mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00004739.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "3",
    "document_number": "298",
    "date": "06/04/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 298 Filed 06/04/21 Page 3 of 6\nrepresented that it understands that Minor Victim-2 stopped writing in the diary shortly after meeting Jeffrey Epstein and that the diary, as a result, has no entries relating to any later trips she took with Epstein. Dkt. No. 204 at 187. Maxwell does not provide any nonconclusory basis to doubt these representations. So while it is undisputed that Maxwell is not referenced in the diary—BSF, the Government, and Maxwell all agree on this point—the absence of references alone, without regard to whether the diary contains entries relevant to the incidents about which Minor Victim-2 is expected to testify at trial, does not establish any relevance except as to potential impeachment.\nNor do any of Maxwell's additional arguments establish the relevance of the rest of the journal. She points to the fairness doctrine and Rules 106 and Rule 612 of the Federal Rules of Evidence as providing additional bases for the propriety of the request under Rule 17(c). She cites cases regarding the fairness doctrine in the context of attorney-client privilege that have no application to the issue presently before the Court. Furthermore, to the extent she makes an argument under Rule 106 or Rule 612, the argument is premature. Even assuming that Rule 106 and Rule 612 could provide grounds for admissibility and relevance at trial, that would only ripen at trial if portions of the journal are introduced and admitted. Her Rule 612 argument is further strained by the fact that, even if that rule applied, it would not entitle the Defendant to production of the entire journal. The Rule provides that \"[i]f the producing party claims that the writing includes unrelated matter, the court must examine the writing in camera, delete any unrelated portion, and order that the rest be delivered to the adverse party.\" Fed. R. Evid. 612(b). Here, both the Government and BSF, on behalf of Minor Victim-2, have asserted that the rest of the journal is unrelated. In any event, none of these principles establish the relevance of the journal beyond impeachment, and all of the arguments presented to the contrary are\n3\nDOJ-OGR-00004739",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 298 Filed 06/04/21 Page 3 of 6",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "represented that it understands that Minor Victim-2 stopped writing in the diary shortly after meeting Jeffrey Epstein and that the diary, as a result, has no entries relating to any later trips she took with Epstein. Dkt. No. 204 at 187. Maxwell does not provide any nonconclusory basis to doubt these representations. So while it is undisputed that Maxwell is not referenced in the diary—BSF, the Government, and Maxwell all agree on this point—the absence of references alone, without regard to whether the diary contains entries relevant to the incidents about which Minor Victim-2 is expected to testify at trial, does not establish any relevance except as to potential impeachment.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Nor do any of Maxwell's additional arguments establish the relevance of the rest of the journal. She points to the fairness doctrine and Rules 106 and Rule 612 of the Federal Rules of Evidence as providing additional bases for the propriety of the request under Rule 17(c). She cites cases regarding the fairness doctrine in the context of attorney-client privilege that have no application to the issue presently before the Court. Furthermore, to the extent she makes an argument under Rule 106 or Rule 612, the argument is premature. Even assuming that Rule 106 and Rule 612 could provide grounds for admissibility and relevance at trial, that would only ripen at trial if portions of the journal are introduced and admitted. Her Rule 612 argument is further strained by the fact that, even if that rule applied, it would not entitle the Defendant to production of the entire journal. The Rule provides that \"[i]f the producing party claims that the writing includes unrelated matter, the court must examine the writing in camera, delete any unrelated portion, and order that the rest be delivered to the adverse party.\" Fed. R. Evid. 612(b). Here, both the Government and BSF, on behalf of Minor Victim-2, have asserted that the rest of the journal is unrelated. In any event, none of these principles establish the relevance of the journal beyond impeachment, and all of the arguments presented to the contrary are",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "3",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00004739",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Jeffrey Epstein",
      "Minor Victim-2",
      "Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government",
      "BSF",
      "Court"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "06/04/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 298",
      "Dkt. No. 204",
      "DOJ-OGR-00004739"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The text discusses the relevance of a diary kept by Minor Victim-2 and the arguments presented by Maxwell's defense team. The document is a printed court filing with no handwritten text or stamps."
}