mirror of
https://github.com/epstein-docs/epstein-docs.github.io.git
synced 2025-12-10 04:01:31 -06:00
68 lines
4.9 KiB
JSON
68 lines
4.9 KiB
JSON
{
|
|
"document_metadata": {
|
|
"page_number": "4",
|
|
"document_number": "2020-0088",
|
|
"date": "February 1, 2022",
|
|
"document_type": "court document",
|
|
"has_handwriting": false,
|
|
"has_stamps": false
|
|
},
|
|
"full_text": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nFebruary 1, 2022\nPage 4\n\nTo determine whether sealing a document is appropriate, the Court must engage in a multi-step process. First, the Court must determine whether the document is a \"judicial document\" to which a presumption of access would attach. Silver, 2016 WL 1572993, at *3 (citing Newsday LLC v. Cty. of Nassau, 730 F.3d 156, 166, 167 n.15 (2d Cir. 2013)). If it is a \"judicial document,\" the Court must next determine whether the common law right of access or the \"more robust\" First Amendment right of access applies. Id. (citing Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 120). If the document is subject to the common law right of access, the Court must \"determine the weight of the presumption and measure it against competing considerations.\" Id. (citing United States v. Erie Cty. N.Y., 763 F.3d 235, 241 (2d Cir. 2014)); accord Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 119-20. If the document is subject to the more stringent First Amendment right of access, the Court must determine \"by specific, on the-record-findings whether higher values necessitate a narrowly tailored sealing.\" Id. (cleaned up); accord Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 124. In either case, the Court must also determine whether redaction is \"a viable remedy,\" or whether the document presents \"an all or nothing matter.\" Id. (quoting Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1053).\n\nDiscussion\n\nMs. Maxwell does not dispute that the Motion is a \"judicial document\" that is subject to a strong presumption of access under both the First Amendment and the common law. See United States v. Smith, 985 F. Supp. 2d 506, 517 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (citing United States v. Gerena, 869 F.2d 82, 85 (2d Cir. 1989) (right of access under the First Amendment extends to briefs and memoranda filed in connection with post-trial motions in criminal cases)); id. at 518 (presumption\n\n2087306.1\n\nDOJ-OGR-00008903",
|
|
"text_blocks": [
|
|
{
|
|
"type": "printed",
|
|
"content": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nFebruary 1, 2022\nPage 4",
|
|
"position": "header"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"type": "printed",
|
|
"content": "To determine whether sealing a document is appropriate, the Court must engage in a multi-step process. First, the Court must determine whether the document is a \"judicial document\" to which a presumption of access would attach. Silver, 2016 WL 1572993, at *3 (citing Newsday LLC v. Cty. of Nassau, 730 F.3d 156, 166, 167 n.15 (2d Cir. 2013)). If it is a \"judicial document,\" the Court must next determine whether the common law right of access or the \"more robust\" First Amendment right of access applies. Id. (citing Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 120). If the document is subject to the common law right of access, the Court must \"determine the weight of the presumption and measure it against competing considerations.\" Id. (citing United States v. Erie Cty. N.Y., 763 F.3d 235, 241 (2d Cir. 2014)); accord Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 119-20. If the document is subject to the more stringent First Amendment right of access, the Court must determine \"by specific, on the-record-findings whether higher values necessitate a narrowly tailored sealing.\" Id. (cleaned up); accord Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 124. In either case, the Court must also determine whether redaction is \"a viable remedy,\" or whether the document presents \"an all or nothing matter.\" Id. (quoting Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1053).",
|
|
"position": "body"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"type": "printed",
|
|
"content": "Discussion",
|
|
"position": "body"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"type": "printed",
|
|
"content": "Ms. Maxwell does not dispute that the Motion is a \"judicial document\" that is subject to a strong presumption of access under both the First Amendment and the common law. See United States v. Smith, 985 F. Supp. 2d 506, 517 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (citing United States v. Gerena, 869 F.2d 82, 85 (2d Cir. 1989) (right of access under the First Amendment extends to briefs and memoranda filed in connection with post-trial motions in criminal cases)); id. at 518 (presumption",
|
|
"position": "body"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"type": "printed",
|
|
"content": "2087306.1\nDOJ-OGR-00008903",
|
|
"position": "footer"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"entities": {
|
|
"people": [
|
|
"Alison J. Nathan",
|
|
"Ms. Maxwell"
|
|
],
|
|
"organizations": [
|
|
"Newsday LLC",
|
|
"United States"
|
|
],
|
|
"locations": [
|
|
"Nassau",
|
|
"New York",
|
|
"Erie County"
|
|
],
|
|
"dates": [
|
|
"February 1, 2022",
|
|
"2016",
|
|
"2013",
|
|
"2014",
|
|
"1989"
|
|
],
|
|
"reference_numbers": [
|
|
"2020-0088",
|
|
"2020-0088630",
|
|
"15990",
|
|
"2087306.1",
|
|
"DOJ-OGR-00008903"
|
|
]
|
|
},
|
|
"additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a clear and legible text. There are no visible redactions or damage to the document."
|
|
} |