mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00003545.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "2",
    "document_number": "204-8",
    "date": "04/16/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204-8 Filed 04/16/21 Page 2 of 6\nPage 2\nDiscussion\nWhere, as here, a grand jury subpoena has validly issued, and the recipient of the subpoena is not contesting compliance—but rather seeking authorization to comply with the subpoena—a court should grant such permission through limited modification of an applicable protective order, absent countervailing interests not present in this case. As described below, a court can and should modify a protective order, or permit limited relief from it, to allow the recipient of a grand jury subpoena to comply with such a subpoena under the circumstances presented here.\nThe Court is best guided by the decision in Chemical Bank v Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 154 F.R.D. 91 (S.D.N.Y. 1994), which rejected an application for a party in civil litigation to be held in contempt for complying with a grand jury subpoena despite the existence of a protective order, without first obtaining authorization from the court, because the court would have granted such authorization had it been sought. Chemical Bank, 154 F.R.D. at 93. As that court explained:\nThe role of the federal courts in law enforcement, exemplified by the Federal Criminal Code (Title 18, USC) and in enforcing Grand Jury subpoenas argues in favor of making significant information available to enforcement authorities absent a countervailing showing that the need for the information for such purposes is outweighed by the need for protecting expectations of confidentiality under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).\nId. at 94 (citing United States v. Davis, 702 F.2d 418, 421-22 (2d Cir. 1983) (finding that the “conflict between protection of private material used in a civil proceeding and public need in a criminal prosecution” posed in that case was “easily resolved” and explaining that “[a]bsent applicable grounds for exception, such as a previously asserted Fifth Amendment privilege, no shiled protects the civil evidence” in that case “from compellable production before the grand jury subpoenaed it”). The court in Chemical Bank chastised the relevant party for responding to the grand jury subpoena without authorization specifically because such disregard was “entirely unnecessary and inappropriate” due to the readily available remedy of a modification of the applicable protective order. Chemical Bank, 154 F.R.D. at 93. The court also explicitly noted that such formal judicial approval could be obtained ex parte if sufficient reason for doing so was shown. Id.\nChemical Bank further described the types of interests that otherwise might be implicated in connection with a Rule 26(c) protective order, none of which are implicated here. Id. at 94 (“There is no indication that any difficult balancing under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c) would have been necessary of interests of law enforcement against protection of technological trade secrets, currently sensitive customer lists, or contemporarily sensitive competitive information which could benefit rivals, since no such information has been claimed to have been contained in any of the discovery materials in this case.”) (citations omitted).1\n1Notably, here, and in contrast to other cases further described below, the Government’s specific knowledge of the subject matter of discovery materials is relatively limited, due to the confidential nature of the Litigation; however, the Protective Order itself indicates that discovery materials\nCONFIDENTIAL\nSDNY_GM_00000848\nDOJ-OGR-00003545",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204-8 Filed 04/16/21 Page 2 of 6",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Page 2",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Discussion",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Where, as here, a grand jury subpoena has validly issued, and the recipient of the subpoena is not contesting compliance—but rather seeking authorization to comply with the subpoena—a court should grant such permission through limited modification of an applicable protective order, absent countervailing interests not present in this case. As described below, a court can and should modify a protective order, or permit limited relief from it, to allow the recipient of a grand jury subpoena to comply with such a subpoena under the circumstances presented here.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Court is best guided by the decision in Chemical Bank v Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 154 F.R.D. 91 (S.D.N.Y. 1994), which rejected an application for a party in civil litigation to be held in contempt for complying with a grand jury subpoena despite the existence of a protective order, without first obtaining authorization from the court, because the court would have granted such authorization had it been sought. Chemical Bank, 154 F.R.D. at 93. As that court explained:",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The role of the federal courts in law enforcement, exemplified by the Federal Criminal Code (Title 18, USC) and in enforcing Grand Jury subpoenas argues in favor of making significant information available to enforcement authorities absent a countervailing showing that the need for the information for such purposes is outweighed by the need for protecting expectations of confidentiality under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Id. at 94 (citing United States v. Davis, 702 F.2d 418, 421-22 (2d Cir. 1983) (finding that the “conflict between protection of private material used in a civil proceeding and public need in a criminal prosecution” posed in that case was “easily resolved” and explaining that “[a]bsent applicable grounds for exception, such as a previously asserted Fifth Amendment privilege, no shiled protects the civil evidence” in that case “from compellable production before the grand jury subpoenaed it”). The court in Chemical Bank chastised the relevant party for responding to the grand jury subpoena without authorization specifically because such disregard was “entirely unnecessary and inappropriate” due to the readily available remedy of a modification of the applicable protective order. Chemical Bank, 154 F.R.D. at 93. The court also explicitly noted that such formal judicial approval could be obtained ex parte if sufficient reason for doing so was shown. Id.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Chemical Bank further described the types of interests that otherwise might be implicated in connection with a Rule 26(c) protective order, none of which are implicated here. Id. at 94 (“There is no indication that any difficult balancing under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c) would have been necessary of interests of law enforcement against protection of technological trade secrets, currently sensitive customer lists, or contemporarily sensitive competitive information which could benefit rivals, since no such information has been claimed to have been contained in any of the discovery materials in this case.”) (citations omitted).1",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1Notably, here, and in contrast to other cases further described below, the Government’s specific knowledge of the subject matter of discovery materials is relatively limited, due to the confidential nature of the Litigation; however, the Protective Order itself indicates that discovery materials",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "CONFIDENTIAL",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SDNY_GM_00000848",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003545",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "Chemical Bank",
      "Affiliated FM Ins. Co.",
      "United States",
      "Federal Criminal Code",
      "Grand Jury"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y.",
      "2d Cir."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "04/16/21",
      "1994",
      "1983"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "204-8",
      "154 F.R.D. 91",
      "702 F.2d 418",
      "SDNY_GM_00000848",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003545"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a grand jury subpoena and a protective order. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is marked 'CONFIDENTIAL' at the bottom."
}