{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "16",
    "document_number": "247",
    "date": "04/23/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 247 Filed 04/23/21 Page 16 of 17\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nApril 5, 2021\nPage 16 of 17\n(“A general assertion that certain material ‘might contain exculpatory information’ is insufficient to prevail against a motion to quash under Rule 17(c).”). BSF has no duty to cull through broad sets of documents to determine whether any Brady materials might exist and whether those materials would be relevant and admissible when the Defendant has failed to meet her burden of satisfying Nixon’s requirements.\nSimilarly, the Defendant, likely realizing that she has no viable argument as to the relevance of all of the EVC Material, argues that even if the EVCP Material was relevant only to impeachment, impeachment evidence is discoverable in advance of trial. Resp. Ltr. at 13. This is a mischaracterization of the law. Each of the cases the Defendant cites relates to the Government's obligations under Brady and Giglio. See Poventud v. City of New York, No. 07 CIV. 3998 DAB, 2015 WL 1062186, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 2015) (civil § 1983 case in which criminal defendant contended that government violated Brady obligations); United States v. Petrillo, 821 F.2d 85, 90 (2d Cir. 1987) (affirming denial of a motion for a new trial based on government’s failure to produce Brady and Jencks Act materials); Grant v. Alldredge, 498 F.2d 376, 383 (2d Cir. 1974) (vacating judgment of conviction based on Brady violation by government); U.S. ex rel. Meers v. Wilkins, 326 F.2d 135, 136 (2d Cir. 1964) (affirming grant of habeas corpus petition based on Brady violation by government). Not one of the cases that the Defendant cites concerns a Rule 17 subpoena to a nonparty because it is well-settled law that a criminal defendant may not use a Rule 17 subpoena to obtain potential impeachment evidence from a nonparty. Pena, 2016 WL 8735699, at *2 (Nathan, J.) (“Rule 17(c) subpoenas may not issue prior to trial to obtain materials usable only to impeach.”).\nFor all of the foregoing reasons, the Defendant’s motion to authorize service of the Subpoena on BSF should be denied.\nDOJ-OGR-00004016",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 247 Filed 04/23/21 Page 16 of 17",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nApril 5, 2021\nPage 16 of 17",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "(“A general assertion that certain material ‘might contain exculpatory information’ is insufficient to prevail against a motion to quash under Rule 17(c).”). BSF has no duty to cull through broad sets of documents to determine whether any Brady materials might exist and whether those materials would be relevant and admissible when the Defendant has failed to meet her burden of satisfying Nixon’s requirements.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Similarly, the Defendant, likely realizing that she has no viable argument as to the relevance of all of the EVC Material, argues that even if the EVCP Material was relevant only to impeachment, impeachment evidence is discoverable in advance of trial. Resp. Ltr. at 13. This is a mischaracterization of the law. Each of the cases the Defendant cites relates to the Government's obligations under Brady and Giglio. See Poventud v. City of New York, No. 07 CIV. 3998 DAB, 2015 WL 1062186, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 2015) (civil § 1983 case in which criminal defendant contended that government violated Brady obligations); United States v. Petrillo, 821 F.2d 85, 90 (2d Cir. 1987) (affirming denial of a motion for a new trial based on government’s failure to produce Brady and Jencks Act materials); Grant v. Alldredge, 498 F.2d 376, 383 (2d Cir. 1974) (vacating judgment of conviction based on Brady violation by government); U.S. ex rel. Meers v. Wilkins, 326 F.2d 135, 136 (2d Cir. 1964) (affirming grant of habeas corpus petition based on Brady violation by government). Not one of the cases that the Defendant cites concerns a Rule 17 subpoena to a nonparty because it is well-settled law that a criminal defendant may not use a Rule 17 subpoena to obtain potential impeachment evidence from a nonparty. Pena, 2016 WL 8735699, at *2 (Nathan, J.) (“Rule 17(c) subpoenas may not issue prior to trial to obtain materials usable only to impeach.”).",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "For all of the foregoing reasons, the Defendant’s motion to authorize service of the Subpoena on BSF should be denied.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00004016",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Alison J. Nathan",
      "Nixon",
      "Poventud",
      "Petrillo",
      "Grant",
      "Alldredge",
      "Meers",
      "Wilkins",
      "Pena",
      "Nathan"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "BSF",
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York",
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "April 5, 2021",
      "04/23/21",
      "Mar. 9, 2015"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 247",
      "07 CIV. 3998 DAB",
      "2015 WL 1062186",
      "821 F.2d 85",
      "498 F.2d 376",
      "326 F.2d 135",
      "2016 WL 8735699",
      "DOJ-OGR-00004016"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 16 of 17."
}