mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES007/DOJ-OGR-00019436.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "37",
    "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, Page37 of 58\n\n\n\nFinally,\n\nAnd it shows that Judge Preska erred failing even to acknowledge or address Ms. Maxwell's reliance argument. Giuffre v. Maxwell, Case No. 20-2413, OB, p 24. Ms. Maxwell declined to invoke her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination during her two depositions. She made that decision relying on the civil protective order and this Court's decision in Martindell, which holds that absent a showing of improvidencne in the grant of a Rule 26(c) protective order or some extraordinary circumstance or compelling need, none of which appear here, a witness should be entitled to rely upon the enforceability of a protective order against any third parties, including the Government, and that such an order should not be vacated or modified merely to accommodate the Government's desire to inspect protected testimony for possible use in a criminal investigation, either as evidence or as the subject of a possible perjury charge.\n\n32\n\nDOJ-OGR-00019436",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 20-3061, Document 60, 09/24/2020, 2938278, Page37 of 58",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Finally,",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "And it shows that Judge Preska erred failing even to acknowledge or address Ms. Maxwell's reliance argument. Giuffre v. Maxwell, Case No. 20-2413, OB, p 24. Ms. Maxwell declined to invoke her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination during her two depositions. She made that decision relying on the civil protective order and this Court's decision in Martindell, which holds that absent a showing of improvidencne in the grant of a Rule 26(c) protective order or some extraordinary circumstance or compelling need, none of which appear here, a witness should be entitled to rely upon the enforceability of a protective order against any third parties, including the Government, and that such an order should not be vacated or modified merely to accommodate the Government's desire to inspect protected testimony for possible use in a criminal investigation, either as evidence or as the subject of a possible perjury charge.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "32",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00019436",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Judge Preska",
      "Ms. Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "09/24/2020"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "20-3061",
      "60",
      "2938278",
      "20-2413",
      "DOJ-OGR-00019436"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document contains redactions, indicated by black bars over certain text. The document appears to be a court filing related to the case Giuffre v. Maxwell."
}