mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00013404.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "126",
    "document_number": "755",
    "date": "08/10/22",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 755 Filed 08/10/22 Page 126 of 262 1831\nLC8VMAX4 Rodgers - direct\n1 individuals. I plan on cross-examining to name individuals\n2 that are not going to link up to anybody who needs to be\n3 anonymized. The examples we just looked at are perfect\n4 examples. I don't see why that's not permissible.\n5 THE COURT: I was going to say, this struck me as\n6 overly redacted in any number of ways, including from the fact\n7 that you read from parts that are redacted. So I recognize\n8 it's labor, but this needs to be more narrowly tailored. I\n9 don't know why it wouldn't be permissible.\n10 MR. EVERDELL: That's my understanding too, your\n11 Honor.\n12 MS. COMEY: Your Honor, there was no particular reason\n13 why I wasn't referencing the names of those other people other\n14 than I didn't think that they were relevant to the question I\n15 was asking.\n16 So I have no objection to Mr. Everdell saying the\n17 names of other individuals, except for obviously those who have\n18 been granted anonymity by the Court.\n19 I also understand the Court's view on narrowly\n20 tailoring these redactions. That will be very time-intensive,\n21 your Honor. I would ask for permission to do that over the\n22 long weekend break that we have coming up.\n23 THE COURT: Okay. That's fine. Let's do that.\n24 Relatedly, the message pads, I think you only have one\n25 or two unredacted exemplars, but most of those -- other than\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00013404",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 755 Filed 08/10/22 Page 126 of 262 1831",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "LC8VMAX4 Rodgers - direct",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 individuals. I plan on cross-examining to name individuals\n2 that are not going to link up to anybody who needs to be\n3 anonymized. The examples we just looked at are perfect\n4 examples. I don't see why that's not permissible.\n5 THE COURT: I was going to say, this struck me as\n6 overly redacted in any number of ways, including from the fact\n7 that you read from parts that are redacted. So I recognize\n8 it's labor, but this needs to be more narrowly tailored. I\n9 don't know why it wouldn't be permissible.\n10 MR. EVERDELL: That's my understanding too, your\n11 Honor.\n12 MS. COMEY: Your Honor, there was no particular reason\n13 why I wasn't referencing the names of those other people other\n14 than I didn't think that they were relevant to the question I\n15 was asking.\n16 So I have no objection to Mr. Everdell saying the\n17 names of other individuals, except for obviously those who have\n18 been granted anonymity by the Court.\n19 I also understand the Court's view on narrowly\n20 tailoring these redactions. That will be very time-intensive,\n21 your Honor. I would ask for permission to do that over the\n22 long weekend break that we have coming up.\n23 THE COURT: Okay. That's fine. Let's do that.\n24 Relatedly, the message pads, I think you only have one\n25 or two unredacted exemplars, but most of those -- other than",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00013404",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "MR. EVERDELL",
      "MS. COMEY"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.",
      "THE COURT"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "755",
      "DOJ-OGR-00013404"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a discussion about redactions and anonymity. The quality is clear, and there are no visible redactions or damage on this page."
}