{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "6",
    "document_number": "269",
    "date": "05/04/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 269 Filed 05/04/21 Page 6 of 9\n\nSecond, the request is insufficiently specific. To satisfy the specificity prong, a Rule 17(c) subpoena must be able to “reasonably specify the information contained or believed to be contained in the documents sought rather than merely hop[e] that something useful will turn up.” Barnes, 2008 WL 9359654, at *4 (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted); see, e.g., United States v. Avenatti, No. 19 Cr. 373 (PGG), 2020 WL 508682, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 31, 2020).\n\nThe defendant’s request for the entire diary is likely to sweep in a significant period of Minor Victim-2’s life before Minor Victim-2 met Epstein or the defendant—all of which is irrelevant.\n\nTo justify this overbreadth, the defendant identifies two reasons she needs to review the diary in full: to demonstrate the absence of references to the defendant, and to establish the diary’s authenticity. (4/2/21 Letter from Def., Dkt. No. 244 at 9). As to the former, there is no probative value in showing that diary entries before the defendant had ever met Epstein or the defendant contain no references to Epstein or the defendant, and in any event, the Government has conceded the point. As to the latter, the defendant offers only the conclusory statement that review of the entire diary is necessary. That is insufficient, as explained above.\n\nThird, the request is barred by Rule 17(h). That section prohibits the use of Rule 17 to “subpoena a statement of a witness or of a prospective witness,” Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(h), explaining that such issues are governed by Rule 26.2. The diary is a set of recorded statements by Minor Victim-2. To the extent it should be produced, that production is governed by Rule 16, Rule 26.2, Brady, and Giglio, but not Rule 17. See, e.g., United States v. Carton, 17 Cr. 680 (CM), 2018 WL 5818107, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 19, 2018) (rejecting a request for a personnel file because the BSF, Dkt. No. 191 at 5 (“The Defendant also clearly seeks to use the journal for impeachment purposes, as highlighted in a prior filing in a recently dismissed civil action Ms. Farmer filed against the Defendant.”)) But as the Court has recently explained, Rule 17 is not a tool to obtain impeachment material in advance of trial. (Order at 5).\n\nDOJ-OGR-00004099",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 269 Filed 05/04/21 Page 6 of 9",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Second, the request is insufficiently specific. To satisfy the specificity prong, a Rule 17(c) subpoena must be able to “reasonably specify the information contained or believed to be contained in the documents sought rather than merely hop[e] that something useful will turn up.” Barnes, 2008 WL 9359654, at *4 (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted); see, e.g., United States v. Avenatti, No. 19 Cr. 373 (PGG), 2020 WL 508682, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 31, 2020).",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The defendant’s request for the entire diary is likely to sweep in a significant period of Minor Victim-2’s life before Minor Victim-2 met Epstein or the defendant—all of which is irrelevant.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "To justify this overbreadth, the defendant identifies two reasons she needs to review the diary in full: to demonstrate the absence of references to the defendant, and to establish the diary’s authenticity. (4/2/21 Letter from Def., Dkt. No. 244 at 9). As to the former, there is no probative value in showing that diary entries before the defendant had ever met Epstein or the defendant contain no references to Epstein or the defendant, and in any event, the Government has conceded the point. As to the latter, the defendant offers only the conclusory statement that review of the entire diary is necessary. That is insufficient, as explained above.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Third, the request is barred by Rule 17(h). That section prohibits the use of Rule 17 to “subpoena a statement of a witness or of a prospective witness,” Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(h), explaining that such issues are governed by Rule 26.2. The diary is a set of recorded statements by Minor Victim-2. To the extent it should be produced, that production is governed by Rule 16, Rule 26.2, Brady, and Giglio, but not Rule 17. See, e.g., United States v. Carton, 17 Cr. 680 (CM), 2018 WL 5818107, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 19, 2018) (rejecting a request for a personnel file because the BSF, Dkt. No. 191 at 5 (“The Defendant also clearly seeks to use the journal for impeachment purposes, as highlighted in a prior filing in a recently dismissed civil action Ms. Farmer filed against the Defendant.”)) But as the Court has recently explained, Rule 17 is not a tool to obtain impeachment material in advance of trial. (Order at 5).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00004099",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Avenatti",
      "Epstein",
      "Farmer",
      "Minor Victim-2",
      "Carton"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government",
      "Court"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "05/04/21",
      "4/2/21",
      "Jan. 31, 2020",
      "Oct. 19, 2018"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 269",
      "No. 19 Cr. 373 (PGG)",
      "17 Cr. 680 (CM)",
      "Dkt. No. 244",
      "Dkt. No. 191"
    ]
  },
  "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 well-formatted and legible."
}