{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "12",
    "document_number": "247",
    "date": "04/23/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 247 Filed 04/23/21 Page 12 of 17\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nApril 5, 2021\nPage 12 of 17\nthe relevant pages do not mention her, she needs no more than the relevant pages that she already has.\nIt is thus clear that the Defendant's purported need for the entire, original journal is not based on the allegedly exculpatory information that it contains (because she already has that information). Rather, the Defendant seeks the entire journal so that she can fish for other passages that she can use to attempt to impeach Ms. Farmer's credibility. Such a fishing expedition for potential impeachment material goes beyond the permissible bounds of a Rule 17 subpoena. See Nixon, 418 U.S. at 701 (\"Generally, the need for evidence to impeach witnesses is insufficient to require its production in advance of trial.\"). And if the Defendant does not seek the remainder of the journal passages for impeachment, she does not explain how they would otherwise be relevant and admissible at trial. The Court should not require production of the entire journal—which contains personal, private information about Ms. Farmer when she was a minor—if Defendant is unable to demonstrate that the overbroad Request meets the relevance and admissibility requirements and if it will yield no material evidence.6\n6 Even in civil cases, where much broader discovery is permitted under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure than under Rule 17(c), courts have refused to order disclosure of an entire diary or journal when the journal contains personal or sensitive entries and the party seeking disclosure cannot demonstrate that anything relevant has been withheld. See, e.g., Dubay v. King, No. 3:17-CV-348-J-20MCR, 2018 WL 3619630, at *1 (M.D. Fla. July 13, 2018) (\"Plaintiff failed to show how the production of Mr. King's private journal entries—containing information about Mr. King's private life and daily musings—relate to the subject matter of the claims in this lawsuit.\"); Combe v. Cinemark USA, Inc., No. 1:08-CV-00142-TS-DN, 2009 WL 2578853, at *2 (D. Utah Aug. 19, 2009) (\"Without any limit on relevancy, the entire journal is not discoverable. A plaintiff does not expose her entire private life to adverse scrutiny by filing suit.\"); Quiroz v. Hartgrove Hosp., No. 97 C 6515, 1998 WL 341812, at *1-2 (N.D. Ill. June 12, 1998) (plaintiff in a sexual harassment suit was only required to turn over portions of her diary that pertained to her claim); Ayala v. Tapia, CIV. A. 90–1345(RCL), 1991 WL 241873, at *2 (D.D.C. Nov. 1, 1991) (denying motion to compel all personal diary entries because \"most of the material demanded will be irrelevant to this case, but of intimate importance to the plaintiff\"); Carolan v. New York Telephone Co., No. 83",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 247 Filed 04/23/21 Page 12 of 17",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nApril 5, 2021\nPage 12 of 17",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "the relevant pages do not mention her, she needs no more than the relevant pages that she already has.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "It is thus clear that the Defendant's purported need for the entire, original journal is not based on the allegedly exculpatory information that it contains (because she already has that information). Rather, the Defendant seeks the entire journal so that she can fish for other passages that she can use to attempt to impeach Ms. Farmer's credibility. Such a fishing expedition for potential impeachment material goes beyond the permissible bounds of a Rule 17 subpoena. See Nixon, 418 U.S. at 701 (\"Generally, the need for evidence to impeach witnesses is insufficient to require its production in advance of trial.\"). And if the Defendant does not seek the remainder of the journal passages for impeachment, she does not explain how they would otherwise be relevant and admissible at trial. The Court should not require production of the entire journal—which contains personal, private information about Ms. Farmer when she was a minor—if Defendant is unable to demonstrate that the overbroad Request meets the relevance and admissibility requirements and if it will yield no material evidence.6",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "6 Even in civil cases, where much broader discovery is permitted under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure than under Rule 17(c), courts have refused to order disclosure of an entire diary or journal when the journal contains personal or sensitive entries and the party seeking disclosure cannot demonstrate that anything relevant has been withheld. See, e.g., Dubay v. King, No. 3:17-CV-348-J-20MCR, 2018 WL 3619630, at *1 (M.D. Fla. July 13, 2018) (\"Plaintiff failed to show how the production of Mr. King's private journal entries—containing information about Mr. King's private life and daily musings—relate to the subject matter of the claims in this lawsuit.\"); Combe v. Cinemark USA, Inc., No. 1:08-CV-00142-TS-DN, 2009 WL 2578853, at *2 (D. Utah Aug. 19, 2009) (\"Without any limit on relevancy, the entire journal is not discoverable. A plaintiff does not expose her entire private life to adverse scrutiny by filing suit.\"); Quiroz v. Hartgrove Hosp., No. 97 C 6515, 1998 WL 341812, at *1-2 (N.D. Ill. June 12, 1998) (plaintiff in a sexual harassment suit was only required to turn over portions of her diary that pertained to her claim); Ayala v. Tapia, CIV. A. 90–1345(RCL), 1991 WL 241873, at *2 (D.D.C. Nov. 1, 1991) (denying motion to compel all personal diary entries because \"most of the material demanded will be irrelevant to this case, but of intimate importance to the plaintiff\"); Carolan v. New York Telephone Co., No. 83",
      "position": "bottom"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Alison J. Nathan",
      "Ms. Farmer",
      "Mr. King",
      "Plaintiff",
      "Nixon"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Cinemark USA, Inc.",
      "Hartgrove Hosp.",
      "New York Telephone Co."
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Utah",
      "Illinois",
      "Florida",
      "District of Columbia"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "04/23/21",
      "April 5, 2021",
      "July 13, 2018",
      "Aug. 19, 2009",
      "June 12, 1998",
      "Nov. 1, 1991"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 247",
      "No. 3:17-CV-348-J-20MCR",
      "No. 1:08-CV-00142-TS-DN",
      "No. 97 C 6515",
      "CIV. A. 90–1345(RCL)",
      "No. 83"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing, specifically a legal brief or memorandum, discussing the relevance and admissibility of certain evidence in a criminal case. The text is dense and technical, with numerous citations to legal precedents and statutes. There are no visible redactions or damages to the document."
}