{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "94",
    "document_number": "204",
    "date": "04/16/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 94 of 239\nrequested the same relating to Jane Doe 43 v. Epstein, et al., 17 Civ. 0616 (JGK) (SN). Because of the ongoing and covert nature of the grand jury investigation, and consistent with its standard practice under such circumstances, the Government did not notify the defendant or her counsel that it had issued the subpoenas.\nIn response to receiving the subpoenas, Boies Schiller began producing materials not covered by the protective orders in the relevant civil cases. However, Boies Schiller also had advised the Government that although it would not otherwise contest compliance with the subpoenas, it believed that the protective orders precluded full compliance.33 (Exs. 8 & 9). Accordingly, the Government applied ex parte and under seal to each relevant court (Judge Sweet and Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn, respectively) to request that each court modify the respective protective orders to permit compliance with the subpoenas. (Def. Mot. 3, Ex. C).\nFollowing a request by Judge Sweet for briefing supporting the Government's initial application, see Def. Mot. 3, Ex. D at 4, 20; Ex. G at 6, the Government submitted ex parte and sealed letters in support of its applications to each court on or about February 28, 2019. (Exs. 8 & 9). The Government wrote, \"Where, as here, a grand jury subpoena has validly issued, and the recipient of the subpoena is not contesting compliance—but rather seeking authorization to comply with the subpoena—a court should grant such permission through limited modification of an applicable protective order, absent countervailing interests not present in this case.\" (Id. at 2). The Government submitted that the court was \"best guided\" by Chemical Bank v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 154 F.R.D. 91, 93 (S.D.N.Y. 1994), in which the court rejected an application for a party in civil litigation to be held in contempt for complying with a grand jury subpoena by producing\n33 Significantly, and as detailed herein, Boies Schiller did not produce to the Government any materials subject to the protective orders until, as further described below, it received an order granting it the ability to do so in one of the civil cases.\n67\nDOJ-OGR-00003028",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 94 of 239",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "requested the same relating to Jane Doe 43 v. Epstein, et al., 17 Civ. 0616 (JGK) (SN). Because of the ongoing and covert nature of the grand jury investigation, and consistent with its standard practice under such circumstances, the Government did not notify the defendant or her counsel that it had issued the subpoenas.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In response to receiving the subpoenas, Boies Schiller began producing materials not covered by the protective orders in the relevant civil cases. However, Boies Schiller also had advised the Government that although it would not otherwise contest compliance with the subpoenas, it believed that the protective orders precluded full compliance.33 (Exs. 8 & 9). Accordingly, the Government applied ex parte and under seal to each relevant court (Judge Sweet and Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn, respectively) to request that each court modify the respective protective orders to permit compliance with the subpoenas. (Def. Mot. 3, Ex. C).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Following a request by Judge Sweet for briefing supporting the Government's initial application, see Def. Mot. 3, Ex. D at 4, 20; Ex. G at 6, the Government submitted ex parte and sealed letters in support of its applications to each court on or about February 28, 2019. (Exs. 8 & 9). The Government wrote, \"Where, as here, a grand jury subpoena has validly issued, and the recipient of the subpoena is not contesting compliance—but rather seeking authorization to comply with the subpoena—a court should grant such permission through limited modification of an applicable protective order, absent countervailing interests not present in this case.\" (Id. at 2). The Government submitted that the court was \"best guided\" by Chemical Bank v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 154 F.R.D. 91, 93 (S.D.N.Y. 1994), in which the court rejected an application for a party in civil litigation to be held in contempt for complying with a grand jury subpoena by producing",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "33 Significantly, and as detailed herein, Boies Schiller did not produce to the Government any materials subject to the protective orders until, as further described below, it received an order granting it the ability to do so in one of the civil cases.",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "67",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003028",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Jane Doe 43",
      "Epstein",
      "Judge Sweet",
      "Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Boies Schiller",
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "04/16/21",
      "February 28, 2019",
      "1994"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 204",
      "17 Civ. 0616 (JGK) (SN)",
      "Def. Mot. 3",
      "Exs. 8 & 9",
      "Ex. C",
      "Ex. D",
      "Ex. G",
      "154 F.R.D. 91",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003028"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a grand jury investigation. The text is mostly printed, with some footnotes and citations. There are no visible stamps or handwritten text."
}