mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00014666.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "8",
    "document_number": "769",
    "date": "08/10/22",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 769 Filed 08/10/22 Page 8 of 19 3099 LCLVMAXT\n1 MS. STERNHEIM: Thank you.\n2 THE COURT: Actually, counsel are aware of the identity of the jurors; so I'm comfortable with counsel seeing the note. And then I'll redact for purposes of public exhibit.\n3 MS. STERNHEIM: Judge, the primary reason is so that we can, as the parties, look at it and analyze it and, when you come down, be prepared to make the arguments. It has nothing to do with using it for any other purpose.\n4 THE COURT: No, I understand.\n5 Okay. So do you need these now or do you want --\n6 MS. STERNHEIM: We'd like to have copies.\n7 THE COURT: Of course.\n8 MS. STERNHEIM: But it's not as immediate.\n9 THE COURT: Okay. I will figure out who knows how to do a redaction.\n10 MS. MENNINGER: We're pretty good at it.\n11 MS. COMEY: Your Honor, it is true that the parties know the names of the jurors; so if the Court wanted to send an electronic copy of the note to the parties, the parties could redact it and then send a redacted version back to the Court.\n12 THE COURT: All right. We'll do that. Thank you.\n13 MS. COMEY: Thank you, your Honor.\n14 (Recess pending verdict)\n15 THE COURT: I have a note.\n16 We would like to end today at 5 p.m., deliberate from\n17 SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\n18 DOJ-OGR-00014666",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 769 Filed 08/10/22 Page 8 of 19 3099 LCLVMAXT",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 MS. STERNHEIM: Thank you.\n2 THE COURT: Actually, counsel are aware of the identity of the jurors; so I'm comfortable with counsel seeing the note. And then I'll redact for purposes of public exhibit.\n3 MS. STERNHEIM: Judge, the primary reason is so that we can, as the parties, look at it and analyze it and, when you come down, be prepared to make the arguments. It has nothing to do with using it for any other purpose.\n4 THE COURT: No, I understand.\n5 Okay. So do you need these now or do you want --\n6 MS. STERNHEIM: We'd like to have copies.\n7 THE COURT: Of course.\n8 MS. STERNHEIM: But it's not as immediate.\n9 THE COURT: Okay. I will figure out who knows how to do a redaction.\n10 MS. MENNINGER: We're pretty good at it.\n11 MS. COMEY: Your Honor, it is true that the parties know the names of the jurors; so if the Court wanted to send an electronic copy of the note to the parties, the parties could redact it and then send a redacted version back to the Court.\n12 THE COURT: All right. We'll do that. Thank you.\n13 MS. COMEY: Thank you, your Honor.\n14 (Recess pending verdict)\n15 THE COURT: I have a note.\n16 We would like to end today at 5 p.m., deliberate from",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00014666",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "MS. STERNHEIM",
      "THE COURT",
      "MS. MENNINGER",
      "MS. COMEY"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "769",
      "DOJ-OGR-00014666"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage to the document."
}