{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "5",
    "document_number": "64",
    "date": "October 14, 2020",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 64 Filed 10/14/20 Page 5 of 6\n\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nOctober 14, 2020\nPage 5\n\nsensitive information about them. (Id.). The government further asserts that such disclosure will \"jeopardize the government's ongoing investigation\" because it will reveal to the defendant the scope of the government's investigation and may deter other alleged victims from coming forward to provide evidence. (Id. at 1, 3). Essentially, the government is arguing that disclosure of the Materials should be delayed because it would not let Ms. Maxwell know, at this stage of the proceedings, who the government spoke to, and because it is concerned that other people might not come forward to provide additional evidence against Ms. Maxwell.\n\nThese are not the sorts of concerns that courts have found may jeopardize an ongoing investigation and establish good cause for delaying disclosure. Courts typically allow delayed disclosure on these grounds when immediate disclosure may alert other potential targets of the investigation that they are being investigated or may identify individuals who are proactively cooperating with the government to gather evidence against other potential targets. The cases cited in the government's own letter make this clear. See Smith, 985 F. Supp. 2d at 531-32 (disclosure of certain discovery materials might \"alert the targets of the investigation and could lead to efforts by them to frustrate the ongoing investigations\"); United States v. Mennino, 480 F. Supp. 1182, 1188 (S.D.N.Y. 1979) (government's ongoing investigation into other potential defendants could be disrupted by disclosure of certain discovery materials). Similarly, courts often grant protective orders in this context when the government has made a sufficient showing that disclosure may lead to witness intimidation or threats to their safety. See United States v. Urena, 989 F. Supp. 2d 253, 262-63 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (collecting cases).\n\nThe government has done neither here. The government has not made any showing that disclosure would thwart an ongoing investigation into other potential targets, or would jeopardize the safety of any potential witnesses. Instead, the government asserts a speculative and self-serving concern that disclosure of the Materials it might make it more difficult to recruit additional witnesses for its existing case against Ms. Maxwell. That is not the type of \"clearly defined, specific and serious injury\" that establishes good cause to delay disclosure under Rule 16(d)(1).\n\nFor the foregoing reasons, the Court should deny the government's requested relief under Rule 16(d)(1) and instead order the government to immediately produce the Materials and the prior statements of these witnesses to the defense.\n\nSincerely,\n\n/s/ Christian Everdell\nChristian R. Everdell\nCOHEN & GRESSER LLP\n800 Third Avenue, 21st Floor\nNew York, New York 10022\n(212) 957-7600\n\nDOJ-OGR-00001799",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 64 Filed 10/14/20 Page 5 of 6",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nOctober 14, 2020\nPage 5",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "sensitive information about them. (Id.). The government further asserts that such disclosure will \"jeopardize the government's ongoing investigation\" because it will reveal to the defendant the scope of the government's investigation and may deter other alleged victims from coming forward to provide evidence. (Id. at 1, 3). Essentially, the government is arguing that disclosure of the Materials should be delayed because it would not let Ms. Maxwell know, at this stage of the proceedings, who the government spoke to, and because it is concerned that other people might not come forward to provide additional evidence against Ms. Maxwell.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "These are not the sorts of concerns that courts have found may jeopardize an ongoing investigation and establish good cause for delaying disclosure. Courts typically allow delayed disclosure on these grounds when immediate disclosure may alert other potential targets of the investigation that they are being investigated or may identify individuals who are proactively cooperating with the government to gather evidence against other potential targets. The cases cited in the government's own letter make this clear. See Smith, 985 F. Supp. 2d at 531-32 (disclosure of certain discovery materials might \"alert the targets of the investigation and could lead to efforts by them to frustrate the ongoing investigations\"); United States v. Mennino, 480 F. Supp. 1182, 1188 (S.D.N.Y. 1979) (government's ongoing investigation into other potential defendants could be disrupted by disclosure of certain discovery materials). Similarly, courts often grant protective orders in this context when the government has made a sufficient showing that disclosure may lead to witness intimidation or threats to their safety. See United States v. Urena, 989 F. Supp. 2d 253, 262-63 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (collecting cases).",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The government has done neither here. The government has not made any showing that disclosure would thwart an ongoing investigation into other potential targets, or would jeopardize the safety of any potential witnesses. Instead, the government asserts a speculative and self-serving concern that disclosure of the Materials it might make it more difficult to recruit additional witnesses for its existing case against Ms. Maxwell. That is not the type of \"clearly defined, specific and serious injury\" that establishes good cause to delay disclosure under Rule 16(d)(1).",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "For the foregoing reasons, the Court should deny the government's requested relief under Rule 16(d)(1) and instead order the government to immediately produce the Materials and the prior statements of these witnesses to the defense.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Sincerely,\n\n/s/ Christian Everdell\nChristian R. Everdell\nCOHEN & GRESSER LLP\n800 Third Avenue, 21st Floor\nNew York, New York 10022\n(212) 957-7600",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00001799",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Alison J. Nathan",
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Christian Everdell",
      "Christian R. Everdell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "COHEN & GRESSER LLP"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "October 14, 2020"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "Document 64",
      "DOJ-OGR-00001799"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case against Ms. Maxwell. The text is well-formatted and printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document includes citations to legal cases and references to specific rules of criminal procedure."
}