{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "7",
    "document_number": "218",
    "date": "04/19/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 218 Filed 04/19/21 Page 7 of 8\nThe Hon. Alison J. Nathan\nApril 15, 2021\nPage 7\nmaterial being sought is easily obtained by the government, though the government, of course, has chosen not to obtain it. Ms. Maxwell should not be required to expend considerable time and resources obtaining relevant exculpatory evidence that could have been seized or subpoenaed by the government. Premature disclosure of the evidence would impinge on Ms. Maxwell's rights to effective assistance of counsel and reveal defense strategy and work product.\nRule 16, not Rule 17, governs the timing of any reciprocal discovery request, and it provides that if a defendant requests disclosure from the government under Rule 16(a)(1)(E), then upon compliance with a similar request by the government, the defendant is required to permit the government to inspect and copy or photograph documents and tangible objects which are within the possession, custody or control of the defendant and which the defendant intends to introduce at trial. Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(b)(1)(A); United States v. Smith, 985 F. Supp. 2d 506, 522 (S.D.N.Y. 2013).\nV. Any Protective Order Regarding the Rule 17 Material Should Be Separate from the Protective Order Entered at the Insistence of the Government and Over Ms. Maxwell's Objection\nThe government has repeatedly objected to any modification of the Protective Order entered in this case.3 When Ms. Maxwell asked to be allowed to disclose judicial documents to judicial officers in this judicial district, the government objected. Much of the information\n3 Counsel for Ms. Maxwell attempted to negotiate reciprocal protective order protections in July 2020, but the government steadfastly then insisted that a separate negotiation would occur at an undefined later time to any materials to be produced by defense counsel. Defense counsel is prepared to confer with the government at the appropriate time regarding necessary protections for any documents that she will disclose pursuant to her reciprocity obligations under Rule 16.\nDOJ-OGR-00003859",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 218 Filed 04/19/21 Page 7 of 8",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Hon. Alison J. Nathan\nApril 15, 2021\nPage 7",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "material being sought is easily obtained by the government, though the government, of course, has chosen not to obtain it. Ms. Maxwell should not be required to expend considerable time and resources obtaining relevant exculpatory evidence that could have been seized or subpoenaed by the government. Premature disclosure of the evidence would impinge on Ms. Maxwell's rights to effective assistance of counsel and reveal defense strategy and work product.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Rule 16, not Rule 17, governs the timing of any reciprocal discovery request, and it provides that if a defendant requests disclosure from the government under Rule 16(a)(1)(E), then upon compliance with a similar request by the government, the defendant is required to permit the government to inspect and copy or photograph documents and tangible objects which are within the possession, custody or control of the defendant and which the defendant intends to introduce at trial. Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(b)(1)(A); United States v. Smith, 985 F. Supp. 2d 506, 522 (S.D.N.Y. 2013).",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "V. Any Protective Order Regarding the Rule 17 Material Should Be Separate from the Protective Order Entered at the Insistence of the Government and Over Ms. Maxwell's Objection",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The government has repeatedly objected to any modification of the Protective Order entered in this case.3 When Ms. Maxwell asked to be allowed to disclose judicial documents to judicial officers in this judicial district, the government objected. Much of the information",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "3 Counsel for Ms. Maxwell attempted to negotiate reciprocal protective order protections in July 2020, but the government steadfastly then insisted that a separate negotiation would occur at an undefined later time to any materials to be produced by defense counsel. Defense counsel is prepared to confer with the government at the appropriate time regarding necessary protections for any documents that she will disclose pursuant to her reciprocity obligations under Rule 16.",
      "position": "footnote"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003859",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Alison J. Nathan",
      "Ms. Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "government"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "April 15, 2021",
      "04/19/21",
      "July 2020"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 218",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003859"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing in a criminal case, with a formal tone and legal language. There are no visible redactions or damage to the document."
}