mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00004787.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "3",
    "document_number": "307",
    "date": "06/25/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 307 Filed 06/25/21 Page 3 of 21\n\nFollowing entry of the protective order, Maxwell testified in two depositions in the civil case. The parties designated the depositions as confidential under the protective order. Counts five and six of the S1 superseding indictment in this case (and counts seven and eight of the S2 superseding indictment) charge that Maxwell made false statements under oath in each of the depositions.\n\nThe Government represents that the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York formally opened its investigation into Epstein on November 30, 2018, following a series of articles in the Miami Herald about Epstein's conduct and the lenient plea deal he received in the Southern District of Florida. The same day, the AUSA who attended the February 2016 meeting forwarded the emails she received from attorneys in the civil case to the prosecutors working on the fledgling investigation. There is no indication that she was involved in the decision to begin the investigation into Epstein in 2018.\n\nAbout two months later, the Government served a grand jury subpoena on BSF seeking to obtain documents for its investigation of Epstein. BSF informed the Government that many of the requested documents fell under the protective order. The Government then applied for an ex parte order modifying the protective order to allow BSF to comply with the subpoena. The Government made a second, similar application in connection with a protective order in a different case.\n\nThe judge who presided over the civil case passed away in March 2019, and so then-Chief Judge McMahon heard the Government's ex parte application. In a hearing on March 26, 2019, Judge McMahon explained that she believed the Second Circuit's decision in Martindell v. International Telephone & Telegraph Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979), governed the Government's application. Martindell held that a party should not provide documents subject to",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 307 Filed 06/25/21 Page 3 of 21",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Following entry of the protective order, Maxwell testified in two depositions in the civil case. The parties designated the depositions as confidential under the protective order. Counts five and six of the S1 superseding indictment in this case (and counts seven and eight of the S2 superseding indictment) charge that Maxwell made false statements under oath in each of the depositions.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Government represents that the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York formally opened its investigation into Epstein on November 30, 2018, following a series of articles in the Miami Herald about Epstein's conduct and the lenient plea deal he received in the Southern District of Florida. The same day, the AUSA who attended the February 2016 meeting forwarded the emails she received from attorneys in the civil case to the prosecutors working on the fledgling investigation. There is no indication that she was involved in the decision to begin the investigation into Epstein in 2018.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "About two months later, the Government served a grand jury subpoena on BSF seeking to obtain documents for its investigation of Epstein. BSF informed the Government that many of the requested documents fell under the protective order. The Government then applied for an ex parte order modifying the protective order to allow BSF to comply with the subpoena. The Government made a second, similar application in connection with a protective order in a different case.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The judge who presided over the civil case passed away in March 2019, and so then-Chief Judge McMahon heard the Government's ex parte application. In a hearing on March 26, 2019, Judge McMahon explained that she believed the Second Circuit's decision in Martindell v. International Telephone & Telegraph Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979), governed the Government's application. Martindell held that a party should not provide documents subject to",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00004787",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell",
      "Epstein",
      "McMahon"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Office of the U.S. Attorney",
      "Miami Herald",
      "BSF"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York",
      "Florida",
      "Southern District of New York",
      "Southern District of Florida"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "November 30, 2018",
      "February 2016",
      "2018",
      "March 2019",
      "March 26, 2019",
      "1979",
      "06/25/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 307",
      "S1",
      "S2",
      "594 F.2d 291"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case against Maxwell. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 3 of 21."
}