mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00003555.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "6",
    "document_number": "204-9",
    "date": "04/16/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204-9 Filed 04/16/21 Page 6 of 6\nPage 6\nChemical Bank, 154 F.R.D. at 94 (describing such materials a \"technological trade secrets, currently sensitive customer lists, or contemporarily sensitive competitive information which could benefit rivals\"). Rather, the Government seeks materials that relate to among the gravest criminal offenses it investigates—the sexual exploitation of minors—which materials, if revealed, would tend to inculpate and/or embarrass some parties to the Protective Order. Indeed, by the very terms of the Protective Order, the confidential materials appear to be of the category for which \"[a]voiding embarrassment . . . is not by itself a valid reason for courts to uphold confidentiality as against a legitimate law enforcement need for the information.\" Id.; see also Prot. Order at 2 (designating as \"confidential\" information \"whose public release would violate common law and statutory privacy interests\"). \"Aside from those restrictions [laid down by the Fourth or Fifth Amendment or applicable statutes], hiding possible criminal violations from law enforcement authorities is hardly a ground for judicial protection of confidentiality.\" Chemical Bank, 15 F.R.D. at 94.\nFinally, this is unlike a case in which the contours of the civil litigation are publicly apparent. Cf. Subpoena Duces Tecum, 945 F.2d at 1223 (noting that a \"lengthy report\" of the bankruptcy examination in that case \"was made available to the public\"). In Subpoena Duces Tecum, for example, not only was the government apparently unconcerned with the confidentiality of the grand jury investigation, but the government knew from a lengthy public report precisely what it might replicate through a grand jury investigation. Id. Not so with respect to the Litigation, which resulted in no such report, no trial, and limited public filings.\nFor all of these reasons, and for the reasons set forth in the Application, the Government respectfully requests that the Court grant the Application.\nRespectfully submitted,\nGEOFFREY S. BERMAN\nUnited States Attorney\nBy: Alex Rossmiller\nAssistant United States Attorney\nTel.: (212) 637-2415\nEnclosure\nCONFIDENTIAL\nSDNY_GM_00000924\nDOJ-OGR-00003555",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204-9 Filed 04/16/21 Page 6 of 6",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Page 6",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Chemical Bank, 154 F.R.D. at 94 (describing such materials a \"technological trade secrets, currently sensitive customer lists, or contemporarily sensitive competitive information which could benefit rivals\"). Rather, the Government seeks materials that relate to among the gravest criminal offenses it investigates—the sexual exploitation of minors—which materials, if revealed, would tend to inculpate and/or embarrass some parties to the Protective Order. Indeed, by the very terms of the Protective Order, the confidential materials appear to be of the category for which \"[a]voiding embarrassment . . . is not by itself a valid reason for courts to uphold confidentiality as against a legitimate law enforcement need for the information.\" Id.; see also Prot. Order at 2 (designating as \"confidential\" information \"whose public release would violate common law and statutory privacy interests\"). \"Aside from those restrictions [laid down by the Fourth or Fifth Amendment or applicable statutes], hiding possible criminal violations from law enforcement authorities is hardly a ground for judicial protection of confidentiality.\" Chemical Bank, 15 F.R.D. at 94.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Finally, this is unlike a case in which the contours of the civil litigation are publicly apparent. Cf. Subpoena Duces Tecum, 945 F.2d at 1223 (noting that a \"lengthy report\" of the bankruptcy examination in that case \"was made available to the public\"). In Subpoena Duces Tecum, for example, not only was the government apparently unconcerned with the confidentiality of the grand jury investigation, but the government knew from a lengthy public report precisely what it might replicate through a grand jury investigation. Id. Not so with respect to the Litigation, which resulted in no such report, no trial, and limited public filings.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "For all of these reasons, and for the reasons set forth in the Application, the Government respectfully requests that the Court grant the Application.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Respectfully submitted,",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "GEOFFREY S. BERMAN\nUnited States Attorney",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "signature",
      "content": "Alex Rossmiller",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "By: Alex Rossmiller\nAssistant United States Attorney\nTel.: (212) 637-2415",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Enclosure",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "CONFIDENTIAL",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SDNY_GM_00000924",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003555",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "GEOFFREY S. BERMAN",
      "Alex Rossmiller"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States Attorney"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "04/16/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "204-9",
      "SDNY_GM_00000924",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003555"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a confidential designation. The text is mostly printed, with one signature present. There are no visible stamps or handwritten annotations."
}