{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "4",
    "document_number": "298",
    "date": "06/04/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 298 Filed 06/04/21 Page 4 of 6\n\nmeritless. Lastly, Maxwell's theory that a forensic analysis could reveal the date that the journal was written and whether it had been altered is for impeachment of anticipated authentication testimony. Moreover, it is entirely speculative and unsubstantiated. Maxwell provides no actual reason to doubt the journal's authenticity. In her May 12, 2021 letter, Maxwell claims that two copies of one of the pages are \"obviously, and noticeably, different.\" The difference, which is not explained in the letter, is neither obvious nor noticeable to this Court. Indeed, the writing and handwriting in the two exhibits certainly look identical. At most, one version appears to be a photograph of the page in the journal (Exhibit A), while the other appears to be a photocopy of the same page (Exhibit B). Maxwell fails to identify any actual differences. Separately, here again Maxwell's arguments sound in impeachment of anticipated authentication testimony. For all of the reasons stated above, the Court concludes that a Rule 17(c) subpoena is not the proper vehicle for Request 9.\n\nRequest 10 seeks production of a pair of black boots that Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein allegedly gave to an alleged victim. The Government has indicated that it has requested that BSF produce the boots to the FBI and that, when the boots are in the FBI's possession, the Government will promptly make them available to the defense for examination and use at trial. Maxwell contends that the Court should nonetheless order the boots' production to the defense. The argument is meritless. Rule 17(c) is not the proper mechanism for discovery from third parties where the sought-after item is \"otherwise procurable reasonably in advance of trial.\" Nixon, 418 U.S. at 698-700. That is the case here; The Government has represented that the defense will be able to inspect the boots before trial. The Defendant's request is therefore denied as moot. If the Government fails to make the boots available for inspection within a reasonable 4\n\nDOJ-OGR-00004740",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 298 Filed 06/04/21 Page 4 of 6",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "meritless. Lastly, Maxwell's theory that a forensic analysis could reveal the date that the journal was written and whether it had been altered is for impeachment of anticipated authentication testimony. Moreover, it is entirely speculative and unsubstantiated. Maxwell provides no actual reason to doubt the journal's authenticity. In her May 12, 2021 letter, Maxwell claims that two copies of one of the pages are \"obviously, and noticeably, different.\" The difference, which is not explained in the letter, is neither obvious nor noticeable to this Court. Indeed, the writing and handwriting in the two exhibits certainly look identical. At most, one version appears to be a photograph of the page in the journal (Exhibit A), while the other appears to be a photocopy of the same page (Exhibit B). Maxwell fails to identify any actual differences. Separately, here again Maxwell's arguments sound in impeachment of anticipated authentication testimony. For all of the reasons stated above, the Court concludes that a Rule 17(c) subpoena is not the proper vehicle for Request 9.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Request 10 seeks production of a pair of black boots that Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein allegedly gave to an alleged victim. The Government has indicated that it has requested that BSF produce the boots to the FBI and that, when the boots are in the FBI's possession, the Government will promptly make them available to the defense for examination and use at trial. Maxwell contends that the Court should nonetheless order the boots' production to the defense. The argument is meritless. Rule 17(c) is not the proper mechanism for discovery from third parties where the sought-after item is \"otherwise procurable reasonably in advance of trial.\" Nixon, 418 U.S. at 698-700. That is the case here; The Government has represented that the defense will be able to inspect the boots before trial. The Defendant's request is therefore denied as moot. If the Government fails to make the boots available for inspection within a reasonable",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "4",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00004740",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell",
      "Jeffrey Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "FBI",
      "BSF",
      "Government",
      "Court"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "May 12, 2021",
      "06/04/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 298",
      "Request 9",
      "Request 10",
      "Exhibit A",
      "Exhibit B",
      "Nixon, 418 U.S. at 698-700",
      "DOJ-OGR-00004740"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Maxwell. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 4 of 6."
}