{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "26",
    "document_number": "311-4",
    "date": "07/02/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 311-4 Filed 07/02/21 Page 26 of 27\nTo Be Filed Under Seal\nto use at a trial, rather than seeking information as part of a criminal investigation or grand jury proceeding. See also Botha v. Don King Productions, Inc., No. 97-cv-7587, 1998 WL 88745, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 1998) (\"[T]he Government may not use its 'awesome' investigative powers to seek modification of a protective order merely to compare the fruits of . . . discovery in a civil action with the results of a prosecutorial investigation in a criminal action.\").\nAdditionally, the Government is not on a fishing expedition, merely hoping to inspect the protected materials for possible use in a future criminal investigation. In Martindell, 594 F.2d at 296, the Second Circuit concluded that the purported public interest in obtaining all relevant evidence was less than compelling in view of the Government's subpoena power. Here, however, a grand jury that is presently conducting an investigation has issued a subpoena for the production of documents as part of an ongoing investigation. The Government's interest is bolstered when the request is made by a grand jury, rather than informally by the United States Attorney. See, e.g., In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Oct. 29, 1992, 1 F.3d 87, 94 n.4 (2d Cir. 1993). The Government's application is therefore based on more than a desire to \"exploit[] . . . the fruits of private litigation.\" Martindell, 594 F.2d at 296. And the fact that the request comes from a grand jury, whose proceedings are by law conducted in secret, In re Petition of Craig, 131 F.3d 99, 101 (2d Cir. 1997), gives Maxwell the degree of protection that could reasonably be expected in the context of a criminal investigation.\nFinally, while in other circumstances the breadth of the subpoena might be troubling, here the Government is in no position to narrow its request, because the Giuffre Action was litigated entirely almost under seal. Cf. Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Apr. 19, 1991, 945 F.2d at 1223 (noting that a \"lengthy report\" of the bankruptcy examination, which included deposition excerpts, \"was made available to the public\"). The fact that the Second\n25\nSDNY_GM_00000899\nDOJ-OGR-00004949",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 311-4 Filed 07/02/21 Page 26 of 27",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "To Be Filed Under Seal",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "to use at a trial, rather than seeking information as part of a criminal investigation or grand jury proceeding. See also Botha v. Don King Productions, Inc., No. 97-cv-7587, 1998 WL 88745, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 1998) (\"[T]he Government may not use its 'awesome' investigative powers to seek modification of a protective order merely to compare the fruits of . . . discovery in a civil action with the results of a prosecutorial investigation in a criminal action.\").",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Additionally, the Government is not on a fishing expedition, merely hoping to inspect the protected materials for possible use in a future criminal investigation. In Martindell, 594 F.2d at 296, the Second Circuit concluded that the purported public interest in obtaining all relevant evidence was less than compelling in view of the Government's subpoena power. Here, however, a grand jury that is presently conducting an investigation has issued a subpoena for the production of documents as part of an ongoing investigation. The Government's interest is bolstered when the request is made by a grand jury, rather than informally by the United States Attorney. See, e.g., In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Oct. 29, 1992, 1 F.3d 87, 94 n.4 (2d Cir. 1993). The Government's application is therefore based on more than a desire to \"exploit[] . . . the fruits of private litigation.\" Martindell, 594 F.2d at 296. And the fact that the request comes from a grand jury, whose proceedings are by law conducted in secret, In re Petition of Craig, 131 F.3d 99, 101 (2d Cir. 1997), gives Maxwell the degree of protection that could reasonably be expected in the context of a criminal investigation.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Finally, while in other circumstances the breadth of the subpoena might be troubling, here the Government is in no position to narrow its request, because the Giuffre Action was litigated entirely almost under seal. Cf. Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Apr. 19, 1991, 945 F.2d at 1223 (noting that a \"lengthy report\" of the bankruptcy examination, which included deposition excerpts, \"was made available to the public\"). The fact that the Second",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "25",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SDNY_GM_00000899",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00004949",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Don King Productions, Inc.",
      "United States Attorney"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y.",
      "Second Circuit"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "07/02/21",
      "Feb. 27, 1998",
      "Oct. 29, 1992",
      "Apr. 19, 1991"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 311-4",
      "No. 97-cv-7587",
      "1998 WL 88745",
      "594 F.2d at 296",
      "1 F.3d 87",
      "131 F.3d 99",
      "945 F.2d at 1223",
      "SDNY_GM_00000899",
      "DOJ-OGR-00004949"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal investigation, with references to various legal cases and statutes. The text is mostly printed, with no handwritten content or stamps visible. The document is marked 'To Be Filed Under Seal' and contains sensitive information related to a grand jury investigation."
}