mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES001/DOJ-OGR-00002204.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "1",
    "document_number": "101",
    "date": "12/23/20",
    "document_type": "Court Order",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": true
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 101 Filed 12/23/20 Page 1 of 2\nUSDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: DATE FILED: 12/23/20\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\nUnited States of America,\n-v-\nGhislaine Maxwell,\nDefendant.\n20-CR-330 (AJN)\nORDER\nALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:\nOn December 18, 2020, the Defendant filed her reply to the Government's opposition to her renewed application for bail. In accordance with this Court's December 7, 2020 Order, see Dkt. No. 89, she filed these materials under seal and proposed narrowly tailored redactions on those materials. The Government did not file any opposition to the Defendant's proposed redactions.\nThe Court will adopt the Defendant's proposed redactions after applying the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Under this test, the Court must: (i) determine whether the documents in question are \"judicial documents;\" (ii) assess the weight of the common law presumption of access to the materials; and (iii) balance competing considerations against the presumption of access. Id. at 119-20. \"Such countervailing factors include but are not limited to 'the danger of impairing law enforcement or judicial efficiency' and 'the privacy interests of those resisting disclosure.'\" Id. at 120 (quoting United States v. Amodeo (\"Amodeo II\"), 71 F.3d 1044, 1050 (2d Cir. 1995)).\nThe proposed redactions satisfy this test. The Court finds that the Defendant's submissions are \"relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process,\" thereby qualifying as a \"judicial document\" for purposes of the first element of the\n1\nDOJ-OGR-00002204",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 101 Filed 12/23/20 Page 1 of 2",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "stamp",
      "content": "USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: DATE FILED: 12/23/20",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "United States of America, -v- Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "20-CR-330 (AJN) ORDER",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: On December 18, 2020, the Defendant filed her reply to the Government's opposition to her renewed application for bail. In accordance with this Court's December 7, 2020 Order, see Dkt. No. 89, she filed these materials under seal and proposed narrowly tailored redactions on those materials. The Government did not file any opposition to the Defendant's proposed redactions.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Court will adopt the Defendant's proposed redactions after applying the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Under this test, the Court must: (i) determine whether the documents in question are \"judicial documents;\" (ii) assess the weight of the common law presumption of access to the materials; and (iii) balance competing considerations against the presumption of access. Id. at 119-20. \"Such countervailing factors include but are not limited to 'the danger of impairing law enforcement or judicial efficiency' and 'the privacy interests of those resisting disclosure.'\" Id. at 120 (quoting United States v. Amodeo (\"Amodeo II\"), 71 F.3d 1044, 1050 (2d Cir. 1995)).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The proposed redactions satisfy this test. The Court finds that the Defendant's submissions are \"relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process,\" thereby qualifying as a \"judicial document\" for purposes of the first element of the",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00002204",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ghislaine Maxwell",
      "Alison J. Nathan"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States District Court",
      "Second Circuit"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York",
      "Onondaga"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "December 18, 2020",
      "December 7, 2020",
      "12/23/20"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "Document 101",
      "Dkt. No. 89",
      "20-CR-330 (AJN)"
    ]
  },
  "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 legal document with proper formatting and citations. There are no visible redactions or damage on the provided page."
}