{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "6",
    "document_number": "244",
    "date": "04/23/21",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 244 Filed 04/23/21 Page 6 of 14\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nApril 2, 2021\nPage 6\nimpeachment material. Accordingly, the Court \"encourages the government to obtain evidence that may be relevant to the credibility and impeachment of its witnesses and disclose this information\" to the defendants as soon as practicable.\nBy contrast, in this case, the government has scrupulously avoided looking for or acquiring any information favorable to Ms. Maxwell. To the contrary, the government met with lawyers for civil litigants, took possession of selective items of their information and only disclosed what information it views necessary to justify its current dilemma. The investigation it conducted to determine the scope of its communication with BSF was incomplete and entirely self-serving.\nSubpoena Requests 1-5 are substantially like those approved by this Court in United States v. Wey, 252 F. Supp. 3d 237, 243 (S.D.N.Y. 2017), which called for \"all correspondence and records sent or received\" between identified individuals and entities over specific periods of time3\nAlthough BSF admits it cannot make any cogent argument that the communications sought in Requests 1-5 are not relevant (Motion at 4), the relevance is clear: pending before the Court are two motions to suppress based on misrepresentations made by the government to Chief Judge McMahon and a motion to dismiss the indictment for prejudicial delay. These communications are the evidence necessary for resolution of those motions. They are\n3 The language authorized by the Court was for:\nAll correspondence and records sent or received by Keely Walter, William Slattery, or Andrew Hall relating to, interpreting or applying NASDAQ's 300 round-lot shareholder requirement, with respect to the listing applications of:\n1. [SmartHeat], during the period of June 20, 2008 through January 27, 2009;\n2. [Deer], during the period of May 4, 2009 through July 16, 2010; and\n3. [CleanTech], during the period July 13, 2010 through December 10, 2010.\nDOJ-OGR-00003977",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 244 Filed 04/23/21 Page 6 of 14",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nApril 2, 2021\nPage 6",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "impeachment material. Accordingly, the Court \"encourages the government to obtain evidence that may be relevant to the credibility and impeachment of its witnesses and disclose this information\" to the defendants as soon as practicable.\nBy contrast, in this case, the government has scrupulously avoided looking for or acquiring any information favorable to Ms. Maxwell. To the contrary, the government met with lawyers for civil litigants, took possession of selective items of their information and only disclosed what information it views necessary to justify its current dilemma. The investigation it conducted to determine the scope of its communication with BSF was incomplete and entirely self-serving.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Subpoena Requests 1-5 are substantially like those approved by this Court in United States v. Wey, 252 F. Supp. 3d 237, 243 (S.D.N.Y. 2017), which called for \"all correspondence and records sent or received\" between identified individuals and entities over specific periods of time3",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Although BSF admits it cannot make any cogent argument that the communications sought in Requests 1-5 are not relevant (Motion at 4), the relevance is clear: pending before the Court are two motions to suppress based on misrepresentations made by the government to Chief Judge McMahon and a motion to dismiss the indictment for prejudicial delay. These communications are the evidence necessary for resolution of those motions. They are",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "3 The language authorized by the Court was for:\nAll correspondence and records sent or received by Keely Walter, William Slattery, or Andrew Hall relating to, interpreting or applying NASDAQ's 300 round-lot shareholder requirement, with respect to the listing applications of:\n1. [SmartHeat], during the period of June 20, 2008 through January 27, 2009;\n2. [Deer], during the period of May 4, 2009 through July 16, 2010; and\n3. [CleanTech], during the period July 13, 2010 through December 10, 2010.",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003977",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Alison J. Nathan",
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Keely Walter",
      "William Slattery",
      "Andrew Hall",
      "Chief Judge McMahon"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "NASDAQ",
      "BSF"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "April 2, 2021",
      "June 20, 2008",
      "January 27, 2009",
      "May 4, 2009",
      "July 16, 2010",
      "July 13, 2010",
      "December 10, 2010",
      "04/23/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 244",
      "252 F. Supp. 3d 237",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003977"
    ]
  },
  "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 6 of a 14-page document."
}