mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES001/DOJ-OGR-00002899.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "10 of 11",
    "document_number": "195",
    "date": "04/05/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "unnecessary delay and disruption that will occur if the Government only learns of the existence of such material during trial—the Government seeks disclosure of any records obtained in response to such a subpoena. At a minimum, the Court should order production of subpoena returns directly to the Court, so it may screen out irrelevant or improper information and determine whether any materials should be made available to the Government as well as the defendant.\n\nSecond, the Court should direct that any material obtained pursuant to a Rule 17 subpoena be marked confidential and subject to the protective order. As noted above, the BSF subpoena appears to call for a substantial amount of sensitive personal information about victims. For instance, according to the letter from BSF, the subpoena to BSF requests the “original, complete copy” of a victim’s diary. (Letter from BSF to the Court at 5, Dkt. No. 191). To the extent the defendant has obtained or will obtain sensitive information about victims or witnesses, it should be treated as “confidential” under the protective order much like other such information in this case.",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "unnecessary delay and disruption that will occur if the Government only learns of the existence of such material during trial—the Government seeks disclosure of any records obtained in response to such a subpoena. At a minimum, the Court should order production of subpoena returns directly to the Court, so it may screen out irrelevant or improper information and determine whether any materials should be made available to the Government as well as the defendant.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Second, the Court should direct that any material obtained pursuant to a Rule 17 subpoena be marked confidential and subject to the protective order. As noted above, the BSF subpoena appears to call for a substantial amount of sensitive personal information about victims. For instance, according to the letter from BSF, the subpoena to BSF requests the “original, complete copy” of a victim’s diary. (Letter from BSF to the Court at 5, Dkt. No. 191). To the extent the defendant has obtained or will obtain sensitive information about victims or witnesses, it should be treated as “confidential” under the protective order much like other such information in this case.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00002899",
      "position": "bottom"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "victims",
      "witnesses",
      "defendant"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government",
      "BSF",
      "Court"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "04/05/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "195",
      "191",
      "DOJ-OGR-00002899"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is well-formatted and easy to read. There are no visible redactions or damage to the document."
}