{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "1",
    "document_number": "518",
    "date": "November 30, 2021",
    "document_type": "Legal Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 518 Filed 11/30/21 Page 1 of 8\nHaddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C\nJeffrey S. Pagliuca\n150 East 10th Avenue\nDenver, Colorado 80203\nPH 303.831.7364\nFX 303.832.2628\nwww.hmflaw.com\njpagliuca@hmflaw.com\n\nNovember 30, 2021\n\nVIA ECF\n\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nUnited States District Court\nSouthern District of New York\n40 Foley Square\nNew York, NY 10007\n\nRe: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)\n\nDear Judge Nathan,\n\nThe government contends that Ms. Maxwell should be precluded from admitting into evidence a photograph offered while cross-examining Jane during the government's case-in-chief. The government says that Ms. Maxwell did not disclose the photograph as part of her reciprocal discovery obligations, thereby violating Rule 16(b)(1)(A). The government is wrong.\n\nThe language of Rule 16(b)(1)(A) is plain and unambiguous: Its reciprocal discovery obligations apply only to material Ms. Maxwell intends to use during her \"case-in-chief.\" The Rule says:\n\n(b) Defendant's Disclosure.\n\n(1) Information Subject to Disclosure.\n\n(A) Documents and Objects. If a defendant requests disclosure under Rule 16(a)(1)(E) and the government complies, then the defendant must permit the government, upon request, to inspect and to copy or photograph books, papers, documents, data, photographs, tangible objects, buildings or places, or copies or portions of any of these items if:\n\nDOJ-OGR-00008194",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 518 Filed 11/30/21 Page 1 of 8",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C\nJeffrey S. Pagliuca\n150 East 10th Avenue\nDenver, Colorado 80203\nPH 303.831.7364\nFX 303.832.2628\nwww.hmflaw.com\njpagliuca@hmflaw.com",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "November 30, 2021",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "VIA ECF\n\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nUnited States District Court\nSouthern District of New York\n40 Foley Square\nNew York, NY 10007",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)\n\nDear Judge Nathan,",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The government contends that Ms. Maxwell should be precluded from admitting into evidence a photograph offered while cross-examining Jane during the government's case-in-chief. The government says that Ms. Maxwell did not disclose the photograph as part of her reciprocal discovery obligations, thereby violating Rule 16(b)(1)(A). The government is wrong.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The language of Rule 16(b)(1)(A) is plain and unambiguous: Its reciprocal discovery obligations apply only to material Ms. Maxwell intends to use during her \"case-in-chief.\" The Rule says:",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "(b) Defendant's Disclosure.\n\n(1) Information Subject to Disclosure.\n\n(A) Documents and Objects. If a defendant requests disclosure under Rule 16(a)(1)(E) and the government complies, then the defendant must permit the government, upon request, to inspect and to copy or photograph books, papers, documents, data, photographs, tangible objects, buildings or places, or copies or portions of any of these items if:",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00008194",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca",
      "Alison J. Nathan",
      "Ghislaine Maxwell",
      "Jane"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C",
      "United States District Court",
      "Southern District of New York"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Denver",
      "Colorado",
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "November 30, 2021"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "20 Cr. 330 (AJN)",
      "DOJ-OGR-00008194",
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 518"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a legal filing in a court case. It is a typed document with no handwritten text or stamps. The document is related to the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell."
}