mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00003857.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "5",
    "document_number": "218",
    "date": "April 15, 2021",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 218 Filed 04/19/21 Page 5 of 8\nThe Hon. Alison J. Nathan\nApril 15, 2021\nPage 5\nbelieve that the information sought is in the possession of the government. Accordingly, it is not, as theorized by the government, \"Giglio or 3500\" material. Letter, p. 5. Thus, there is no \"cognizable interest\" in \"controlling the timing of disclosures,\" id., because under the government's \"willful blindness\" policy there would be nothing to disclose.\nThe final \"interest\" advanced by the government is in \"its own communications.\" For support, the government cites United States v. Carton, No. 17 CR 680 (CM), 2018 WL 5818107, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 19, 2018). Letter, p. 5. However, the communications at issue in Carton were \"Carton's own communications with the Sports and Entertainment Company,\" not government communications. Id. The government does not explain how third-party subpoenas would implicate \"its own communications,\" which it fails to define. None of Ms. Maxwell's subpoenas seek government work product or internal communications between government employees, and the government has no legitimate interest in suppressing third-party communications.1\nBut even if the government's own communications were at issue, the government has waived any privilege it may have otherwise asserted. In response to Ms. Maxwell's motions to suppress, the government voluntarily disclosed and attached several internal emails between its attorneys. This disclosure (partial though it may be)2 is a waiver of any privilege. See United States v. Gangi, 1 F. Supp. 2d 256, 263 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (holding that \"privileged\n1 The government notes, in footnote 1 that it might have standing if asked by a witness or third party. That has not happened. Indeed, the witnesses at issue, unlike most, have the full force of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP standing behind them.\n2 It is not at all clear (and the government has not asserted) that the emails it attached to its response are all the relevant emails on the issues raised by Ms. Maxwell's motions. Because the government's communications are at issue, and because the government voluntarily produced some of those communications, Ms. Maxwell has a due process right to all the relevant communications.\nDOJ-OGR-00003857",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 218 Filed 04/19/21 Page 5 of 8",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Hon. Alison J. Nathan\nApril 15, 2021\nPage 5",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "believe that the information sought is in the possession of the government. Accordingly, it is not, as theorized by the government, \"Giglio or 3500\" material. Letter, p. 5. Thus, there is no \"cognizable interest\" in \"controlling the timing of disclosures,\" id., because under the government's \"willful blindness\" policy there would be nothing to disclose.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The final \"interest\" advanced by the government is in \"its own communications.\" For support, the government cites United States v. Carton, No. 17 CR 680 (CM), 2018 WL 5818107, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 19, 2018). Letter, p. 5. However, the communications at issue in Carton were \"Carton's own communications with the Sports and Entertainment Company,\" not government communications. Id. The government does not explain how third-party subpoenas would implicate \"its own communications,\" which it fails to define. None of Ms. Maxwell's subpoenas seek government work product or internal communications between government employees, and the government has no legitimate interest in suppressing third-party communications.1",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "But even if the government's own communications were at issue, the government has waived any privilege it may have otherwise asserted. In response to Ms. Maxwell's motions to suppress, the government voluntarily disclosed and attached several internal emails between its attorneys. This disclosure (partial though it may be)2 is a waiver of any privilege. See United States v. Gangi, 1 F. Supp. 2d 256, 263 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (holding that \"privileged",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 The government notes, in footnote 1 that it might have standing if asked by a witness or third party. That has not happened. Indeed, the witnesses at issue, unlike most, have the full force of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP standing behind them.",
      "position": "footnote"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2 It is not at all clear (and the government has not asserted) that the emails it attached to its response are all the relevant emails on the issues raised by Ms. Maxwell's motions. Because the government's communications are at issue, and because the government voluntarily produced some of those communications, Ms. Maxwell has a due process right to all the relevant communications.",
      "position": "footnote"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003857",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Alison J. Nathan",
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Carton",
      "Gangi",
      "Ms. Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Boies Schiller Flexner LLP"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "April 15, 2021",
      "Oct. 19, 2018",
      "1998",
      "04/19/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 218",
      "No. 17 CR 680 (CM)",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003857"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing, likely a response to a motion to suppress evidence. The text is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
}