mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008844.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "2",
    "document_number": "587",
    "date": "January 24, 2022",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 587 Filed 01/27/22 Page 2 of 4 January 24, 2022 Page 2 For example, Juror 50's motion was submitted after the Court ordered counsel for the juror to submit any briefing on the appropriateness of an inquiry. Dkt. Nos. 571, 573. The juror's submission prompted two Orders by the Court in which it reached conclusions about whether it should consider Juror 50's motion before or after it addresses the question of whether an inquiry should be permitted, which may also affect whether Juror 50 has standing to be heard on that question. Dkt. Nos. 575, 576. At the Court's direction it would also appear that the juror's motion is the subject of multiple rounds of briefing by the parties: First, on the question of whether the juror's motion should be redacted and/or docketed, and now on its procedural and substantive merits in the context of briefing the Defendant's Motion for a New Trial. Id. All of those actions involve performance of the judicial function and the judicial process. Nor does the fact that the Court has deferred considering and/or ruling on Juror No. 50's motion affect its status as a \"judicial document\". Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 121 (2d. Cir. 2006) (rejecting the argument that \"until a district court knows the disposition of the underlying motion, any attempt at calling something a judicial document is premature\"). Moreover, because the proceedings noted above reflect that Juror 50's motion is \"directly affect[ing] the adjudication\" of this case, the public's presumption of access to it is especially high. United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1049 (2d Cir. 1995) (\"Amodeo II\"). The presumption is likewise strong because the juror's motion affects both the juror's and the parties' legal rights. Id. Those include whether Juror 50 is afforded standing to be heard and, more broadly, the issues being briefed related to the Defendant's request for a new trial. And while Juror 50's motion is under temporary seal, the posture of this case illustrates why there is a 4863-7911-5787v.1 0019918-000033 DOJ-OGR-00008844",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 587 Filed 01/27/22 Page 2 of 4 January 24, 2022 Page 2",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "For example, Juror 50's motion was submitted after the Court ordered counsel for the juror to submit any briefing on the appropriateness of an inquiry. Dkt. Nos. 571, 573. The juror's submission prompted two Orders by the Court in which it reached conclusions about whether it should consider Juror 50's motion before or after it addresses the question of whether an inquiry should be permitted, which may also affect whether Juror 50 has standing to be heard on that question. Dkt. Nos. 575, 576. At the Court's direction it would also appear that the juror's motion is the subject of multiple rounds of briefing by the parties: First, on the question of whether the juror's motion should be redacted and/or docketed, and now on its procedural and substantive merits in the context of briefing the Defendant's Motion for a New Trial. Id. All of those actions involve performance of the judicial function and the judicial process. Nor does the fact that the Court has deferred considering and/or ruling on Juror No. 50's motion affect its status as a \"judicial document\". Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 121 (2d. Cir. 2006) (rejecting the argument that \"until a district court knows the disposition of the underlying motion, any attempt at calling something a judicial document is premature\"). Moreover, because the proceedings noted above reflect that Juror 50's motion is \"directly affect[ing] the adjudication\" of this case, the public's presumption of access to it is especially high. United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1049 (2d Cir. 1995) (\"Amodeo II\"). The presumption is likewise strong because the juror's motion affects both the juror's and the parties' legal rights. Id. Those include whether Juror 50 is afforded standing to be heard and, more broadly, the issues being briefed related to the Defendant's request for a new trial. And while Juror 50's motion is under temporary seal, the posture of this case illustrates why there is a",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "4863-7911-5787v.1 0019918-000033 DOJ-OGR-00008844",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [
      "Onondaga"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "January 24, 2022",
      "01/27/22",
      "2006",
      "1995"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "587",
      "571",
      "573",
      "575",
      "576",
      "4863-7911-5787v.1 0019918-000033",
      "DOJ-OGR-00008844"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document is from a legal proceeding and includes references to specific court documents and legal precedents."
}