{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "8",
    "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 8 of 9\n\nthe Court so that the information may be made available to Maxwell, if appropriate, at the conclusion of each witness's direct testimony. See Giampa, 1992 WL 296440, at *3; Ferguson, 2007 WL 4577303, at *3.\n\nThe Court will reserve on Requests 9 through 11 in order to allow the Government to weigh in on the propriety of the requests. The Court assumes that the Government has enough information, based on the public filings, to provide its views. If the Government seeks the specific subpoena requests, it shall confer with defense counsel and raise any dispute with the Court. The Government shall file its response within one week of this Order.\n\nIn sum, for Request 1 through 8 and 12, the Court will not authorize service of the proposed subpoena on the basis that Maxwell has failed to establish that the requests are sufficiently specific and that the materials sought are relevant or admissible. Maxwell may renew more tailored requests in compliance with this Order. The Court sees no basis for doing so on an ex parte basis. For Requests 9 through 11, the Court will reserve its decision until it hears from the Government.\n\nB. The Government's Subpoena-Related Request\n\nThe Government seeks a preemptive, blanket ruling that it be entitled notice of all future subpoenas, an opportunity to challenge them, and production of any information obtained therefrom. This request is denied. Assuming Maxwell seeks the issuance of a future subpoena for which there is no basis to proceed ex parte, the Government will be provided notice and the Court would likely consider the Government's briefing regardless of standing as part of its duty to ensure that the subpoena meets the requirements of Nixon. See United States v. Bergstein, No. 16-CR-746 (PKC), 2017 WL 6887596, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 28, 2017). But ex parte Rule 17(c) subpoenas are possible in some circumstances if justified. See Skelos, 2018 WL 2254538, at *8\n\n8\nDOJ-OGR-00004046",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 252 Filed 04/27/21 Page 8 of 9",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "the Court so that the information may be made available to Maxwell, if appropriate, at the conclusion of each witness's direct testimony. See Giampa, 1992 WL 296440, at *3; Ferguson, 2007 WL 4577303, at *3.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Court will reserve on Requests 9 through 11 in order to allow the Government to weigh in on the propriety of the requests. The Court assumes that the Government has enough information, based on the public filings, to provide its views. If the Government seeks the specific subpoena requests, it shall confer with defense counsel and raise any dispute with the Court. The Government shall file its response within one week of this Order.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In sum, for Request 1 through 8 and 12, the Court will not authorize service of the proposed subpoena on the basis that Maxwell has failed to establish that the requests are sufficiently specific and that the materials sought are relevant or admissible. Maxwell may renew more tailored requests in compliance with this Order. The Court sees no basis for doing so on an ex parte basis. For Requests 9 through 11, the Court will reserve its decision until it hears from the Government.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "B. The Government's Subpoena-Related Request",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Government seeks a preemptive, blanket ruling that it be entitled notice of all future subpoenas, an opportunity to challenge them, and production of any information obtained therefrom. This request is denied. Assuming Maxwell seeks the issuance of a future subpoena for which there is no basis to proceed ex parte, the Government will be provided notice and the Court would likely consider the Government's briefing regardless of standing as part of its duty to ensure that the subpoena meets the requirements of Nixon. See United States v. Bergstein, No. 16-CR-746 (PKC), 2017 WL 6887596, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 28, 2017). But ex parte Rule 17(c) subpoenas are possible in some circumstances if justified. See Skelos, 2018 WL 2254538, at *8",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "8",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00004046",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government",
      "Court"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "04/27/21",
      "Dec. 28, 2017"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 252",
      "16-CR-746 (PKC)"
    ]
  },
  "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 8 of 9."
}