideration are an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.\" United States v. Sanchez, No. 08 Cr. 789 (RJS), 2020 WL 4742915, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 6, 2020) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).\nFor the reasons stated in the Government's letter, the motion for reconsideration, Dkt. No. 407, is DENIED. SO ORDERED.\nAlison J. Nathan\n11/5/21\nDOJ-OGR-00006175",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case#: 2020cr00308(AJN Document#: 41165 Filed#: 11/05/2021 Page#: 1 of 3",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "U.S. Department of Justice\nUnited States Attorney\nSouthern District of New York\nThe Silvio J. Mollo Building\nOne Saint Andrew's Plaza\nNew York, New York 10007",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "November 4, 2021",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "USDC SDNY\nDOCUMENT\nELECTRONICALLY FILED\nDOC #:\nDATE FILED: 11/5/21",
      "position": "margin"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "BY ECF\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nUnited States District Court\nSouthern District of New York\nUnited States Courthouse\n40 Foley Square\nNew York, New York 10007",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Dear Judge Nathan:",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Government respectfully submits this letter in response to the Court's Order dated November 3, 2021 (the \"Order,\" Dkt. No. 413), directing the Government to respond to the defendant's November 3, 2021 motion for reconsideration regarding the disclosure of juror names (Dkt. No. 407). The Government respectfully submits that the defendant's motion for reconsideration should be denied.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The standard for granting reconsideration \"is strict, and reconsideration will generally be denied unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked—matters, in other words, that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court.\" Boyd v. United States, No. 12 Civ. 474 (JSR), 2015 WL 1345809, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 20, 2015) (quoting Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995)); see also S.D.N.Y. Local Criminal Rule 49.1(d). \"The major grounds justifying reconsideration are an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.\" United States v. Sanchez, No. 08 Cr. 789 (RJS), 2020 WL 4742915, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 6, 2020) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "handwritten",
      "content": "Alison J. Nathan\n11/5/21",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "For the reasons stated in the Government's letter, the motion for reconsideration, Dkt. No. 407, is DENIED. SO ORDERED.",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00006175",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Alison J. Nathan",
      "Ghislaine Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "U.S. Department of Justice",
      "United States Attorney",
      "United States District Court",
      "Southern District of New York"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "November 4, 2021",
      "November 3, 2021",
      "March 20, 2015",
      "July 6, 2020"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "20 Cr. 330 (AJN)",
      "Dkt. No. 413",
      "Dkt. No. 407",
      "12 Civ. 474 (JSR)",
      "08 Cr. 789 (RJS)"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The document is a letter from the Government to the Honorable Alison J. Nathan, United States District Court Judge, responding to a motion for reconsideration filed by the defendant. The letter argues that the motion should be denied. The document includes a handwritten signature from Judge Nathan and a stamped date filed by the court."
}