mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES001/DOJ-OGR-00001766.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "4",
    "document_number": "54",
    "date": "09/08/20",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 54 Filed 09/08/20 Page 4 of 6\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nAugust 24, 2020\nPage 4\nthat matter: .\nThe government does not explain, because they cannot, how it will harm an ongoing criminal investigation to reveal the sealed materials under seal to two arbiters: . Clearly those judicial officers are fully capable of maintaining files under seal and confidences. Nor is there any support for the argument that this limited request will \"permit dissemination of a vast swath of materials.\" Resp. at 3. The slippery slope contention is belied by the limited nature of Ms. Maxwell's request. The sealed materials are a discrete set of judicial documents, not a \"vast swath of materials,\" and Ms. Maxwell seeks to file them under seal for those Courts to use in their determinations. Hyperbole aside, the request is appropriately limited.\nFurther, the government's suggestion that \"there is no impediment to counsel making sealed applications to Court-1 and Court-2, respectively, to unseal the relevant materials\" is, at best, baffling. Resp. at 3 n.5. Such a \"sealed application\" in furtherance of her Civil Litigation would be \"using\" the materials for the civil case, exactly the conduct proscribed by the Protective Order here. If the Court disagrees, Ms. Maxwell is more than happy to make such sealed applications to those judicial officers. The government does not explain its thinking, nor did the government suggest this course of action during the conferral process.\nThe Sealed Materials Are Important to\nFourth, the government decries the sealed materials' lack of relevance to\n2 Ms. Maxwell strenuously opposes the government's suggestion that it \"further elaborate on the nature of the ongoing grand jury investigation\" in a supplemental ex parte and sealed pleading. This Court is overseeing the criminal case pertaining to Ms. Maxwell and any ex parte pleading concerning this case to this judicial officer is inappropriate. See Standard 3-3.3 Relationship with Courts, Defense Counsel and Others, \"Criminal Justice Standards for the Prosecution Function,\" American Bar Ass'n (4th ed. 2017) (\"A prosecutor should not engage in unauthorized ex parte discussions with, or submission of material to, a judge relating to a particular matter which is, or is likely to be, before the judge.\")\nDOJ-OGR-00001766",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 54 Filed 09/08/20 Page 4 of 6",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nAugust 24, 2020\nPage 4",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "that matter: .",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The government does not explain, because they cannot, how it will harm an ongoing criminal investigation to reveal the sealed materials under seal to two arbiters: . Clearly those judicial officers are fully capable of maintaining files under seal and confidences. Nor is there any support for the argument that this limited request will \"permit dissemination of a vast swath of materials.\" Resp. at 3. The slippery slope contention is belied by the limited nature of Ms. Maxwell's request. The sealed materials are a discrete set of judicial documents, not a \"vast swath of materials,\" and Ms. Maxwell seeks to file them under seal for those Courts to use in their determinations. Hyperbole aside, the request is appropriately limited.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Further, the government's suggestion that \"there is no impediment to counsel making sealed applications to Court-1 and Court-2, respectively, to unseal the relevant materials\" is, at best, baffling. Resp. at 3 n.5. Such a \"sealed application\" in furtherance of her Civil Litigation would be \"using\" the materials for the civil case, exactly the conduct proscribed by the Protective Order here. If the Court disagrees, Ms. Maxwell is more than happy to make such sealed applications to those judicial officers. The government does not explain its thinking, nor did the government suggest this course of action during the conferral process.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Sealed Materials Are Important to",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Fourth, the government decries the sealed materials' lack of relevance to",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2 Ms. Maxwell strenuously opposes the government's suggestion that it \"further elaborate on the nature of the ongoing grand jury investigation\" in a supplemental ex parte and sealed pleading. This Court is overseeing the criminal case pertaining to Ms. Maxwell and any ex parte pleading concerning this case to this judicial officer is inappropriate. See Standard 3-3.3 Relationship with Courts, Defense Counsel and Others, \"Criminal Justice Standards for the Prosecution Function,\" American Bar Ass'n (4th ed. 2017) (\"A prosecutor should not engage in unauthorized ex parte discussions with, or submission of material to, a judge relating to a particular matter which is, or is likely to be, before the judge.\")",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00001766",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Alison J. Nathan",
      "Ms. Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "American Bar Ass'n",
      "DOJ"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "August 24, 2020",
      "09/08/20"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "Document 54",
      "DOJ-OGR-00001766"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document contains redactions, likely due to the sensitive nature of the content. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps."
}