{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "4",
    "document_number": "521",
    "date": "December 3, 2021",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 521 Filed 12/03/21 Page 4 of 5\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nDecember 3, 2021\nPage 4\nprotection . . .\" See Fed. R. Evid. 502(a) (defining the limits of such a waiver as to undisclosed or inadvertently disclosed information); In re Steinhardt Partners, L.P., 9 F.3d 230, (2d Cir. 1993) (when a party voluntarily discloses otherwise privileged information to the government, she \"necessarily decides that the benefits of participation [in the government investigation] outweigh the benefits of confidentiality\"); 1 McCormick On Evid., § 93 (\"Waiver may be found, as Wigmore points out, not merely from words or conduct expressing an intention to relinquish a known right, but also from conduct such as partial disclosure which would make it unfair for the client to invoke the privilege thereafter.\").\nIf the Court has any doubt about this issue, it should hold a brief hearing, outside the presence of the jury, in which the parties can examine Mr. Glassman about the circumstances of his communications with the government in which he revealed his advice to Jane.\nMs. Maxwell has a constitutional right to compulsory process and to present a defense. U.S. Const. amends. V, VI. Because the attorney-client privilege does not preclude her from asking Mr. Glassman whether he told Jane that cooperating with the government and testifying against Ms. Maxwell would \"help her case,\" Ms. Maxwell has a constitutional right to call him as a witness and make this inquiry.\nDOJ-OGR-00008209",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 521 Filed 12/03/21 Page 4 of 5",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nDecember 3, 2021\nPage 4",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "protection . . .\" See Fed. R. Evid. 502(a) (defining the limits of such a waiver as to undisclosed or inadvertently disclosed information); In re Steinhardt Partners, L.P., 9 F.3d 230, (2d Cir. 1993) (when a party voluntarily discloses otherwise privileged information to the government, she \"necessarily decides that the benefits of participation [in the government investigation] outweigh the benefits of confidentiality\"); 1 McCormick On Evid., § 93 (\"Waiver may be found, as Wigmore points out, not merely from words or conduct expressing an intention to relinquish a known right, but also from conduct such as partial disclosure which would make it unfair for the client to invoke the privilege thereafter.\").",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "If the Court has any doubt about this issue, it should hold a brief hearing, outside the presence of the jury, in which the parties can examine Mr. Glassman about the circumstances of his communications with the government in which he revealed his advice to Jane.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Ms. Maxwell has a constitutional right to compulsory process and to present a defense. U.S. Const. amends. V, VI. Because the attorney-client privilege does not preclude her from asking Mr. Glassman whether he told Jane that cooperating with the government and testifying against Ms. Maxwell would \"help her case,\" Ms. Maxwell has a constitutional right to call him as a witness and make this inquiry.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00008209",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Alison J. Nathan",
      "Mr. Glassman",
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Jane",
      "Wigmore"
    ],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "December 3, 2021"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 521",
      "DOJ-OGR-00008209"
    ]
  },
  "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 annotations. The document is page 4 of a 5-page document."
}