mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007414.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "3",
    "document_number": "491",
    "date": "11/22/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 491 Filed 11/22/21 Page 3 of 6\n\n2010), Dkt. No. 32.1\n\nFurther, Employee-1 observed the defendant's contact book in close temporal proximity to Mr. Rodriguez's departure. Mr. Rodriguez worked for Epstein in \"2004 and 2005.\" Plea Agreement/Factual Proffer Statement ¶ 10(a), Rodriguez, 10 Cr. 8015 (KAM), Dkt. No. 25.2 Employee-1 worked for Epstein There was therefore no significant time gap between the day Rodriguez left Epstein's employment with a copy of the address book and when Employee-1 worked for Epstein and saw a copy of the address book. Consider if an employer gives a \"history of the firm\" book to each new employee. An employee who was aware of that practice and who starts in 2021 can authenticate a copy of that book, even if the particular copy was given to an employee who started in 2020. Or consider if the Yankees have distinctive team-branded water bottles spread across their locker room. A player who has seen the water bottles can authenticate one, even if the particular water bottle was taken from the locker room before that player joined the Yankees. The same is the case here. See United States v. Al Farekh, 810 F. App'x 21, 24-25 (2d Cir. 2020) (authenticating \"handwritten letters\" based on their contents and \"considerable similarities between the handwriting\" and known exemplars). Indeed, the fact that both Employee-1 and Mr. Rodriguez have seen multiple copies of the same address book further confirms its authenticity.\n\nFinally, the authenticity of the address book does not rely exclusively on Employee-1's testimony: it is also reinforced by its internal markings. Other evidence at trial will show that the address book in fact contains the information of persons listed therein who in fact knew the\n\n1 The Government is not currently planning to offer trial evidence regarding Mr. Rodriguez, although it may if the Court concludes that evidence is critical to the authentication question.\n2 The defendant erroneously suggests that Mr. Rodriguez stopped working for Epstein in 2004. (11/15/21 Def. Letter at 1).\n\nDOJ-OGR-00007414",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 491 Filed 11/22/21 Page 3 of 6",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2010), Dkt. No. 32.1\n\nFurther, Employee-1 observed the defendant's contact book in close temporal proximity to Mr. Rodriguez's departure. Mr. Rodriguez worked for Epstein in \"2004 and 2005.\" Plea Agreement/Factual Proffer Statement ¶ 10(a), Rodriguez, 10 Cr. 8015 (KAM), Dkt. No. 25.2 Employee-1 worked for Epstein There was therefore no significant time gap between the day Rodriguez left Epstein's employment with a copy of the address book and when Employee-1 worked for Epstein and saw a copy of the address book. Consider if an employer gives a \"history of the firm\" book to each new employee. An employee who was aware of that practice and who starts in 2021 can authenticate a copy of that book, even if the particular copy was given to an employee who started in 2020. Or consider if the Yankees have distinctive team-branded water bottles spread across their locker room. A player who has seen the water bottles can authenticate one, even if the particular water bottle was taken from the locker room before that player joined the Yankees. The same is the case here. See United States v. Al Farekh, 810 F. App'x 21, 24-25 (2d Cir. 2020) (authenticating \"handwritten letters\" based on their contents and \"considerable similarities between the handwriting\" and known exemplars). Indeed, the fact that both Employee-1 and Mr. Rodriguez have seen multiple copies of the same address book further confirms its authenticity.\n\nFinally, the authenticity of the address book does not rely exclusively on Employee-1's testimony: it is also reinforced by its internal markings. Other evidence at trial will show that the address book in fact contains the information of persons listed therein who in fact knew the",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 The Government is not currently planning to offer trial evidence regarding Mr. Rodriguez, although it may if the Court concludes that evidence is critical to the authentication question.\n2 The defendant erroneously suggests that Mr. Rodriguez stopped working for Epstein in 2004. (11/15/21 Def. Letter at 1).",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00007414",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Employee-1",
      "Mr. Rodriguez",
      "Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Yankees"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "2004",
      "2005",
      "2010",
      "2020",
      "2021",
      "11/15/21",
      "11/22/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 491",
      "Dkt. No. 32",
      "10 Cr. 8015 (KAM)",
      "Dkt. No. 25",
      "DOJ-OGR-00007414"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text discusses the authenticity of an address book and the testimony of Employee-1 and Mr. Rodriguez. The document includes citations to legal cases and references to specific dates and events."
}