{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "6",
    "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 6 of 8\nThe Hon. Alison J. Nathan\nApril 15, 2021\nPage 6\ndocuments . . . are not protected if a party voluntarily discloses them\" and determining that government waived the work-product privilege even though its disclosure was inadvertent).\nIII. The Government Has No \"Need\" to Know.\nThe government claims, without support, that \"[t]he only way for the [g]overnment to vindicate\" its ill-defined interests \"is with notice\" so that it can move to quash the subpoenas.\nThe government ignores the role of this Court in this process. All the subpoenas requested by Ms. Maxwell are under the strict procedures authorized by the Rule. The Court is keenly aware of the standards necessary for the issuance of a Rule 17 subpoena and needs no assistance from the government in performing this gatekeeping function. Ms. Maxwell's counsel understand the scope and limitations of Rule 17 and have not requested anything that would run afoul of the Rule. The subpoena recipients are third parties who are well qualified to assert any objection to the subpoena requests.\nA similar request was made, and rejected in Ray, supra, at *7:\nthe Government is not entitled to be informed of the complete universe of subpoenas requested by the defense that may relate to other victims, now or going forward. In its letters and at argument, the Government urged that it had an independent obligation to protect the rights of victims and that it was best situated to inform the Court of the relevance or lack of relevance of any subpoena related to victim records. That obligation to protect the rights of victims, however, also is shared by the Court, and the Court is fully capable of directing the Government be informed of a subpoena and requesting the appropriate information in an appropriate case and regardless whether the victim objects.\nIV. The Government is Not Entitled to Advance Notice of Material Produced\nThe government offers no authority for its request that it receive contemporaneous copies of any material produced pursuant to a Rule 17 subpoena. This request is remarkable given that the government has steadfastly refused to identify the names of the alleged accusers, the details about the alleged offense, or the statements made by the accusers. The\nDOJ-OGR-00003858",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 218 Filed 04/19/21 Page 6 of 8",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Hon. Alison J. Nathan\nApril 15, 2021\nPage 6",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "documents . . . are not protected if a party voluntarily discloses them\" and determining that government waived the work-product privilege even though its disclosure was inadvertent).",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "III. The Government Has No \"Need\" to Know.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The government claims, without support, that \"[t]he only way for the [g]overnment to vindicate\" its ill-defined interests \"is with notice\" so that it can move to quash the subpoenas.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The government ignores the role of this Court in this process. All the subpoenas requested by Ms. Maxwell are under the strict procedures authorized by the Rule. The Court is keenly aware of the standards necessary for the issuance of a Rule 17 subpoena and needs no assistance from the government in performing this gatekeeping function. Ms. Maxwell's counsel understand the scope and limitations of Rule 17 and have not requested anything that would run afoul of the Rule. The subpoena recipients are third parties who are well qualified to assert any objection to the subpoena requests.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "A similar request was made, and rejected in Ray, supra, at *7:",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "the Government is not entitled to be informed of the complete universe of subpoenas requested by the defense that may relate to other victims, now or going forward. In its letters and at argument, the Government urged that it had an independent obligation to protect the rights of victims and that it was best situated to inform the Court of the relevance or lack of relevance of any subpoena related to victim records. That obligation to protect the rights of victims, however, also is shared by the Court, and the Court is fully capable of directing the Government be informed of a subpoena and requesting the appropriate information in an appropriate case and regardless whether the victim objects.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "IV. The Government is Not Entitled to Advance Notice of Material Produced",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The government offers no authority for its request that it receive contemporaneous copies of any material produced pursuant to a Rule 17 subpoena. This request is remarkable given that the government has steadfastly refused to identify the names of the alleged accusers, the details about the alleged offense, or the statements made by the accusers. The",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003858",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Alison J. Nathan",
      "Ms. Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government",
      "Court"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "April 15, 2021",
      "04/19/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 218",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003858"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is mostly printed, with no handwritten content or stamps visible. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}