epstein-docs.github.io/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009063.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "62",
    "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 62 of 66 render that paper a judicial document subject to the right of public access. We think that the item filed must be relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process in order for it to be designated a judicial document. Moreover, if stricken, the documents enjoy no presumption of public access. Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 51-52 (2d Cir. 2019) ([under Civil Rule 12], \"the district court may strike such material from the filings on the grounds that it is \"redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous.\" Because such rejected or stricken material is not \"relevant to the performance of the judicial function\" it would not be considered a \"judicial document\" and would enjoy no presumption of public access.\") The Second Circuit established a framework in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) for courts to utilize in determining when the public has a right of access to particular documents. The Court of Appeals held that \"[b]efore any such common law right can attach, however, a court must first conclude that the documents at issue are indeed 'judicial documents.'\" Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 119. \"Once the court has determined that the documents are judicial documents and that therefore a common law presumption of access attaches, it must determine the weight of that presumption.\" Id. \"Finally, after determining the weight of the presumption of access, the court must 'balance competing considerations against it.'\" Id. at 120. There exists no compelling reason to release Juror No. 50's pleadings. Any public release of the documents will set off another round of publicity, speculation, and commentary, all of which is prejudicial to the truth finding process and Ms. Maxwell's rights to fair and impartial proceedings. 55 DOJ-OGR-00009063",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 62 of 66",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "render that paper a judicial document subject to the right of public access. We think that the item filed must be relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process in order for it to be designated a judicial document. Moreover, if stricken, the documents enjoy no presumption of public access. Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 51-52 (2d Cir. 2019) ([under Civil Rule 12], \"the district court may strike such material from the filings on the grounds that it is \"redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous.\" Because such rejected or stricken material is not \"relevant to the performance of the judicial function\" it would not be considered a \"judicial document\" and would enjoy no presumption of public access.\")",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Second Circuit established a framework in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) for courts to utilize in determining when the public has a right of access to particular documents. The Court of Appeals held that \"[b]efore any such common law right can attach, however, a court must first conclude that the documents at issue are indeed 'judicial documents.'\" Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 119. \"Once the court has determined that the documents are judicial documents and that therefore a common law presumption of access attaches, it must determine the weight of that presumption.\" Id. \"Finally, after determining the weight of the presumption of access, the court must 'balance competing considerations against it.'\" Id. at 120.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "There exists no compelling reason to release Juror No. 50's pleadings. Any public release of the documents will set off another round of publicity, speculation, and commentary, all of which is prejudicial to the truth finding process and Ms. Maxwell's rights to fair and impartial proceedings.",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "55",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009063",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Second Circuit",
      "Court of Appeals",
      "DOJ"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Onondaga"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "02/24/22",
      "2019",
      "2006"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 613",
      "929 F.3d 41",
      "435 F.3d 110",
      "DOJ-OGR-00009063"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ghislaine Maxwell. The text discusses the concept of 'judicial documents' and the right of public access to court documents. The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
}