{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "5",
    "document_number": "298",
    "date": "06/04/21",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 298 Filed 06/04/21 Page 5 of 6\n\ntimeframe, the Defendant may make an application to the Court to compel the Government to adhere to its representation.\n\nRequest 11 seeks production of the original versions of certain photographs of the alleged victim. Maxwell seeks these materials to inspect them prior to trial in order to investigate their authenticity. In its May 6 letter, the Government indicated that the original versions of a subset of the photographs are in the FBI's possession, and the Government will make those photographs available to the defense for inspection upon request. The Court agrees with the Government that the request is moot as to those photographs. Again, to the extent that the Government fails to comply with its representation that it will make those photographs available to the defense upon request, the defense may make an application to the Court.\n\nAs to the remaining photographs, the request is denied on the basis that the defense has failed to establish the relevance of the original versions of the photographs. The defense already has photocopies or scanned versions of the photographs in question. But the defense proffers that it seeks the original versions of these photographs in order to determine whether they are genuine. The only discernible theory of relevance as to this request is impeachment. Maxwell does not set forth any other nonconclusory basis for their relevance. And again, because impeachment evidence falls outside the scope of Rule 17(c), the request fails to meet Nixon's relevance requirement. But even assuming that impeachment could permissibly establish relevance, the argument fails because Maxwell does not yet know the scope of the victim's testimony or whether it will implicate the photographs.\n\nI. Conclusion\n\nThe Defendant's motion for an order authorizing the subpoena pursuant to Rule 17(c)(3) is DENIED.\n\n5\n\nDOJ-OGR-00004741",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 298 Filed 06/04/21 Page 5 of 6",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "timeframe, the Defendant may make an application to the Court to compel the Government to adhere to its representation.\n\nRequest 11 seeks production of the original versions of certain photographs of the alleged victim. Maxwell seeks these materials to inspect them prior to trial in order to investigate their authenticity. In its May 6 letter, the Government indicated that the original versions of a subset of the photographs are in the FBI's possession, and the Government will make those photographs available to the defense for inspection upon request. The Court agrees with the Government that the request is moot as to those photographs. Again, to the extent that the Government fails to comply with its representation that it will make those photographs available to the defense upon request, the defense may make an application to the Court.\n\nAs to the remaining photographs, the request is denied on the basis that the defense has failed to establish the relevance of the original versions of the photographs. The defense already has photocopies or scanned versions of the photographs in question. But the defense proffers that it seeks the original versions of these photographs in order to determine whether they are genuine. The only discernible theory of relevance as to this request is impeachment. Maxwell does not set forth any other nonconclusory basis for their relevance. And again, because impeachment evidence falls outside the scope of Rule 17(c), the request fails to meet Nixon's relevance requirement. But even assuming that impeachment could permissibly establish relevance, the argument fails because Maxwell does not yet know the scope of the victim's testimony or whether it will implicate the photographs.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "I. Conclusion\n\nThe Defendant's motion for an order authorizing the subpoena pursuant to Rule 17(c)(3) is DENIED.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "5",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00004741",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell",
      "Nixon"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "FBI",
      "Government",
      "Court"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "May 6",
      "06/04/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 298",
      "Rule 17(c)(3)",
      "DOJ-OGR-00004741"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case against Maxwell. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten annotations. The document is page 5 of 6."
}