{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "97",
    "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 97 of 239\n\nof the materials in light of the \"extraordinary protections\" of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedue 6(e). (Id. at 17-18).\n\nFinally, Chief Judge McMahon also inquired whether the materials sought by the Government might be used to commence criminal proceedings against either of the parties to the libel case, i.e., including Maxwell. (Id. at 18). The Government acknowledged that possibility as a general matter. (Id.). Chief Judge McMahon noted that the parties to the protective order relied on that order \"in order to give whatever in discovery they gave, whether it was deposition testimony they gave or - then again, I can't fathom why anybody who has any criminal exposure would not have taken the Fifth Amendment in response to questions in a civil deposition, but I don't know.\" (Id. at 18-19). The Government stated, \"I do not know, but I think it is entirely possible that what we are seeking is page after page of people taking the Fifth. That is entirely possible. But to the extent that it is not or there are other materials -- and this may be bad for our argument, but in all transparency and candor, I think there may be other individuals who also relied on the protective order.\" (Id.). The Government further explained that it \"want[ed] to have a formal application\" for the relevant materials and took that approach to \"avoid the types of problems\" created by other less formal government requests in other cited cases. (Id. at 20).\n\nb. April 9, 2019 Hearing\n\nChief Judge McMahon held another conference on April 9, 2019. She stated that she wanted \"to make sure I'm not in a Chemical Bank kind of situation, so I would like to know about contacts between [the USAO-SDNY and Boies Schiller] prior to the issuance of the subpoena on the subject of your investigation.\" (Def. Mot. 3, Ex. E at 2 (emphasis added)).34 In Chemical\n\n34 Tellingly, Maxwell omits the italicized portion of this question from her motion, thereby stripping important context from the nature of Chief Judge McMahon's question which, as asked, was focused on \"your investigation.\" (See Def. Mot. 3 at 7).\n\n70\nDOJ-OGR-00003031",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 97 of 239",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "of the materials in light of the \"extraordinary protections\" of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedue 6(e). (Id. at 17-18).\n\nFinally, Chief Judge McMahon also inquired whether the materials sought by the Government might be used to commence criminal proceedings against either of the parties to the libel case, i.e., including Maxwell. (Id. at 18). The Government acknowledged that possibility as a general matter. (Id.). Chief Judge McMahon noted that the parties to the protective order relied on that order \"in order to give whatever in discovery they gave, whether it was deposition testimony they gave or - then again, I can't fathom why anybody who has any criminal exposure would not have taken the Fifth Amendment in response to questions in a civil deposition, but I don't know.\" (Id. at 18-19). The Government stated, \"I do not know, but I think it is entirely possible that what we are seeking is page after page of people taking the Fifth. That is entirely possible. But to the extent that it is not or there are other materials -- and this may be bad for our argument, but in all transparency and candor, I think there may be other individuals who also relied on the protective order.\" (Id.). The Government further explained that it \"want[ed] to have a formal application\" for the relevant materials and took that approach to \"avoid the types of problems\" created by other less formal government requests in other cited cases. (Id. at 20).",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "b. April 9, 2019 Hearing",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Chief Judge McMahon held another conference on April 9, 2019. She stated that she wanted \"to make sure I'm not in a Chemical Bank kind of situation, so I would like to know about contacts between [the USAO-SDNY and Boies Schiller] prior to the issuance of the subpoena on the subject of your investigation.\" (Def. Mot. 3, Ex. E at 2 (emphasis added)).34 In Chemical",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "34 Tellingly, Maxwell omits the italicized portion of this question from her motion, thereby stripping important context from the nature of Chief Judge McMahon's question which, as asked, was focused on \"your investigation.\" (See Def. Mot. 3 at 7).",
      "position": "footnote"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "70",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003031",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Chief Judge McMahon",
      "Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "USAO-SDNY",
      "Boies Schiller"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "April 9, 2019",
      "04/16/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 204",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003031"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a formal tone. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}