mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008894.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "2",
    "document_number": "594",
    "date": "02/04/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 594 Filed 02/04/22 Page 2 of 5\nPage 2\ndetermining the weight of the presumption of access, the court must balance any countervailing factors against the presumption. Id. at 120. Factors to be considered vary and “include but are not limited to ‘the danger of impairing law enforcement or judicial efficiency’ and ‘the privacy interests of those resisting disclosure.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1050-51 (2d Cir. 1995)).\nThe defendant states that the Defense Motion “is a ‘judicial document’ that is subject to a strong presumption of access under both the First Amendment and the common law.” (Dkt. No. 590, Def. Letter at 4). The Government agrees. However, the defendant argues that the Court should order the Defense Motion and its exhibits to remain temporarily sealed until the Court rules on her motion or until the conclusion of any hearing ordered by the Court. (Id. at 9). The defendant contends that such relief is warranted because public filing of the Defense Motion will “frustrate the truth-seeking process of any factual inquiry ordered by the Court.” (Id. at 3). The Government disagrees.\nThe defendant asserts that publicly docketing the Defense Motion “will give Juror 50 an improper preview of information he does not have and should never have.” (Id. at 2). That concern is unfounded. The Defense Motion, as a general matter, contains discussion of some of the relevant case law and information about statements reportedly made by Juror 50 in the news media. There can be no need to hide from public view a discussion of public materials. Moreover, the defense’s suggestion that her defense briefing contains information from some significant investigation into Juror 50 is not accurate; the motion does not contain any significant material that is not otherwise public. Finally, to the extent the defense objects to unsealing Juror 50’s questionnaire, which is an exhibit to their motion, that questionnaire is a document that Juror 50 himself prepared, and which he would of course be shown during any fact finding inquiry.\nDOJ-OGR-00008894",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 594 Filed 02/04/22 Page 2 of 5",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Page 2",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "determining the weight of the presumption of access, the court must balance any countervailing factors against the presumption. Id. at 120. Factors to be considered vary and “include but are not limited to ‘the danger of impairing law enforcement or judicial efficiency’ and ‘the privacy interests of those resisting disclosure.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1050-51 (2d Cir. 1995)).",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The defendant states that the Defense Motion “is a ‘judicial document’ that is subject to a strong presumption of access under both the First Amendment and the common law.” (Dkt. No. 590, Def. Letter at 4). The Government agrees. However, the defendant argues that the Court should order the Defense Motion and its exhibits to remain temporarily sealed until the Court rules on her motion or until the conclusion of any hearing ordered by the Court. (Id. at 9). The defendant contends that such relief is warranted because public filing of the Defense Motion will “frustrate the truth-seeking process of any factual inquiry ordered by the Court.” (Id. at 3). The Government disagrees.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The defendant asserts that publicly docketing the Defense Motion “will give Juror 50 an improper preview of information he does not have and should never have.” (Id. at 2). That concern is unfounded. The Defense Motion, as a general matter, contains discussion of some of the relevant case law and information about statements reportedly made by Juror 50 in the news media. There can be no need to hide from public view a discussion of public materials. Moreover, the defense’s suggestion that her defense briefing contains information from some significant investigation into Juror 50 is not accurate; the motion does not contain any significant material that is not otherwise public. Finally, to the extent the defense objects to unsealing Juror 50’s questionnaire, which is an exhibit to their motion, that questionnaire is a document that Juror 50 himself prepared, and which he would of course be shown during any fact finding inquiry.",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00008894",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "02/04/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "594",
      "590",
      "DOJ-OGR-00008894"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 2 of a 5-page document."
}