{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "5",
    "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 5 of 9\ndocuments are necessary for purposes of impeachment. But as a general matter, the need to impeach witnesses generally \"is insufficient to require [materials'] production in advance of trial.\" Nixon, 418 U.S. at 701. Many courts have held that impeachment material does not become relevant until after the witness testifies. United States v. Skelos, No. 15-CR-317 (KMW), 2018 WL 2254538, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. May 17, 2018), ), aff'd, 988 F.3d 645 (2d Cir. 2021) (collecting cases); United States v. Scaduto, No. 94-CR-311 (WK), 1995 WL 130511, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 1995) (\"Potentially impeaching statements 'ripen into evidentiary material . . . only if and when the witness testifies at trial . . .'\" (citation omitted)). See also Avenatti, 2020 WL 86768, at *6 (rejecting the argument that the defendant needed the recordings in question prior to trial in order \"to demonstrate witnesses' bias or self-interest.\"). The arguments as to relevance are otherwise specious, and the Court cannot discern what relevance the materials responsive to Requests 6 and 7 may have. In any event, there is little risk that review of these materials, if they become relevant and admissible, will lead to a delay at trial, given their limited volume. United States v. Seabrook, No. 16-CR-467, 2017 WL 4838311, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 23, 2017). For documents that may ripen into relevance if and when the BSF clients testify, Maxwell presumably could request that the Court issue a subpoena to require production of the engagement letters to the Court so that the information can be made available to Maxwell, if appropriate, at the conclusion of each witness's direct testimony. See United States v. Giampa, No. S 92-CR-437 (PKL), 1992 WL 296440, at *3-*4 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 7, 1992); United States v. Ferguson, No. 3:06-CR-137 (CFD), 2007 WL 4577303, at *3 (D. Conn. Dec. 26, 2007).\n\nMaxwell also argues that compulsion of the materials' production under Rule 17(c) is justified because the materials appear not to have been produced by BSF in response to the grand",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 252 Filed 04/27/21 Page 5 of 9",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "documents are necessary for purposes of impeachment. But as a general matter, the need to impeach witnesses generally \"is insufficient to require [materials'] production in advance of trial.\" Nixon, 418 U.S. at 701. Many courts have held that impeachment material does not become relevant until after the witness testifies. United States v. Skelos, No. 15-CR-317 (KMW), 2018 WL 2254538, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. May 17, 2018), ), aff'd, 988 F.3d 645 (2d Cir. 2021) (collecting cases); United States v. Scaduto, No. 94-CR-311 (WK), 1995 WL 130511, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 1995) (\"Potentially impeaching statements 'ripen into evidentiary material . . . only if and when the witness testifies at trial . . .'\" (citation omitted)). See also Avenatti, 2020 WL 86768, at *6 (rejecting the argument that the defendant needed the recordings in question prior to trial in order \"to demonstrate witnesses' bias or self-interest.\"). The arguments as to relevance are otherwise specious, and the Court cannot discern what relevance the materials responsive to Requests 6 and 7 may have. In any event, there is little risk that review of these materials, if they become relevant and admissible, will lead to a delay at trial, given their limited volume. United States v. Seabrook, No. 16-CR-467, 2017 WL 4838311, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 23, 2017). For documents that may ripen into relevance if and when the BSF clients testify, Maxwell presumably could request that the Court issue a subpoena to require production of the engagement letters to the Court so that the information can be made available to Maxwell, if appropriate, at the conclusion of each witness's direct testimony. See United States v. Giampa, No. S 92-CR-437 (PKL), 1992 WL 296440, at *3-*4 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 7, 1992); United States v. Ferguson, No. 3:06-CR-137 (CFD), 2007 WL 4577303, at *3 (D. Conn. Dec. 26, 2007).",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Maxwell also argues that compulsion of the materials' production under Rule 17(c) is justified because the materials appear not to have been produced by BSF in response to the grand",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "5",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00004043",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Nixon",
      "Skelos",
      "Scaduto",
      "Avenatti",
      "Seabrook",
      "Giampa",
      "Ferguson",
      "Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "BSF"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y.",
      "2d Cir.",
      "D. Conn."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "04/27/21",
      "May 17, 2018",
      "Mar. 27, 1995",
      "Oct. 23, 2017",
      "Oct. 7, 1992",
      "Dec. 26, 2007"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 252",
      "No. 15-CR-317",
      "No. 94-CR-311",
      "No. 16-CR-467",
      "No. S 92-CR-437",
      "No. 3:06-CR-137"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing, likely a memorandum or brief, discussing the production of materials for impeachment purposes in a trial. The text is dense and includes numerous citations to legal cases and statutes. There are no visible redactions or damages on the page."
}