epstein-docs.github.io/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009062.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "61",
    "document_number": "613",
    "date": "02/24/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 61 of 66\n\nno legal effect). Although Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure references \"pleadings,\" \"a district court has the inherent power to strike a party's submissions other than pleadings.\" Mazzeo v. Gibbons, No. 2:08-CV-01387-RLH-PA, 2010 WL 3910072, at *3 (D. Nev. Sept. 30, 2010); see also Metzger v. Hussman, 682 F. Supp. 1109, 1110 (D. Nev. 1988) (motion to strike granted and motion in opposition not considered by the court). This Court should strike all the filings made by Juror No. 50.\n\nAlternatively, Ms. Maxwell requests that the \"Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Intervene and for Release of Sealed Jury Questionnaire and Transcript, on Behalf of Proposed Intervenor, Juror 50\" and its companion Motion remain under seal, at least until a resolution of Ms. Maxwell's motion for new trial based on this Juror's failure to answer truthfully during jury selection. Juror No. 50's Motion and accompanying Memorandum are an attempt to obtain discovery by a non-party to this criminal case, made by someone who lacks standing to participate in this prosecution. Accordingly, these pleadings are not \"judicial documents\" and are afforded no presumption of public access. United States v. Smith, 985 F. Supp. 2d 506, 519 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (\"experience and logic show that there is no right of access to discovery materials\"). See SEC v. The Street.Com, 273 F.3d 222, 233 (2d Cir.2001) (rejecting claim that deposition testimony became a \"judicial document\" \"because the Court reviewed it in order to decide whether or not to enter [a] protective order\").\n\nThe fact that Juror No. 50 filed these pleadings does not make them \"judicial documents.\" United States v. Amodeo (\"Amodeo I\"), 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995) (\"We think that the mere filing of a paper or document with the court is insufficient to\n\n54\n\nDOJ-OGR-00009062",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 61 of 66",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "no legal effect). Although Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure references \"pleadings,\" \"a district court has the inherent power to strike a party's submissions other than pleadings.\" Mazzeo v. Gibbons, No. 2:08-CV-01387-RLH-PA, 2010 WL 3910072, at *3 (D. Nev. Sept. 30, 2010); see also Metzger v. Hussman, 682 F. Supp. 1109, 1110 (D. Nev. 1988) (motion to strike granted and motion in opposition not considered by the court). This Court should strike all the filings made by Juror No. 50.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Alternatively, Ms. Maxwell requests that the \"Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Intervene and for Release of Sealed Jury Questionnaire and Transcript, on Behalf of Proposed Intervenor, Juror 50\" and its companion Motion remain under seal, at least until a resolution of Ms. Maxwell's motion for new trial based on this Juror's failure to answer truthfully during jury selection. Juror No. 50's Motion and accompanying Memorandum are an attempt to obtain discovery by a non-party to this criminal case, made by someone who lacks standing to participate in this prosecution. Accordingly, these pleadings are not \"judicial documents\" and are afforded no presumption of public access. United States v. Smith, 985 F. Supp. 2d 506, 519 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (\"experience and logic show that there is no right of access to discovery materials\"). See SEC v. The Street.Com, 273 F.3d 222, 233 (2d Cir.2001) (rejecting claim that deposition testimony became a \"judicial document\" \"because the Court reviewed it in order to decide whether or not to enter [a] protective order\").",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The fact that Juror No. 50 filed these pleadings does not make them \"judicial documents.\" United States v. Amodeo (\"Amodeo I\"), 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995) (\"We think that the mere filing of a paper or document with the court is insufficient to",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "54",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009062",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell",
      "Mazzeo",
      "Gibbons",
      "Metzger",
      "Hussman",
      "Smith",
      "Amodeo"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SEC"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Nevada",
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "02/24/22",
      "Sept. 30, 2010",
      "1988",
      "2013",
      "2001",
      "1995"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 613",
      "No. 2:08-CV-01387-RLH-PA",
      "DOJ-OGR-00009062"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is mostly printed, with no handwritten content or stamps visible. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}