{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "13",
    "document_number": "732",
    "date": "07/14/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 732 Filed 07/14/22 Page 13 of 25\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nNovember 22, 2021\nPage 13\n(1) furnishing, promising, or offering--or accepting, promising to accept, or offering to accept--a valuable consideration in compromising or attempting to compromise the claim; and\n(2) conduct or a statement made during compromise negotiations about the claim--except when offered in a criminal case and when the negotiations related to a claim by a public office in the exercise of its regulatory, investigative, or enforcement authority.\n(b) Exceptions. The court may admit this evidence for another purpose, such as proving a witness's bias or prejudice, negating a contention of undue delay, or proving an effort to obstruct a criminal investigation or prosecution.\nFed. R. Evid. 408. For at least three reasons, Rule 408 does not apply here.\nFirst, the Rule only prohibits evidence of compromise when the disputed claim is the same claim that was compromised. As the Second Circuit has held, \"Evidence of an offer to compromise, though otherwise barred by Rule 408, can fall outside the Rule if it is offered for 'another purpose,' i.e., for a purpose other than to prove or disprove the validity of the claims that the offers were meant to settle.\" Trebor Sportswear Co. v. The Ltd. Stores, Inc., 865 F.2d 506, 510 (2d Cir. 1989) (emphasis added); Carr v. Health Ins. Plan of Greater New York, Inc., No. 99 CIV. 3706 (NRB), 2001 WL 563722, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. May 24, 2001) (\"[Rule 408] is not a blanket rule of inadmissibility for any and all statements in the settlement context. If evidence is 'offered for another purpose' apart from liability for (or damages resulting from) the claim under settlement discussion, that evidence may be admitted.\" (emphasis added)); see also Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Karenkim, Inc., No. 5:08-CV-1019 (NAM/DEP), 2011 WL 13352967, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 10, 2011) (\"But when settlement-related evidence is related to a claim not under consideration by a jury, courts generally permit its introduction, so long as it is otherwise admissible, if it is relevant to a claim that is at issue.\" (citing cases)).\nDOJ-OGR-00011436",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 732 Filed 07/14/22 Page 13 of 25",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nNovember 22, 2021\nPage 13",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "(1) furnishing, promising, or offering--or accepting, promising to accept, or offering to accept--a valuable consideration in compromising or attempting to compromise the claim; and\n(2) conduct or a statement made during compromise negotiations about the claim--except when offered in a criminal case and when the negotiations related to a claim by a public office in the exercise of its regulatory, investigative, or enforcement authority.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "(b) Exceptions. The court may admit this evidence for another purpose, such as proving a witness's bias or prejudice, negating a contention of undue delay, or proving an effort to obstruct a criminal investigation or prosecution.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Fed. R. Evid. 408. For at least three reasons, Rule 408 does not apply here.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "First, the Rule only prohibits evidence of compromise when the disputed claim is the same claim that was compromised. As the Second Circuit has held, \"Evidence of an offer to compromise, though otherwise barred by Rule 408, can fall outside the Rule if it is offered for 'another purpose,' i.e., for a purpose other than to prove or disprove the validity of the claims that the offers were meant to settle.\" Trebor Sportswear Co. v. The Ltd. Stores, Inc., 865 F.2d 506, 510 (2d Cir. 1989) (emphasis added); Carr v. Health Ins. Plan of Greater New York, Inc., No. 99 CIV. 3706 (NRB), 2001 WL 563722, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. May 24, 2001) (\"[Rule 408] is not a blanket rule of inadmissibility for any and all statements in the settlement context. If evidence is 'offered for another purpose' apart from liability for (or damages resulting from) the claim under settlement discussion, that evidence may be admitted.\" (emphasis added)); see also Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Karenkim, Inc., No. 5:08-CV-1019 (NAM/DEP), 2011 WL 13352967, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 10, 2011) (\"But when settlement-related evidence is related to a claim not under consideration by a jury, courts generally permit its introduction, so long as it is otherwise admissible, if it is relevant to a claim that is at issue.\" (citing cases)).",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011436",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Alison J. Nathan"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "The Ltd. Stores, Inc.",
      "Health Ins. Plan of Greater New York, Inc.",
      "Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n",
      "Karenkim, Inc."
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "November 22, 2021",
      "07/14/22",
      "May 24, 2001",
      "Jan. 10, 2011"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "732",
      "99 CIV. 3706 (NRB)",
      "5:08-CV-1019 (NAM/DEP)",
      "DOJ-OGR-00011436"
    ]
  },
  "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."
}