mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES007/DOJ-OGR-00019409.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "10",
    "document_number": "60",
    "date": "09/24/2020",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 20-3061, Document 60, 09/24/2020, 2938278, Page10 of 58\nJudge Preska, who, after the passing of Judge Sweet, was assigned to preside over the remand from this Court in Brown to decide what material protected by the civil protective order should remain sealed.1\nrepeatedly downplayed and dismissed arguments made by Ms. Maxwell that the material should remain sealed because of the potential for a criminal investigation. Doc. 17, pp 4-5; Doc. 20, p 2.2 For example, when Ms. Maxwell moved to stay discovery in Farmer v. Indyke, No. 19-cv-10475 (LGS-DCF) (S.D.N.Y.), due to the pending criminal investigation, Ms. Giuffre's attorneys (who also represented plaintiff Annie Farmer) opposed the motion on the ground that Ms. Maxwell could not show the existence or scope of\n1\n2 Citations to “Doc.” are to documents filed in this appeal and publicly available on ECF.\nCitation's to “ECF Dkt.” are to the ECF documents filed in related cases as described in the individual citations.\n5\nDOJ-OGR-00019409",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 20-3061, Document 60, 09/24/2020, 2938278, Page10 of 58",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Judge Preska, who, after the passing of Judge Sweet, was assigned to preside over the remand from this Court in Brown to decide what material protected by the civil protective order should remain sealed.1",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "repeatedly downplayed and dismissed arguments made by Ms. Maxwell that the material should remain sealed because of the potential for a criminal investigation. Doc. 17, pp 4-5; Doc. 20, p 2.2 For example, when Ms. Maxwell moved to stay discovery in Farmer v. Indyke, No. 19-cv-10475 (LGS-DCF) (S.D.N.Y.), due to the pending criminal investigation, Ms. Giuffre's attorneys (who also represented plaintiff Annie Farmer) opposed the motion on the ground that Ms. Maxwell could not show the existence or scope of",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2 Citations to “Doc.” are to documents filed in this appeal and publicly available on ECF.\nCitation's to “ECF Dkt.” are to the ECF documents filed in related cases as described in the individual citations.",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "5",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00019409",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Judge Preska",
      "Judge Sweet",
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Ms. Giuffre",
      "Annie Farmer"
    ],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "09/24/2020"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "20-3061",
      "60",
      "2938278",
      "19-cv-10475",
      "DOJ-OGR-00019409"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with some redacted text. The redactions are likely due to sensitive information being protected by a civil protective order."
}