mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES001/DOJ-OGR-00002345.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "2",
    "document_number": "132",
    "date": "02/04/21",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": true,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 132 Filed 02/04/21 Page 2 of 2\nenforcement or judicial efficiency' and 'the privacy interests of those resisting disclosure.'\" Id. at 120 (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1050 (2d Cir. 1995) (\"Amodeo II\")).\n\nThe proposed redactions satisfy this test. The Court finds that Defendant's motions 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 Lugosch test. United States v. Amodeo (\"Amodeo I\"), 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995). And the Court also finds that the common law presumption of access attaches. Id. at 146; see also Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 602 (1978). Nevertheless, the proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to serve substantial interests. Most notably, these redactions are narrowly tailored to protect the Government's ongoing investigation. In addition, many of the Defendant's proposed redactions crucially serve the interest of protecting the personal privacy interests of third parties. See Under Seal v. Under Seal, 273 F. Supp. 3d 460, 467 (S.D.N.Y. 2017).\n\nThe Defendant is hereby ORDERED to docket the redacted documents and corresponding exhibits by no later than February 5, 2021. With respect to Motion 3, the Defendant is ORDERED to docket the version that includes the Government's proposed redactions in addition to her own.\n\nSO ORDERED.\n\nDated: February 4, 2021\nNew York, New York\n\nALISON J. NATHAN\nUnited States District Judge",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 132 Filed 02/04/21 Page 2 of 2",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "enforcement or judicial efficiency' and 'the privacy interests of those resisting disclosure.'\" Id. at 120 (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1050 (2d Cir. 1995) (\"Amodeo II\")).",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The proposed redactions satisfy this test. The Court finds that Defendant's motions 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 Lugosch test. United States v. Amodeo (\"Amodeo I\"), 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995). And the Court also finds that the common law presumption of access attaches. Id. at 146; see also Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 602 (1978). Nevertheless, the proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to serve substantial interests. Most notably, these redactions are narrowly tailored to protect the Government's ongoing investigation. In addition, many of the Defendant's proposed redactions crucially serve the interest of protecting the personal privacy interests of third parties. See Under Seal v. Under Seal, 273 F. Supp. 3d 460, 467 (S.D.N.Y. 2017).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Defendant is hereby ORDERED to docket the redacted documents and corresponding exhibits by no later than February 5, 2021. With respect to Motion 3, the Defendant is ORDERED to docket the version that includes the Government's proposed redactions in addition to her own.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SO ORDERED.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Dated: February 4, 2021\nNew York, New York",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "handwritten",
      "content": "Alison J. Nathan",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "ALISON J. NATHAN\nUnited States District Judge",
      "position": "bottom"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Alison J. Nathan"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States District Court"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "February 4, 2021",
      "February 5, 2021"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "Document 132"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document is a court order with a signature from the judge. The text is mostly printed, with a handwritten signature at the bottom."
}