{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "12",
    "document_number": "212",
    "date": "04/16/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 212 Filed 04/16/21 Page 12 of 20\n\nMaxwell's two deposition transcripts, Resp. at 94 & n.41. And as to Count 6 in particular (alleging perjury in the July 2016 deposition), the government concedes, as it must, that Judge Preska has refused to unseal all of the testimony charged in the indictment, except one question and one answer. Resp. at 94 n.41. The government offers no explanation for how it inevitably would have obtained all 90,000 pages of material from Boies Schiller when the two deposition transcripts don't even total 1,000 pages.\n\nFourth, the government misunderstands the burden of proof. The government tries to fault Maxwell for seeking \"suppression of all evidence [it] obtained pursuant to the subpoena,\" calling this a \"windfall.\" Resp. at 95. But it's the government's burden to prove the applicability of the inevitable discovery exception. Stokes, 733 F.3d at 444 (inevitable discovery doctrine applies only \"if the government can prove that the evidence would have been obtained inevitably without the constitutional violation\") (rejecting government's inevitable discovery claim). The government must explain why Maxwell isn't entitled to this remedy, not the other way around.\n\nThe government has fallen far, far short of meeting its burden, if only because it offers no argument—on the facts or the law—for how it might have inevitably discovered more than 89,000 pages of material that hasn't been and won't be unsealed by Judge Preska. This Court should have no confidence, much less a \"high level of confidence, that each of the contingencies necessary to the legal discovery of the contested evidence would be resolved in the government's favor.\" United States v. Heath, 455 F.3d 52, 55 (2d Cir. 2006) (articulating inevitable discovery standard).\n\nThe inevitable discovery doctrine does not apply.\n\nII. The Government's violation of Martindell requires suppression.\n\nThe government ignores the primary argument Maxwell made in her Motion: The government circumvented Martindell, and deprived Maxwell of due process, by securing a",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 212 Filed 04/16/21 Page 12 of 20",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Maxwell's two deposition transcripts, Resp. at 94 & n.41. And as to Count 6 in particular (alleging perjury in the July 2016 deposition), the government concedes, as it must, that Judge Preska has refused to unseal all of the testimony charged in the indictment, except one question and one answer. Resp. at 94 n.41. The government offers no explanation for how it inevitably would have obtained all 90,000 pages of material from Boies Schiller when the two deposition transcripts don't even total 1,000 pages.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Fourth, the government misunderstands the burden of proof. The government tries to fault Maxwell for seeking \"suppression of all evidence [it] obtained pursuant to the subpoena,\" calling this a \"windfall.\" Resp. at 95. But it's the government's burden to prove the applicability of the inevitable discovery exception. Stokes, 733 F.3d at 444 (inevitable discovery doctrine applies only \"if the government can prove that the evidence would have been obtained inevitably without the constitutional violation\") (rejecting government's inevitable discovery claim). The government must explain why Maxwell isn't entitled to this remedy, not the other way around.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The government has fallen far, far short of meeting its burden, if only because it offers no argument—on the facts or the law—for how it might have inevitably discovered more than 89,000 pages of material that hasn't been and won't be unsealed by Judge Preska. This Court should have no confidence, much less a \"high level of confidence, that each of the contingencies necessary to the legal discovery of the contested evidence would be resolved in the government's favor.\" United States v. Heath, 455 F.3d 52, 55 (2d Cir. 2006) (articulating inevitable discovery standard).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The inevitable discovery doctrine does not apply.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "II. The Government's violation of Martindell requires suppression.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The government ignores the primary argument Maxwell made in her Motion: The government circumvented Martindell, and deprived Maxwell of due process, by securing a",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "7",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003786",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell",
      "Preska",
      "Heath"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Boies Schiller",
      "DOJ"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "July 2016",
      "04/16/21",
      "2006"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 212",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003786"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case United States v. Maxwell. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 12 of 20."
}