{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "10",
    "document_number": "453",
    "date": "11/12/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 453 Filed 11/12/21 Page 10 of 52\n\n129-1, 2012 WL 1565099 (E.D. Tenn. May 1, 2012) (government must disclose any statements of co-conspirators that it intends to use at trial three weeks prior to the trial).\n\nThere is ample legal authority for the Court to enter the Order to avoid delays and arguments during trial about what statements are or are not within the 10-year conspiracy alleged here and to prevent surprise and prejudice to the Defendant.\n\nC. There Should Be a Sanction\n\nHedging its bets, the government acknowledges that it \"may have misread the court's order\" but offers no solution other than the defense is \"free to litigate the admissibility of any such statement during trial.\" This was the government's losing argument before the Order.\n\nDistrict courts have broad discretion to sanction a party who violates discovery orders. United States v. Golyansky, 291 F.3d 1245, 1249 (10th Cir. 2002). In considering a particular remedy for a violation, the factors considered are \"the reasons why disclosure was not made, the extent of the prejudice, if any, to the opposing party, the feasibility of rectifying that prejudice by a continuance, and any other relevant circumstances.\" United States v. Lee, 834 F.3d 145, 159 (2d Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. Pineros, 532 F.2d 868, 871 (2d Cir. 1976)). The appropriate remedy is exclusion. Ms. Maxwell has been in jail for approximately 18 months. She is trying not to request a continuance of the trial and her lawyers are making every effort to review massive amounts of discovery, interview potential witness, prepare for trial, and juggle a myriad of other responsibilities. The government offers no legitimate excuse for non-compliance. It clearly knows what statements it will try to introduce, it just does not want to tell anyone to avoid challenges to the statements. This is willful, not negligent or inadvertent conduct which should not be sanctioned by the Court.\n\n4\nDOJ-OGR-00006890",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 453 Filed 11/12/21 Page 10 of 52",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "129-1, 2012 WL 1565099 (E.D. Tenn. May 1, 2012) (government must disclose any statements of co-conspirators that it intends to use at trial three weeks prior to the trial).\n\nThere is ample legal authority for the Court to enter the Order to avoid delays and arguments during trial about what statements are or are not within the 10-year conspiracy alleged here and to prevent surprise and prejudice to the Defendant.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "C. There Should Be a Sanction",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Hedging its bets, the government acknowledges that it \"may have misread the court's order\" but offers no solution other than the defense is \"free to litigate the admissibility of any such statement during trial.\" This was the government's losing argument before the Order.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "District courts have broad discretion to sanction a party who violates discovery orders. United States v. Golyansky, 291 F.3d 1245, 1249 (10th Cir. 2002). In considering a particular remedy for a violation, the factors considered are \"the reasons why disclosure was not made, the extent of the prejudice, if any, to the opposing party, the feasibility of rectifying that prejudice by a continuance, and any other relevant circumstances.\" United States v. Lee, 834 F.3d 145, 159 (2d Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. Pineros, 532 F.2d 868, 871 (2d Cir. 1976)). The appropriate remedy is exclusion. Ms. Maxwell has been in jail for approximately 18 months. She is trying not to request a continuance of the trial and her lawyers are making every effort to review massive amounts of discovery, interview potential witness, prepare for trial, and juggle a myriad of other responsibilities. The government offers no legitimate excuse for non-compliance. It clearly knows what statements it will try to introduce, it just does not want to tell anyone to avoid challenges to the statements. This is willful, not negligent or inadvertent conduct which should not be sanctioned by the Court.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "4",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00006890",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Court",
      "Department of Justice"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Tennessee",
      "E.D. Tenn"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "May 1, 2012",
      "11/12/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 453",
      "DOJ-OGR-00006890"
    ]
  },
  "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 notes. The document is page 10 of 52."
}