{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "14",
    "document_number": "734",
    "date": "07/15/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 734 Filed 07/15/22 Page 14 of 16\n\nNovember 19, 2021\nPage Fourteen\n\nand protection from disclosure under applicable law.\"54 That the EVCP was designed to invoke the exclusionary protections of provisions like Rule 408 is plain.\n\nAs such, the documents Maxwell seeks are not admissible \"on behalf of any party\" to either prove or disprove the validity of a claim or—as especially important here, given the Court's prior recognition that Maxwell sought EVCP Material from Boies Schiller \"for impeachment\"55—to \"impeach by a prior inconsistent statement or a contradiction.\" Fed. R. Evid. 408(a). Because the documents are inadmissible, the subpoena fails to meet the Nixon test and should be quashed.\n\nRule 408's limited exceptions to inadmissibility are not applicable here and do not favor upholding the subpoena. First, while Rule 408(a)(2) provides a limited exception to inadmissibility for statements or conduct \"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,\" that exception does not apply here, where the underlying claims (i.e., the victims' claims for sexual abuse against Epstein) were private matters, not \"related to a claim by a public office.\" See United States v. Davis, No. Crim. 09-343, 2009 WL 3646459, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 4, 2009) (\"Since the agreement was entered into between private parties, it does not fall into the limited exception enunciated in 408(a)(2) involving compromise negotiations with a public agency.\")\n\nAnd while under Rule 408(b), the Court \"may admit this evidence for another purpose, such as proving a witness's bias or prejudice,\" we are unaware of Maxwell having demonstrated how the materials she seeks would demonstrate \"bias or prejudice\" (including for the reasons in the government's motion) as opposed to being impermissibly used to \"impeach by a prior\n\n54 Ex. D at 8 n.1 (Protocol).\n55 ECF No. 252 at 7.\n\nDOJ-OGR-00011464",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 734 Filed 07/15/22 Page 14 of 16",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "November 19, 2021\nPage Fourteen",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "and protection from disclosure under applicable law.\"54 That the EVCP was designed to invoke the exclusionary protections of provisions like Rule 408 is plain.\n\nAs such, the documents Maxwell seeks are not admissible \"on behalf of any party\" to either prove or disprove the validity of a claim or—as especially important here, given the Court's prior recognition that Maxwell sought EVCP Material from Boies Schiller \"for impeachment\"55—to \"impeach by a prior inconsistent statement or a contradiction.\" Fed. R. Evid. 408(a). Because the documents are inadmissible, the subpoena fails to meet the Nixon test and should be quashed.\n\nRule 408's limited exceptions to inadmissibility are not applicable here and do not favor upholding the subpoena. First, while Rule 408(a)(2) provides a limited exception to inadmissibility for statements or conduct \"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,\" that exception does not apply here, where the underlying claims (i.e., the victims' claims for sexual abuse against Epstein) were private matters, not \"related to a claim by a public office.\" See United States v. Davis, No. Crim. 09-343, 2009 WL 3646459, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 4, 2009) (\"Since the agreement was entered into between private parties, it does not fall into the limited exception enunciated in 408(a)(2) involving compromise negotiations with a public agency.\")\n\nAnd while under Rule 408(b), the Court \"may admit this evidence for another purpose, such as proving a witness's bias or prejudice,\" we are unaware of Maxwell having demonstrated how the materials she seeks would demonstrate \"bias or prejudice\" (including for the reasons in the government's motion) as opposed to being impermissibly used to \"impeach by a prior",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "54 Ex. D at 8 n.1 (Protocol).\n55 ECF No. 252 at 7.",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011464",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell",
      "Nixon",
      "Epstein",
      "Davis"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Boies Schiller"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "E.D. Pa."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "November 19, 2021",
      "07/15/22",
      "Nov. 4, 2009"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 734",
      "Rule 408",
      "ECF No. 252",
      "Crim. 09-343",
      "2009 WL 3646459",
      "DOJ-OGR-00011464"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case involving Maxwell. The text discusses the admissibility of certain documents and the application of Rule 408. The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
}