epstein-docs.github.io/results/IMAGES001/DOJ-OGR-00002762.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "1",
    "document_number": "168",
    "date": "03/18/21",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": true
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 168 Filed 03/18/21 Page 1 of 5\n\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\nUnited States of America,\n\n-v-\n\nGhislaine Maxwell,\nDefendant.\n\n20-CR-330 (AJN)\n\nORDER\n\nALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:\n\nOn February 26, 2021, the Government filed its omnibus memorandum of law opposing Defendants' twelve pre-trial motions. It filed the brief, along with the corresponding exhibits, under temporary seal pending the Court's resolution of its request to redact sensitive or confidential information. See Dkt. No. 162. On March 9, 2021, the Defendant objected to certain of the redactions that the Government had proposed, and she proposed additional redactions. Having considered the parties' respective positions, the Court will grant the Government's requests for redactions and sealing, as well as the Defendant's additional redaction requests, with the exceptions discussed below.\n\nTo begin with, the Court's reasoning is guided by the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Under this test, the Court must: (i) determine whether the documents in question are \"judicial documents;\" (ii) assess the weight of the common law presumption of access to the materials; and (iii) balance competing considerations against the presumption of access. Id. at 119-20. \"Such countervailing factors include but are not limited to 'the danger of impairing law 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\")).\n\n1\n\nDOJ-OGR-00002762",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 168 Filed 03/18/21 Page 1 of 5",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "United States of America,\n\n-v-\n\nGhislaine Maxwell,\nDefendant.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "20-CR-330 (AJN)\n\nORDER",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "On February 26, 2021, the Government filed its omnibus memorandum of law opposing Defendants' twelve pre-trial motions. It filed the brief, along with the corresponding exhibits, under temporary seal pending the Court's resolution of its request to redact sensitive or confidential information. See Dkt. No. 162. On March 9, 2021, the Defendant objected to certain of the redactions that the Government had proposed, and she proposed additional redactions. Having considered the parties' respective positions, the Court will grant the Government's requests for redactions and sealing, as well as the Defendant's additional redaction requests, with the exceptions discussed below.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "To begin with, the Court's reasoning is guided by the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Under this test, the Court must: (i) determine whether the documents in question are \"judicial documents;\" (ii) assess the weight of the common law presumption of access to the materials; and (iii) balance competing considerations against the presumption of access. Id. at 119-20. \"Such countervailing factors include but are not limited to 'the danger of impairing law 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": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "stamp",
      "content": "USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: DATE FILED: 3/18/21",
      "position": "margin"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00002762",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ghislaine Maxwell",
      "Alison J. Nathan"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States District Court",
      "Southern District of New York",
      "Second Circuit"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York",
      "Onondaga"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "February 26, 2021",
      "March 9, 2021",
      "03/18/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "Document 168",
      "20-CR-330 (AJN)",
      "Dkt. No. 162"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a stamp indicating it was electronically filed. The text is clear and legible, with no apparent redactions or damage."
}