mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008816.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "1 of 2",
    "document_number": "576",
    "date": "01/14/22",
    "document_type": "Court Order",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": true
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 576 Filed 01/14/22 Page 1 of 2\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\nUnited States of America,\n-v-\nGhislaine Maxwell,\nDefendant.\nUSDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: DATE FILED: 1/14/22\n20-CR-330 (AJN)\nORDER\nALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:\nThe Court required the parties to indicate whether Juror 50's motion to intervene and to be provided a copy of the juror's completed questionnaire and voir dire should be redacted. Dkt. No. 575. In response, the parties have submitted letters to the Court indicating their differing views on whether Juror 50's motion should be docketed at all. Upon further reflection, the Court concludes that it must first address the threshold question of whether an inquiry is permitted and/or required before considering Juror 50's requests. Accordingly, the Court will not consider or act on Juror 50's request to intervene and to be provided a copy of the juror's completed questionnaire and voir dire until the Court receives the parties' briefing on the appropriateness of an inquiry and the nature of any such inquiry. The Court will maintain Juror 50's motion temporarily under seal until the Court considers the parties' arguments and determines the appropriate next steps.\nConsistent with this and to lessen the burden on the parties and the Court, the Court adjusts the briefing schedule as follows. Rather than separately addressing Juror 50's motion on January 20, 2022, see Dkt. No. 575, the parties may address the issues raised by Juror 50's motion in their briefing on Defendant's anticipated motion for a new trial, on the schedule previously set by the Court. See Dkt. No. 571.\n1\nDOJ-OGR-00008816",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 576 Filed 01/14/22 Page 1 of 2",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "United States of America,\n-v-\nGhislaine Maxwell,\nDefendant.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "stamp",
      "content": "USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: DATE FILED: 1/14/22",
      "position": "margin"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "20-CR-330 (AJN)\nORDER",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Court required the parties to indicate whether Juror 50's motion to intervene and to be provided a copy of the juror's completed questionnaire and voir dire should be redacted. Dkt. No. 575. In response, the parties have submitted letters to the Court indicating their differing views on whether Juror 50's motion should be docketed at all. Upon further reflection, the Court concludes that it must first address the threshold question of whether an inquiry is permitted and/or required before considering Juror 50's requests. Accordingly, the Court will not consider or act on Juror 50's request to intervene and to be provided a copy of the juror's completed questionnaire and voir dire until the Court receives the parties' briefing on the appropriateness of an inquiry and the nature of any such inquiry. The Court will maintain Juror 50's motion temporarily under seal until the Court considers the parties' arguments and determines the appropriate next steps.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Consistent with this and to lessen the burden on the parties and the Court, the Court adjusts the briefing schedule as follows. Rather than separately addressing Juror 50's motion on January 20, 2022, see Dkt. No. 575, the parties may address the issues raised by Juror 50's motion in their briefing on Defendant's anticipated motion for a new trial, on the schedule previously set by the Court. See Dkt. No. 571.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00008816",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ghislaine Maxwell",
      "Alison J. Nathan",
      "Juror 50"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States District Court",
      "United States of America"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "01/14/22",
      "January 20, 2022"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 576",
      "20-CR-330 (AJN)",
      "Dkt. No. 575",
      "Dkt. No. 571"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court order from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. It is a printed document with a stamp indicating electronic filing. There is no handwritten text or signatures visible on this page."
}