mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00003036.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "102 of 239",
    "document_number": "204",
    "date": "04/16/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 102 of 239\n2016 deposition transcript. (See 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP), Dkt. No. 1077). Maxwell appealed Judge Preska's order, arguing that the court abused its discretion in ordering the unsealing of the deposition materials and that Maxwell's interests outweighed the public's interests in access to the materials. Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 20-2413 (2d Cir.), (Dkt. No. 140-1 at 2). On October 19, 2020, the Second Circuit found that Judge Preska \"correctly held that the deposition materials are judicial documents to which the presumption of public access attaches, and did not abuse its discretion in rejecting Maxwell's meritless arguments that her interests superseded the presumption of access.\" (Id. at 3).\nOn October 22, 2020, Maxwell's April 2016 deposition was publicly filed. (See 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP), Dkt. No. 1137-13).\nOn January 27, 2021, a redacted version of Maxwell's July 2016 deposition was publicly filed. (See 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP), Dkt. No. 1201-14). On February 11, 2021, another version of the July 2016 deposition was publicly filed with fewer redactions. (See 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP), Dkt. No. 1212-1).\n9. The New York Daily News Article\nOn October 13, 2020, the New York Daily News published an article describing the February 29, 2016 meeting (the \"Daily News Article\" or the \"Article\").35 The Article stated, among other things, that defense attorneys representing victims of Epstein and Maxwell \"urged\" the USAO-SDNY to \"open an investigation of the duo\" during that meeting. Citing two anonymous sources, the Article described the defense attorneys' alleged efforts to \"pique the Government's interest \"in a second meeting in the summer of 2016 after Maxwell allegedly\n35 See Stephen Rex Brown, Manhattan federal prosecutors declined to pursue Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell case in 2016: sources, New York Daily News, Oct. 13, 2020, https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny-jeffrey-epstein-maxwell-case-20201013-jmzhl7zdrzdgrbbs7yc6bfnszu-story.html.\n75\nDOJ-OGR-00003036",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 102 of 239",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2016 deposition transcript. (See 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP), Dkt. No. 1077). Maxwell appealed Judge Preska's order, arguing that the court abused its discretion in ordering the unsealing of the deposition materials and that Maxwell's interests outweighed the public's interests in access to the materials. Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 20-2413 (2d Cir.), (Dkt. No. 140-1 at 2). On October 19, 2020, the Second Circuit found that Judge Preska \"correctly held that the deposition materials are judicial documents to which the presumption of public access attaches, and did not abuse its discretion in rejecting Maxwell's meritless arguments that her interests superseded the presumption of access.\" (Id. at 3).\nOn October 22, 2020, Maxwell's April 2016 deposition was publicly filed. (See 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP), Dkt. No. 1137-13).\nOn January 27, 2021, a redacted version of Maxwell's July 2016 deposition was publicly filed. (See 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP), Dkt. No. 1201-14). On February 11, 2021, another version of the July 2016 deposition was publicly filed with fewer redactions. (See 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP), Dkt. No. 1212-1).",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "9. The New York Daily News Article\nOn October 13, 2020, the New York Daily News published an article describing the February 29, 2016 meeting (the \"Daily News Article\" or the \"Article\").35 The Article stated, among other things, that defense attorneys representing victims of Epstein and Maxwell \"urged\" the USAO-SDNY to \"open an investigation of the duo\" during that meeting. Citing two anonymous sources, the Article described the defense attorneys' alleged efforts to \"pique the Government's interest \"in a second meeting in the summer of 2016 after Maxwell allegedly",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "35 See Stephen Rex Brown, Manhattan federal prosecutors declined to pursue Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell case in 2016: sources, New York Daily News, Oct. 13, 2020, https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny-jeffrey-epstein-maxwell-case-20201013-jmzhl7zdrzdgrbbs7yc6bfnszu-story.html.",
      "position": "footnote"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "75",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003036",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell",
      "Preska",
      "Epstein",
      "Jeffrey Epstein",
      "Ghislaine Maxwell",
      "Stephen Rex Brown"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Second Circuit",
      "USAO-SDNY",
      "New York Daily News"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Manhattan",
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "2016",
      "October 19, 2020",
      "October 22, 2020",
      "January 27, 2021",
      "February 11, 2021",
      "February 29, 2016",
      "October 13, 2020",
      "April 2016",
      "July 2016"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "15 Civ. 7433 (LAP)",
      "Dkt. No. 1077",
      "No. 20-2413 (2d Cir.)",
      "Dkt. No. 140-1",
      "Dkt. No. 1137-13",
      "Dkt. No. 1201-14",
      "Dkt. No. 1212-1",
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 204"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ghislaine Maxwell. The text is mostly printed, with some footnotes and a URL. There are no visible stamps or handwritten text."
}