{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "60 of 66",
    "document_number": "642",
    "date": "03/11/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 642 Filed 03/11/22 Page 60 of 66\nsought to distance himself from his original statements, attempted to destroy evidence, and tried to flee from the media.\nUnder analogous circumstances courts have refused discovery to individuals or entities under investigation. See John Doe Agency v. John Doe Corp., 493 U.S. 146, (1989) (recipient of a grand jury subpoena for certain records relating to a cost allocation appropriately denied access to records pursuant to a FOIA request).\nAny advance disclosure to Juror No. 50 of the questionnaire will undoubtably color Juror No. 50's testimony and allow him to place himself in the best possible posture. Although there may come a time when Juror No. 50 is entitled to this discovery-if he is charged with perjury, criminal contempt, or some other crime, for example-the time is not now.\nC. Juror No. 50's filings should be stricken or, alternatively, remain under seal.\nWhether a claimant has standing is \"the threshold question in every federal case, determining the power of the court to entertain the suit.\" In re Gucci, 126 F.3d 380, 387-88 (2d Cir. 1997) (citing Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498, (1975)). Striking the pleading of a putative litigant is appropriate where the litigant lacks standing. United States v. All Right, Title & Int. in Prop., Appurtenances, & Improvements Known as 479 Tamarind Drive, Hallendale, Fla., No. 98 CIV. 2279 DLC, 2011 WL 1045095, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 11, 2011). A stricken pleading is a nullity with no legal effect. Davis v. Bombardier Recreational Prod., Inc., No. 3:11CV236-TSL-MTP, 2012 WL 112202, at *3 (S.D. Miss. Jan. 12, 2012) (stricken amended complaint deemed a nullity and of\n53\nDOJ-OGR-00009752",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 642 Filed 03/11/22 Page 60 of 66",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "sought to distance himself from his original statements, attempted to destroy evidence, and tried to flee from the media.\nUnder analogous circumstances courts have refused discovery to individuals or entities under investigation. See John Doe Agency v. John Doe Corp., 493 U.S. 146, (1989) (recipient of a grand jury subpoena for certain records relating to a cost allocation appropriately denied access to records pursuant to a FOIA request).\nAny advance disclosure to Juror No. 50 of the questionnaire will undoubtably color Juror No. 50's testimony and allow him to place himself in the best possible posture. Although there may come a time when Juror No. 50 is entitled to this discovery-if he is charged with perjury, criminal contempt, or some other crime, for example-the time is not now.\nC. Juror No. 50's filings should be stricken or, alternatively, remain under seal.\nWhether a claimant has standing is \"the threshold question in every federal case, determining the power of the court to entertain the suit.\" In re Gucci, 126 F.3d 380, 387-88 (2d Cir. 1997) (citing Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498, (1975)). Striking the pleading of a putative litigant is appropriate where the litigant lacks standing. United States v. All Right, Title & Int. in Prop., Appurtenances, & Improvements Known as 479 Tamarind Drive, Hallendale, Fla., No. 98 CIV. 2279 DLC, 2011 WL 1045095, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 11, 2011). A stricken pleading is a nullity with no legal effect. Davis v. Bombardier Recreational Prod., Inc., No. 3:11CV236-TSL-MTP, 2012 WL 112202, at *3 (S.D. Miss. Jan. 12, 2012) (stricken amended complaint deemed a nullity and of",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "53",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009752",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Juror No. 50"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "John Doe Agency",
      "John Doe Corp.",
      "Gucci",
      "Bombardier Recreational Prod., Inc."
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Hallendale, Fla.",
      "S.D.N.Y.",
      "S.D. Miss."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "03/11/22",
      "Mar. 11, 2011",
      "Jan. 12, 2012",
      "1989",
      "1975"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 642",
      "493 U.S. 146",
      "126 F.3d 380",
      "422 U.S. 490",
      "No. 98 CIV. 2279 DLC",
      "2011 WL 1045095",
      "No. 3:11CV236-TSL-MTP",
      "2012 WL 112202",
      "DOJ-OGR-00009752"
    ]
  },
  "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."
}