{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "5",
    "document_number": "244",
    "date": "04/23/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 244 Filed 04/23/21 Page 5 of 14\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nApril 2, 2021\nPage 5\nCenter that demanded production of telephone recordings and various types of prison records for another inmate. Notably, the subpoena was issued after the government produced all Brady and § 3500 material and was for \"[a]ll disciplinary records, booking records, inmate records, transfer movement records, and telephone call recordings and log for ... [the] inmate at the Metropolitan Detention Center Brooklyn from about April 2006 to the Present.\" Of course, the court found the subpoena did not call for relevant evidence and was also deficient under all three Nixon prongs. Id. at 5.\nNor does this Court's decision in United States v. Pena, No. 15-CR-551 (AJN), 2016 WL 8735699, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 12, 2016), help BSF. There, Mr. Pena requested that this Court issue five subpoenas to the MDC, MCC, and the DOC seeking records relating to two cooperating witnesses expected to testify at trial. Those subpoenas lacked any specificity and were for:\nAny and all records relating to inmate [cooperator name], including but not limited to: (a) name and address of all [Bureau of Prisons/DOC] locations in which [cooperator name] was housed, the dates when [cooperator name] was housed in such facilities, and all records relating to the transfer of [cooperator name] between and among [Bureau of Prisons/DOC] facilities; (b) all records of phone calls made to and from [cooperator name] from [Bureau of Prisons/DOC] custody, including but not limited to: call logs and audio recordings; and (c) all Corrlinks emails sent to and from [cooperator name's] account.\nAs this Court correctly pointed out, the subpoenas were unlimited in time or scope and called for the production of either inadmissible hearsay or privileged information. Id. at *2.\nAdditionally, this Court observed in Pena, at *3, as applicable here, that:\n[T]he Court trusts that the Government is aware of its obligations under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), and 18 U.S.C. § 3500, and that it will be prepared to make all necessary disclosures at the appropriate time to minimize any delay at trial. Moreover, although the government is not obligated to obtain information not presently in its possession, it may be improper for the government to remain willfully ignorant to key\nDOJ-OGR-00003976",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 244 Filed 04/23/21 Page 5 of 14",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nApril 2, 2021\nPage 5",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Center that demanded production of telephone recordings and various types of prison records for another inmate. Notably, the subpoena was issued after the government produced all Brady and § 3500 material and was for \"[a]ll disciplinary records, booking records, inmate records, transfer movement records, and telephone call recordings and log for ... [the] inmate at the Metropolitan Detention Center Brooklyn from about April 2006 to the Present.\" Of course, the court found the subpoena did not call for relevant evidence and was also deficient under all three Nixon prongs. Id. at 5.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Nor does this Court's decision in United States v. Pena, No. 15-CR-551 (AJN), 2016 WL 8735699, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 12, 2016), help BSF. There, Mr. Pena requested that this Court issue five subpoenas to the MDC, MCC, and the DOC seeking records relating to two cooperating witnesses expected to testify at trial. Those subpoenas lacked any specificity and were for:",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Any and all records relating to inmate [cooperator name], including but not limited to: (a) name and address of all [Bureau of Prisons/DOC] locations in which [cooperator name] was housed, the dates when [cooperator name] was housed in such facilities, and all records relating to the transfer of [cooperator name] between and among [Bureau of Prisons/DOC] facilities; (b) all records of phone calls made to and from [cooperator name] from [Bureau of Prisons/DOC] custody, including but not limited to: call logs and audio recordings; and (c) all Corrlinks emails sent to and from [cooperator name's] account.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "As this Court correctly pointed out, the subpoenas were unlimited in time or scope and called for the production of either inadmissible hearsay or privileged information. Id. at *2.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Additionally, this Court observed in Pena, at *3, as applicable here, that:",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "[T]he Court trusts that the Government is aware of its obligations under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), and 18 U.S.C. § 3500, and that it will be prepared to make all necessary disclosures at the appropriate time to minimize any delay at trial. Moreover, although the government is not obligated to obtain information not presently in its possession, it may be improper for the government to remain willfully ignorant to key",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003976",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Alison J. Nathan",
      "Pena",
      "Brady",
      "Giglio"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Bureau of Prisons",
      "DOC",
      "MDC",
      "MCC"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Metropolitan Detention Center Brooklyn",
      "Maryland",
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "April 2, 2021",
      "04/23/21",
      "April 2006",
      "Feb. 12, 2016",
      "1963",
      "1972"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 244",
      "No. 15-CR-551 (AJN)",
      "2016 WL 8735699",
      "373 U.S. 83",
      "405 U.S. 150",
      "18 U.S.C. § 3500",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003976"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 5 of a 14-page document."
}