mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008909.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "1 of 7",
    "document_number": "596",
    "date": "02/11/22",
    "document_type": "Court Order",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": true
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 596 Filed 02/11/22 Page 1 of 7\n\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\nUnited States of America,\n\n-v-\n\nGhislaine Maxwell,\n\nDefendant.\n\n20-CR-330 (AJN)\n\nORDER\n\nALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:\n\nThe Court is in receipt of the parties' letters addressing the Defendant's request to temporarily seal her motion for a new trial and accompanying exhibits, and the Government's response in opposition and accompanying exhibits. See Dkt. Nos. 590, 594, 595. Several media organizations have also filed letters seeking unsealing. The Court is also in receipt of Juror 50's motion to intervene. Both the Government and the Defendant oppose intervention. The Defendant seeks to strike or, in the alternative, seal Juror 50's motion.\n\nFor the reasons outlined more fully below, the Court rules as follows. First, the Defendant's motion to temporarily seal in their entirety all documents related to the motion for a new trial is DENIED. Any sealing of judicial documents must be narrowly tailored to serve competing interests. In this case, important interests include preserving the integrity of any inquiry process going forward as well as protecting juror anonymity and privacy. Protection of these interests, however, can plainly be accomplished through tailored redactions. Following the Court's resolution of the Defendant's motion or a hearing, if one is ordered, all redactions will be promptly unsealed except those necessary to protect any continuing interest in juror anonymity and privacy.\n\n1\n\nDOJ-OGR-00008909",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 596 Filed 02/11/22 Page 1 of 7",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "United States of America,\n\n-v-\n\nGhislaine Maxwell,\n\nDefendant.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "stamp",
      "content": "USDC SDNY\nDOCUMENT\nELECTRONICALLY FILED\nDOC #:\nDATE FILED: 2/11/22",
      "position": "margin"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "20-CR-330 (AJN)\n\nORDER",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:\n\nThe Court is in receipt of the parties' letters addressing the Defendant's request to temporarily seal her motion for a new trial and accompanying exhibits, and the Government's response in opposition and accompanying exhibits. See Dkt. Nos. 590, 594, 595. Several media organizations have also filed letters seeking unsealing. The Court is also in receipt of Juror 50's motion to intervene. Both the Government and the Defendant oppose intervention. The Defendant seeks to strike or, in the alternative, seal Juror 50's motion.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "For the reasons outlined more fully below, the Court rules as follows. First, the Defendant's motion to temporarily seal in their entirety all documents related to the motion for a new trial is DENIED. Any sealing of judicial documents must be narrowly tailored to serve competing interests. In this case, important interests include preserving the integrity of any inquiry process going forward as well as protecting juror anonymity and privacy. Protection of these interests, however, can plainly be accomplished through tailored redactions. Following the Court's resolution of the Defendant's motion or a hearing, if one is ordered, all redactions will be promptly unsealed except those necessary to protect any continuing interest in juror anonymity and privacy.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00008909",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ghislaine Maxwell",
      "Alison J. Nathan",
      "Juror 50"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States of America",
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "02/11/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 596",
      "20-CR-330 (AJN)",
      "Dkt. Nos. 590, 594, 595"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document is a court order from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. It appears to be a formal and official document, with no visible redactions or damage."
}