{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "5",
    "document_number": "195",
    "date": "04/05/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 195 Filed 04/05/21 Page 5 of 11\n\nPage 5\n\nCr. 746 (PKC), 2017 WL 6887596, at *2-*3 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 28, 2017) (\"Preventing the undue harassment of a cooperating witness is a legitimate governmental interest giving rise to standing in this context.\"); cf. United States v. Nachamie, 91 F. Supp. 2d 552, 558-60 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (concluding that the Government failed to establish a legitimate interest where, among other things, none of the subpoenaed entities had been \"publicly identified by the Government as trial witnesses, or as particularly vulnerable witnesses\"). That is particularly true where the subpoena at issue seeks material that the defendants would be entitled to, if at all, as Giglio or 3500 material given that the Government has a cognizable interest in \"controlling the timing of disclosures as to\" witnesses who are expected to testify at trial, and for whom the Government has various disclosure obligations. United States v. Cole, No. 19 Cr. 869 (ER), 2021 WL 912425, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2021); see Bergstein, 2017 WL 6887596, at *3. Finally, the Government has standing to challenge subpoenas that call for its own communications. See United States v. Carton, 17 Cr. 680 (CM), 2018 WL 5818107, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 19, 2018) (quashing a subpoena for communications with the Government).1\n\nThe only way for the Government to vindicate those interests is with notice so that the Government may, as appropriate, have an opportunity to quash the subpoenas. There is no avenue, after a subpoena is issued and fulfilled, for the Government to protect its interests in the timing of disclosures about victims or the disclosure of the Government's own communications. That is particularly important given that a subpoena recipient may lack sufficient knowledge about the\n\n1 The Government also has standing to challenge a Rule 17(c) subpoena at the request of a victim, witness or third-party impacted by the subpoena. See Ray, 2020 WL 6939677, at *7 (\"Courts have acknowledged that the Government has standing to challenge Rule 17(c) subpoenas directed to a non-party when the non-party authorizes the Government to assert his or her right by request or by indicating its joinder in a motion to quash.\") (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted)).\n\nDOJ-OGR-00002894",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 195 Filed 04/05/21 Page 5 of 11",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Page 5",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Cr. 746 (PKC), 2017 WL 6887596, at *2-*3 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 28, 2017) (\"Preventing the undue harassment of a cooperating witness is a legitimate governmental interest giving rise to standing in this context.\"); cf. United States v. Nachamie, 91 F. Supp. 2d 552, 558-60 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (concluding that the Government failed to establish a legitimate interest where, among other things, none of the subpoenaed entities had been \"publicly identified by the Government as trial witnesses, or as particularly vulnerable witnesses\"). That is particularly true where the subpoena at issue seeks material that the defendants would be entitled to, if at all, as Giglio or 3500 material given that the Government has a cognizable interest in \"controlling the timing of disclosures as to\" witnesses who are expected to testify at trial, and for whom the Government has various disclosure obligations. United States v. Cole, No. 19 Cr. 869 (ER), 2021 WL 912425, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2021); see Bergstein, 2017 WL 6887596, at *3. Finally, the Government has standing to challenge subpoenas that call for its own communications. See United States v. Carton, 17 Cr. 680 (CM), 2018 WL 5818107, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 19, 2018) (quashing a subpoena for communications with the Government).1",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The only way for the Government to vindicate those interests is with notice so that the Government may, as appropriate, have an opportunity to quash the subpoenas. There is no avenue, after a subpoena is issued and fulfilled, for the Government to protect its interests in the timing of disclosures about victims or the disclosure of the Government's own communications. That is particularly important given that a subpoena recipient may lack sufficient knowledge about the",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 The Government also has standing to challenge a Rule 17(c) subpoena at the request of a victim, witness or third-party impacted by the subpoena. See Ray, 2020 WL 6939677, at *7 (\"Courts have acknowledged that the Government has standing to challenge Rule 17(c) subpoenas directed to a non-party when the non-party authorizes the Government to assert his or her right by request or by indicating its joinder in a motion to quash.\") (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted)).",
      "position": "footnote"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00002894",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "Dec. 28, 2017",
      "Mar. 10, 2021",
      "Oct. 19, 2018",
      "04/05/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "195",
      "Cr. 746 (PKC)",
      "19 Cr. 869 (ER)",
      "17 Cr. 680 (CM)",
      "DOJ-OGR-00002894"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is mostly printed, with a footnote and a header/footer containing additional information. There are no visible stamps or handwritten text."
}