{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "15",
    "document_number": "247",
    "date": "04/23/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 247 Filed 04/23/21 Page 15 of 17\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nApril 5, 2021\nPage 15 of 17\nexculpatory. Although BSF does not have the benefit of the ex parte submission that the Defendant cites, she appears to contend that the EVCP Material will contradict the Government's theory as to the Defendant's motive for committing the crimes of which she has been indicted: procuring underage girls for Epstein. Resp. Ltr. at 13. But the Defendant does not explain how the EVCP Material—consisting of claims submitted by victims to an independent claims administration program, materials supporting those claims (such as medical and therapy records), and compensation determinations for those claims—could possibly contradict the Government's theory that she committed crimes with the motive of procuring young girls for Epstein.7\nSecond, deeming the EVCP Material “Brady materials” does not render the Request appropriate under Rule 17, even if such a characterization were correct. Although the Government has a constitutional duty to produce Brady materials, BSF has no such obligation. Thus, even if the Requests in the Subpoena, including the Request for EVCP Material, might encompass some Brady materials, the Subpoena must still satisfy the Nixon requirements. See, e.g., Mendinueta-Ibarro, 956 F. Supp. 2d at 513 (rejecting the defendant's argument that under Rule 17 “the stringent requirements of Nixon do not apply when a defendant needs the requested information for a fair trial, especially if that material is required to be turned over under Brady or Giglio”); United States v. Jackson, No. 02 CR. 756 (LMM), 2006 WL 1993251, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. July 14, 2006) (explaining “that the materials may contain Giglio material does not mean that they can be subpoenaed under Rule 17” and quashing subpoena for failing Nixon's admissibility requirement); United States v. Scaduto, No. 94 CR. 311 (WK), 1995 WL 130511, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 1995)\n7 Again, if the Court is inclined to grant the Defendant's motion as to Request 12, BSF requests access to the Defendant's ex parte submission so it can more fully and fairly respond to the Defendant's theory of relevance.\nDOJ-OGR-00004015",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 247 Filed 04/23/21 Page 15 of 17",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nApril 5, 2021\nPage 15 of 17",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "exculpatory. Although BSF does not have the benefit of the ex parte submission that the Defendant cites, she appears to contend that the EVCP Material will contradict the Government's theory as to the Defendant's motive for committing the crimes of which she has been indicted: procuring underage girls for Epstein. Resp. Ltr. at 13. But the Defendant does not explain how the EVCP Material—consisting of claims submitted by victims to an independent claims administration program, materials supporting those claims (such as medical and therapy records), and compensation determinations for those claims—could possibly contradict the Government's theory that she committed crimes with the motive of procuring young girls for Epstein.7",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Second, deeming the EVCP Material “Brady materials” does not render the Request appropriate under Rule 17, even if such a characterization were correct. Although the Government has a constitutional duty to produce Brady materials, BSF has no such obligation. Thus, even if the Requests in the Subpoena, including the Request for EVCP Material, might encompass some Brady materials, the Subpoena must still satisfy the Nixon requirements. See, e.g., Mendinueta-Ibarro, 956 F. Supp. 2d at 513 (rejecting the defendant's argument that under Rule 17 “the stringent requirements of Nixon do not apply when a defendant needs the requested information for a fair trial, especially if that material is required to be turned over under Brady or Giglio”); United States v. Jackson, No. 02 CR. 756 (LMM), 2006 WL 1993251, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. July 14, 2006) (explaining “that the materials may contain Giglio material does not mean that they can be subpoenaed under Rule 17” and quashing subpoena for failing Nixon's admissibility requirement); United States v. Scaduto, No. 94 CR. 311 (WK), 1995 WL 130511, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 1995)",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "7 Again, if the Court is inclined to grant the Defendant's motion as to Request 12, BSF requests access to the Defendant's ex parte submission so it can more fully and fairly respond to the Defendant's theory of relevance.",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00004015",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Alison J. Nathan",
      "Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "BSF",
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "April 5, 2021",
      "04/23/21",
      "July 14, 2006",
      "Mar. 27, 1995"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 247",
      "02 CR. 756 (LMM)",
      "94 CR. 311 (WK)",
      "DOJ-OGR-00004015"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document is page 15 of 17."
}