{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "9",
    "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 9 of 14\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nApril 2, 2021\nPage 9\nRequests 9-11\nRequests 9, 10, and 11 seek evidence for inspection in advance of trial. A subpoena issued pursuant to Rule 17(c)(1) “may order the witness to produce designated ‘books, papers, documents, data, or other objects”” so long as they are “evidentiary.” Bowman Dairy Co. v. United States, 341 U.S. 214, 219 (1951). Rule 17(c)(1) further provides that “the court may direct the witness to produce the designated items in court before trial or before they are to be offered in evidence.” When the items arrive, the court may permit the parties and their attorneys to inspect all or part of them. Id.\nThe Rule operates to “expedite the trial by providing a time and place before trial for the inspection of subpoenaed materials,” rather than “provide a means of discovery for criminal cases.” United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 698-99 (1974) (citing Bowman Dairy, 341 U.S. at 220)) (emphasis added). Here, Ms. Maxwell’s subpoena strictly adheres to that which Rule 17 allows: production of admittedly relevant and admissible items of evidence in advance of trial.\nItem 9, the journal, purports to be an account of alleged victim 2’s interactions with Epstein that form the basis of multiple counts in the indictment. It is exculpatory because the journal contains no reference to Ms. Maxwell. Partial pages of the journal were produced in civil litigation against Epstein, not to help Ms. Maxwell. Inspection of the entire journal is necessary to establish whether the journal is authentic and complete and whether or not spoliation has occurred. This examination requires the services of a qualified forensic document examiner and cannot be performed in the middle of trial without a significant disruption in the proceedings.\nGiven that alleged victim 2 placed the document in issue when she was trying to collect money from Epstein and Ms. Maxwell, BSF’s argument that the journal is irrelevant or inadmissible is\nDOJ-OGR-00003980",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 244 Filed 04/23/21 Page 9 of 14",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nApril 2, 2021\nPage 9",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Requests 9-11\nRequests 9, 10, and 11 seek evidence for inspection in advance of trial. A subpoena issued pursuant to Rule 17(c)(1) “may order the witness to produce designated ‘books, papers, documents, data, or other objects”” so long as they are “evidentiary.” Bowman Dairy Co. v. United States, 341 U.S. 214, 219 (1951). Rule 17(c)(1) further provides that “the court may direct the witness to produce the designated items in court before trial or before they are to be offered in evidence.” When the items arrive, the court may permit the parties and their attorneys to inspect all or part of them. Id.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Rule operates to “expedite the trial by providing a time and place before trial for the inspection of subpoenaed materials,” rather than “provide a means of discovery for criminal cases.” United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 698-99 (1974) (citing Bowman Dairy, 341 U.S. at 220)) (emphasis added). Here, Ms. Maxwell’s subpoena strictly adheres to that which Rule 17 allows: production of admittedly relevant and admissible items of evidence in advance of trial.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Item 9, the journal, purports to be an account of alleged victim 2’s interactions with Epstein that form the basis of multiple counts in the indictment. It is exculpatory because the journal contains no reference to Ms. Maxwell. Partial pages of the journal were produced in civil litigation against Epstein, not to help Ms. Maxwell. Inspection of the entire journal is necessary to establish whether the journal is authentic and complete and whether or not spoliation has occurred. This examination requires the services of a qualified forensic document examiner and cannot be performed in the middle of trial without a significant disruption in the proceedings.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Given that alleged victim 2 placed the document in issue when she was trying to collect money from Epstein and Ms. Maxwell, BSF’s argument that the journal is irrelevant or inadmissible is",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003980",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Alison J. Nathan",
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Epstein",
      "Nixon"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Bowman Dairy Co.",
      "United States",
      "BSF"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "April 2, 2021",
      "04/23/21",
      "1951",
      "1974"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 244",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003980"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case involving Ms. Maxwell and Epstein. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 9 of 14."
}