{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "4",
    "document_number": "252",
    "date": "04/27/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 252 Filed 04/27/21 Page 4 of 9\n\nSee United States v. Avenatti, No. (S1) 19-CR-373 (PGG), 2020 WL 86768, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 6, 2020). But Rule 17(c) subpoenas are not tools of discovery. Nixon, 418 U.S. at 698; Wey, 252 F. Supp. 3d at 253. On the specificity prong alone, Requests 1 through 5 fail to satisfy the Nixon standard.\n\nRequests 1 and 2 fail for the separate reason that, if Maxwell is entitled to the materials sought at all, they should come from the Government. Requests 1, 2, and 8 all seek documents that are procurable from the Government. As noted above, Requests 1 and 2 seek communications between BSF and government officials regarding a certain subject, from 2015 to the date of the subpoena. Request 8, meanwhile, refers to a specific grand jury subpoena that the Government issued to BSF. As to all of these requests, Maxwell asserts that the Rule 17(c) subpoena is necessary to fix what she deems to be the Government's failure to comply with its discovery obligations. Among the principles set forth in Nixon is that the materials must not be otherwise procurable reasonably in advance of trial by exercise of due diligence. Nixon, 418 U.S. at 699. These three requests target information that reasonably can be expected to be in the hands of the Government. To the extent that Maxwell has a basis to argue that the Government has not met its discovery obligations, the Rule 17(c) subpoena process is not the proper mechanism for pursuing that. Rather, with notice to the Government so that the issue is properly joined, Maxwell must make some showing of that failure and seek specific and appropriate relief from this Court.\n\nRequests 6 and 7 seek contingency fee agreements or engagement letters between BSF and two of its clients who are alleged victims. Maxwell has failed to make the required showing under Nixon that these records would be relevant or admissible for purposes of her Rule 17(c) application. The only plausible theory of relevance set forth in Maxwell's papers is that these",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 252 Filed 04/27/21 Page 4 of 9",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "See United States v. Avenatti, No. (S1) 19-CR-373 (PGG), 2020 WL 86768, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 6, 2020). But Rule 17(c) subpoenas are not tools of discovery. Nixon, 418 U.S. at 698; Wey, 252 F. Supp. 3d at 253. On the specificity prong alone, Requests 1 through 5 fail to satisfy the Nixon standard.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Requests 1 and 2 fail for the separate reason that, if Maxwell is entitled to the materials sought at all, they should come from the Government. Requests 1, 2, and 8 all seek documents that are procurable from the Government. As noted above, Requests 1 and 2 seek communications between BSF and government officials regarding a certain subject, from 2015 to the date of the subpoena. Request 8, meanwhile, refers to a specific grand jury subpoena that the Government issued to BSF. As to all of these requests, Maxwell asserts that the Rule 17(c) subpoena is necessary to fix what she deems to be the Government's failure to comply with its discovery obligations. Among the principles set forth in Nixon is that the materials must not be otherwise procurable reasonably in advance of trial by exercise of due diligence. Nixon, 418 U.S. at 699. These three requests target information that reasonably can be expected to be in the hands of the Government. To the extent that Maxwell has a basis to argue that the Government has not met its discovery obligations, the Rule 17(c) subpoena process is not the proper mechanism for pursuing that. Rather, with notice to the Government so that the issue is properly joined, Maxwell must make some showing of that failure and seek specific and appropriate relief from this Court.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Requests 6 and 7 seek contingency fee agreements or engagement letters between BSF and two of its clients who are alleged victims. Maxwell has failed to make the required showing under Nixon that these records would be relevant or admissible for purposes of her Rule 17(c) application. The only plausible theory of relevance set forth in Maxwell's papers is that these",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "4",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00004042",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell",
      "Avenatti",
      "Nixon"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "BSF",
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "Jan. 6, 2020",
      "04/27/21",
      "2015"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "252",
      "19-CR-373 (PGG)"
    ]
  },
  "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 4 of 9."
}