mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007064.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "13",
    "document_number": "465",
    "date": "11/15/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 465 Filed 11/15/21 Page 13 of 127\nLB1TMAX1\n1 respect to the actual identity of each witness.\n2 As I mentioned, I do agree with the government that a\n3 limiting instruction explaining the reasons for the precautions\n4 is appropriate. In light of my ruling, I expect the parties to\n5 confer and jointly propose such a limiting instruction.\n6 Homework No. 2. This shall also be filed jointly by\n7 November 10, and that can be filed on ECF.\n8 There are some logistics of voir dire related to this.\n9 Some of my colleagues have used the list method that the\n10 government proposes on page 15, footnote 5 of their motion, and\n11 I agree that this proposal makes sense. Once again, the\n12 parties shall confer and submit on ECF by November 10 a joint\n13 proposal for any logistical issues related to this for voir\n14 dire.\n15 That leaves the issue of sealing unredacted exhibits\n16 and the limited redacting of exhibits containing specific\n17 personal identifying information. The government shall manage\n18 the logistics of this process throughout trial. So think\n19 through and include in your November 10 submission on ECF the\n20 specifics of this part of the process so that the trial\n21 exhibits can be contemporaneously marked with the appropriate\n22 limited redactions, and the government will need to manage this\n23 on an ongoing basis throughout trial.\n24 Government's motion 2, the alleged victims' prior\n25 consistent statements. So this goes to the admissibility of\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00007064",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 465 Filed 11/15/21 Page 13 of 127",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "LB1TMAX1",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 respect to the actual identity of each witness.\n2 As I mentioned, I do agree with the government that a\n3 limiting instruction explaining the reasons for the precautions\n4 is appropriate. In light of my ruling, I expect the parties to\n5 confer and jointly propose such a limiting instruction.\n6 Homework No. 2. This shall also be filed jointly by\n7 November 10, and that can be filed on ECF.\n8 There are some logistics of voir dire related to this.\n9 Some of my colleagues have used the list method that the\n10 government proposes on page 15, footnote 5 of their motion, and\n11 I agree that this proposal makes sense. Once again, the\n12 parties shall confer and submit on ECF by November 10 a joint\n13 proposal for any logistical issues related to this for voir\n14 dire.\n15 That leaves the issue of sealing unredacted exhibits\n16 and the limited redacting of exhibits containing specific\n17 personal identifying information. The government shall manage\n18 the logistics of this process throughout trial. So think\n19 through and include in your November 10 submission on ECF the\n20 specifics of this part of the process so that the trial\n21 exhibits can be contemporaneously marked with the appropriate\n22 limited redactions, and the government will need to manage this\n23 on an ongoing basis throughout trial.\n24 Government's motion 2, the alleged victims' prior\n25 consistent statements. So this goes to the admissibility of",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00007064",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "November 10",
      "11/15/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 465",
      "DOJ-OGR-00007064"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or legal document. It is typed and contains no handwritten text or stamps. The text is mostly a discussion between a judge and parties involved in a case, focusing on trial logistics and evidentiary matters."
}