{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "8",
    "document_number": "334",
    "date": "08/13/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 334 Filed 08/13/21 Page 8 of 10\n\ncommunication of information of any kind.\" As a general matter, the use of the terms \"all\" and \"any\" \"do not evince specificity.\" United States v. Tagliaferro, No. 19-CR-472 (PAC), 2021 WL 980004, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2021). And while the requested subpoenas are limited to the period between 2015 and 2021, the timeframe is still overly broad. Here, too, the requests are precisely the kind of \"fishing expedition\" that the specificity requirement is designed to prevent. See Dkt. No. 252, April 27, 2021 Op., at 3–4; Bowman Dairy Co., 341 U.S. at 221.\n\nIndeed, the requests are akin to discovery requests in civil litigation. 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; United States v. Wey, 252 F. Supp. 3d 237, 253 (S.D.N.Y. 2017). On the specificity prong alone, Requests 1 through 5 fail to satisfy the Nixon standard. They also fail because there is no plausible theory of relevance to these requests, and the briefing papers advance no discernible explanation for why these documents may be relevant at trial. The papers suggest that part of the impetus for the requests relate to impeachment, but that is insufficient to warrant issuance of a Rule 17(c) subpoena.\n\nRequests 6 and 7 seek \"any\" notes, reports, records or summaries reflecting any meetings or communications between Subpoena Recipient-3 and Subpoena Recipient-4 and certain victims or their counsel. These requests are plainly a \"fishing expedition,\" and they fail on that basis. Nixon, 418 U.S. at 698. In any event, and more generally, the requests do not satisfy Nixon's relevance requirement. Once again, the requests are sought for mere impeachment purposes, and to the extent that the materials may become relevant, they would only do so after the witness(es) are called to testify. A pre-trial Rule 17(c) subpoena is not the proper mechanism for procuring such impeachment materials. Skelos, 2018 WL 2254538, at *2. Maxwell presents\n\n8\n\nDOJ-OGR-00005037",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 334 Filed 08/13/21 Page 8 of 10",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "communication of information of any kind.\" As a general matter, the use of the terms \"all\" and \"any\" \"do not evince specificity.\" United States v. Tagliaferro, No. 19-CR-472 (PAC), 2021 WL 980004, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2021). And while the requested subpoenas are limited to the period between 2015 and 2021, the timeframe is still overly broad. Here, too, the requests are precisely the kind of \"fishing expedition\" that the specificity requirement is designed to prevent. See Dkt. No. 252, April 27, 2021 Op., at 3–4; Bowman Dairy Co., 341 U.S. at 221.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Indeed, the requests are akin to discovery requests in civil litigation. 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; United States v. Wey, 252 F. Supp. 3d 237, 253 (S.D.N.Y. 2017). On the specificity prong alone, Requests 1 through 5 fail to satisfy the Nixon standard. They also fail because there is no plausible theory of relevance to these requests, and the briefing papers advance no discernible explanation for why these documents may be relevant at trial. The papers suggest that part of the impetus for the requests relate to impeachment, but that is insufficient to warrant issuance of a Rule 17(c) subpoena.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Requests 6 and 7 seek \"any\" notes, reports, records or summaries reflecting any meetings or communications between Subpoena Recipient-3 and Subpoena Recipient-4 and certain victims or their counsel. These requests are plainly a \"fishing expedition,\" and they fail on that basis. Nixon, 418 U.S. at 698. In any event, and more generally, the requests do not satisfy Nixon's relevance requirement. Once again, the requests are sought for mere impeachment purposes, and to the extent that the materials may become relevant, they would only do so after the witness(es) are called to testify. A pre-trial Rule 17(c) subpoena is not the proper mechanism for procuring such impeachment materials. Skelos, 2018 WL 2254538, at *2. Maxwell presents",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "8",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00005037",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Tagliaferro",
      "Avenatti",
      "Nixon",
      "Wey",
      "Skelos",
      "Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "2015",
      "2021",
      "Mar. 16, 2021",
      "April 27, 2021",
      "Jan. 6, 2020",
      "08/13/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 334",
      "19-CR-472 (PAC)",
      "2021 WL 980004",
      "Dkt. No. 252",
      "No. (S1) 19-CR-373 (PGG)",
      "2020 WL 86768",
      "252 F. Supp. 3d 237",
      "2018 WL 2254538",
      "DOJ-OGR-00005037"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case, discussing the specificity and relevance of subpoena requests. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 8 of 10."
}