{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "5",
    "document_number": "334",
    "date": "08/13/21",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 334 Filed 08/13/21 Page 5 of 10\n\nimproper to issue a Rule 17(c) subpoena where the sole relevance of the requested materials is impeachment. There is no plausible claim that inspection of the original photographs is warranted, and to the extent that Maxwell seeks the photographs in order to disprove their authenticity (and challenge any potential testimony that might be advanced at trial), the request is entirely speculative. Even assuming that impeachment could permissibly establish relevance, the argument fails because Maxwell does not yet know the scope of the victim's testimony or whether it will implicate the photographs.\n\nFinally, the request for materials related to the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund is denied for substantially the same reasons the Court articulated in its April 27, 2021 Opinion. See Dkt. No. 252, April 27, 2021 Op., at 6–8. Here, too, Maxwell has failed to establish the materials' relevance. The briefing makes clear that Maxwell seeks these documents for mere impeachment purposes, which again does not warrant issuance or enforcement of a Rule 17(c) subpoena. Furthermore, to the extent that Maxwell hinges her theory of relevance on the possibility that these documents may contain some exculpatory evidence, the request is entirely speculative. The \"mere hope\" that documents might produce some degree of exculpatory evidence is also insufficient. See United States v. Rich, No. S 83-CR-579 (SWK), 1984 WL 845, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 1984). Maxwell has proffered no plausible basis why these materials might be exculpatory beyond her theory that they will help her undermine the potential witness's credibility.\n\nIn sum, for the reasons stated by the Court in its April 27, 2021 and June 2, 2021 orders, the request for authorization of a Rule 17(c) subpoena to Subpoena Recipient-1 is DENIED.\n\n5\n\nDOJ-OGR-00005034",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 334 Filed 08/13/21 Page 5 of 10",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "improper to issue a Rule 17(c) subpoena where the sole relevance of the requested materials is impeachment. There is no plausible claim that inspection of the original photographs is warranted, and to the extent that Maxwell seeks the photographs in order to disprove their authenticity (and challenge any potential testimony that might be advanced at trial), the request is entirely speculative. Even assuming that impeachment could permissibly establish relevance, the argument fails because Maxwell does not yet know the scope of the victim's testimony or whether it will implicate the photographs.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Finally, the request for materials related to the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund is denied for substantially the same reasons the Court articulated in its April 27, 2021 Opinion. See Dkt. No. 252, April 27, 2021 Op., at 6–8. Here, too, Maxwell has failed to establish the materials' relevance. The briefing makes clear that Maxwell seeks these documents for mere impeachment purposes, which again does not warrant issuance or enforcement of a Rule 17(c) subpoena. Furthermore, to the extent that Maxwell hinges her theory of relevance on the possibility that these documents may contain some exculpatory evidence, the request is entirely speculative. The \"mere hope\" that documents might produce some degree of exculpatory evidence is also insufficient. See United States v. Rich, No. S 83-CR-579 (SWK), 1984 WL 845, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 1984). Maxwell has proffered no plausible basis why these materials might be exculpatory beyond her theory that they will help her undermine the potential witness's credibility.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In sum, for the reasons stated by the Court in its April 27, 2021 and June 2, 2021 orders, the request for authorization of a Rule 17(c) subpoena to Subpoena Recipient-1 is DENIED.",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "5",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00005034",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Epstein Victim Compensation Fund"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "April 27, 2021",
      "June 2, 2021",
      "Sept. 7, 1984",
      "08/13/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 334",
      "Dkt. No. 252",
      "No. S 83-CR-579 (SWK)",
      "DOJ-OGR-00005034"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case against Maxwell. The text discusses the denial of a Rule 17(c) subpoena request and references previous court opinions and orders."
}