{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "11",
    "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 11 of 25\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan November 22, 2021 Page 11\ndoesn't mean the materials submitted to the EVCP are irrelevant. The relevance of evidence does not depend on theoretical evidentiary alternatives. Old Chief, 519 U.S. at 179.\n4. Communications.\nThe government denies the relevance of the accusers' communications with the EVCP, saying there is “no reason to believe” the accusers would make substantive statements or inconsistent statements in their communications. Gov. Mot. at 7. Not so.\nThe government's argument seems to assume that after an accuser makes her submission to the EVCP, there will be no further communications between the EVCP and the accuser. But as the Protocol makes clear, after the initial submission, “[a]dditional documentation may be requested at the discretion of the Administrator” and the Claimant “will be afforded the opportunity to submit to the Administrator any information deemed relevant to the Administrator's evaluation and determination of the claim.” Protocol, p 5. Moreover, if a Claimant submits “an incomplete or deficient claim, the Administrator will notify the Claimant, explain the additional information that is needed, and work with the Claimant or the Claimant's Legal Representative (where applicable) to assist in submitting a complete claim.” Id. So, contrary to the government's argument, there is ample reason to think substantive and potentially inconsistent statements were made in “communications” apart from claims submission material itself. These communications are relevant.\nC. The materials requested are specifically identified.\nNo motion challenges the specificity of Ms. Maxwell's subpoena. This Nixon factor is satisfied.\nDOJ-OGR-00011434",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 732 Filed 07/14/22 Page 11 of 25",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan November 22, 2021 Page 11",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "doesn't mean the materials submitted to the EVCP are irrelevant. The relevance of evidence does not depend on theoretical evidentiary alternatives. Old Chief, 519 U.S. at 179.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "4. Communications.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The government denies the relevance of the accusers' communications with the EVCP, saying there is “no reason to believe” the accusers would make substantive statements or inconsistent statements in their communications. Gov. Mot. at 7. Not so.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The government's argument seems to assume that after an accuser makes her submission to the EVCP, there will be no further communications between the EVCP and the accuser. But as the Protocol makes clear, after the initial submission, “[a]dditional documentation may be requested at the discretion of the Administrator” and the Claimant “will be afforded the opportunity to submit to the Administrator any information deemed relevant to the Administrator's evaluation and determination of the claim.” Protocol, p 5. Moreover, if a Claimant submits “an incomplete or deficient claim, the Administrator will notify the Claimant, explain the additional information that is needed, and work with the Claimant or the Claimant's Legal Representative (where applicable) to assist in submitting a complete claim.” Id. So, contrary to the government's argument, there is ample reason to think substantive and potentially inconsistent statements were made in “communications” apart from claims submission material itself. These communications are relevant.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "C. The materials requested are specifically identified.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "No motion challenges the specificity of Ms. Maxwell's subpoena. This Nixon factor is satisfied.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011434",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Alison J. Nathan",
      "Ms. Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "November 22, 2021",
      "07/14/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "732",
      "DOJ-OGR-00011434"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a case involving Ms. Maxwell. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 11 of 25."
}