{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "4",
    "document_number": "183",
    "date": "March 22, 2021",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 183 Filed 03/26/21 Page 4 of 7\n\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nMarch 22, 2021\nPage 4 of 7\n\nbecause \"the subpoena was not crafted to call for admissible evidence. Rather, it called for the production of the entire investigative file and is accurately described as a fishing expedition.\")\n\nSimilarly, Request 12 asks for \"EVCP Material,\" which is defined as \"any submission to the Epstein Victim's Compensation Program made by You, including any claims on behalf of persons who have accused Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell of any misconduct, any releases signed by You or Your Clients, and any compensation received by You or Your Clients.\" This Request does not satisfy the Nixon standard—the Defendant is not a party or otherwise privy to what information BSF has submitted to the confidential Epstein Victim's Compensation Program or on behalf of which clients BSF has submitted such information. The Defendant cannot merely request every piece of confidential information that BSF submitted to the Program in the hopes that something relevant and admissible turns up. This Request thus cannot pass muster under Rule 17(c).\n\nSecond, although BSF does not know what arguments the Defendant made in her ex parte motion, the documents and items requested in the Subpoena bear no apparent relevance to the Defendant's guilt or innocence of the charges in this matter. And to the extent they would be relevant solely for impeachment purposes, or relevant but inadmissible, the Defendant cannot obtain them in advance of trial pursuant to Rule 17(c). Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 699–700, 701.\n\nRequest 1 seeks communications between BSF and the U.S. Attorney about the Defendant from 2015 through the present, and Requests 3 through 5 seek communications between BSF and BSF's co-counsel from 2015 through the present regarding any meetings with the U.S. Attorney's office about the Defendant. But such communications are not relevant to the Government's allegations that the Defendant enticed minors to travel, and transported minors, to engage in sex acts between 1994 to 1997, nearly 20 years prior to any such communications. Nor do such communications bear any apparent relevance to whether the Defendant perjured herself in a civil deposition. If such communications are relevant, they are only relevant to the Defendant's false narrative that BSF somehow colluded with the Government—an allegation that could serve no other purpose than impeachment of the Government's potential witnesses. Request 8—seeking any grand jury subpoena for documents related to litigation concerning the Defendant—is similarly aimed at developing some ill-informed narrative of collusion between BSF and the Government, as the Defendant has on numerous occasions accused BSF of improperly providing the Government with confidential documents governed by a protective order in a separate civil matter. See, e.g., ECF No. 134 (Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained by subpoena to what appears ).2 Even if these documents were relevant to anything other than\n\n2 Requests 3 through 5 also seek protected work product. Those Requests seek communications between BSF and its co-counsel in several matters relating to Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Such communications were prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial. Where a criminal defendant seeks to subpoena work product, the defendant can only overcome the privilege by demonstrating a \"substantial need\" for the requested items and that he \"cannot, without undue hardship, obtain their substantial equivalent by other means.\" United States v. Weisberg, No. 08-CR-347 NGG RML, 2011 WL 1327689, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 5, 2011). Given the marginal potential evidentiary value of the communications, the Defendant will be unable to demonstrate a substantial need for protected communications between BSF and its co-counsel.",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 183 Filed 03/26/21 Page 4 of 7",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nMarch 22, 2021\nPage 4 of 7",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "because \"the subpoena was not crafted to call for admissible evidence. Rather, it called for the production of the entire investigative file and is accurately described as a fishing expedition.\")",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Similarly, Request 12 asks for \"EVCP Material,\" which is defined as \"any submission to the Epstein Victim's Compensation Program made by You, including any claims on behalf of persons who have accused Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell of any misconduct, any releases signed by You or Your Clients, and any compensation received by You or Your Clients.\" This Request does not satisfy the Nixon standard—the Defendant is not a party or otherwise privy to what information BSF has submitted to the confidential Epstein Victim's Compensation Program or on behalf of which clients BSF has submitted such information. The Defendant cannot merely request every piece of confidential information that BSF submitted to the Program in the hopes that something relevant and admissible turns up. This Request thus cannot pass muster under Rule 17(c).",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Second, although BSF does not know what arguments the Defendant made in her ex parte motion, the documents and items requested in the Subpoena bear no apparent relevance to the Defendant's guilt or innocence of the charges in this matter. And to the extent they would be relevant solely for impeachment purposes, or relevant but inadmissible, the Defendant cannot obtain them in advance of trial pursuant to Rule 17(c). Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 699–700, 701.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Request 1 seeks communications between BSF and the U.S. Attorney about the Defendant from 2015 through the present, and Requests 3 through 5 seek communications between BSF and BSF's co-counsel from 2015 through the present regarding any meetings with the U.S. Attorney's office about the Defendant. But such communications are not relevant to the Government's allegations that the Defendant enticed minors to travel, and transported minors, to engage in sex acts between 1994 to 1997, nearly 20 years prior to any such communications. Nor do such communications bear any apparent relevance to whether the Defendant perjured herself in a civil deposition. If such communications are relevant, they are only relevant to the Defendant's false narrative that BSF somehow colluded with the Government—an allegation that could serve no other purpose than impeachment of the Government's potential witnesses. Request 8—seeking any grand jury subpoena for documents related to litigation concerning the Defendant—is similarly aimed at developing some ill-informed narrative of collusion between BSF and the Government, as the Defendant has on numerous occasions accused BSF of improperly providing the Government with confidential documents governed by a protective order in a separate civil matter. See, e.g., ECF No. 134 (Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained by subpoena to what appears ).2 Even if these documents were relevant to anything other than",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2 Requests 3 through 5 also seek protected work product. Those Requests seek communications between BSF and its co-counsel in several matters relating to Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Such communications were prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial. Where a criminal defendant seeks to subpoena work product, the defendant can only overcome the privilege by demonstrating a \"substantial need\" for the requested items and that he \"cannot, without undue hardship, obtain their substantial equivalent by other means.\" United States v. Weisberg, No. 08-CR-347 NGG RML, 2011 WL 1327689, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 5, 2011). Given the marginal potential evidentiary value of the communications, the Defendant will be unable to demonstrate a substantial need for protected communications between BSF and its co-counsel.",
      "position": "footnote"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Alison J. Nathan",
      "Jeffrey Epstein",
      "Ghislaine Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "U.S. Attorney"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "E.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "March 22, 2021",
      "03/26/21",
      "2015",
      "1994",
      "1997",
      "Apr. 5, 2011"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 183",
      "ECF No. 134",
      "No. 08-CR-347 NGG RML"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case involving Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. The text discusses the defendant's requests for certain documents and communications, and the government's objections to these requests. The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
}