mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00005030.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "1",
    "document_number": "334",
    "date": "08/13/21",
    "document_type": "OPINION & ORDER",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": true
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 334 Filed 08/13/21 Page 1 of 10\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\nUnited States of America,\n-v-\nGhislaine Maxwell,\nDefendant.\nALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:\nDefendant Ghislaine Maxwell seeks an order authorizing four subpoenas pursuant to Rule 17(c)(3) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Specifically, she seeks authorization to serve subpoenas on four individuals. For the reasons that follow, the Court DENIES Maxwell's motion without prejudice.\nI. Legal Standard\nRule 17(c) permits subpoenas ordering the production of \"books, papers, documents, data, or other objects.\" Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(c)(1). When the subpoena seeks the production of personal or confidential information about a victim, it may be served on a third party only by court order. Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(c)(3).\nThe purpose of Rule 17(c) is to facilitate the trial by designating a time and place prior to trial to obtain and inspect evidentiary material. See United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 698-99 (1974) (citing Bowman Dairy Co. v. United States, 341 U.S. 214, 220 (1951)). It is not intended to provide an additional means of discovery or to serve as a general \"fishing expedition.\" Id. at 698-700. As a result, courts must be mindful not to allow the Rule 17(c) process to become a \"broad discovery device\" that would undermine the discovery procedures set forth in Rule 16. United States v. Cherry, 876 F. Supp. 547, 552 (S.D.N.Y. 1995). Thus, if 1 DOJ-OGR-00005030",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 334 Filed 08/13/21 Page 1 of 10",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "United States of America,\n-v-\nGhislaine Maxwell,\nDefendant.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "stamp",
      "content": "USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: DATE FILED: 8/13/21",
      "position": "margin"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "20-CR-330 (AJN)\nOPINION & ORDER",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:\nDefendant Ghislaine Maxwell seeks an order authorizing four subpoenas pursuant to Rule 17(c)(3) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Specifically, she seeks authorization to serve subpoenas on four individuals. For the reasons that follow, the Court DENIES Maxwell's motion without prejudice.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "I. Legal Standard\nRule 17(c) permits subpoenas ordering the production of \"books, papers, documents, data, or other objects.\" Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(c)(1). When the subpoena seeks the production of personal or confidential information about a victim, it may be served on a third party only by court order. Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(c)(3).\nThe purpose of Rule 17(c) is to facilitate the trial by designating a time and place prior to trial to obtain and inspect evidentiary material. See United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 698-99 (1974) (citing Bowman Dairy Co. v. United States, 341 U.S. 214, 220 (1951)). It is not intended to provide an additional means of discovery or to serve as a general \"fishing expedition.\" Id. at 698-700. As a result, courts must be mindful not to allow the Rule 17(c) process to become a \"broad discovery device\" that would undermine the discovery procedures set forth in Rule 16. United States v. Cherry, 876 F. Supp. 547, 552 (S.D.N.Y. 1995). Thus, if",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00005030",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ghislaine Maxwell",
      "Alison J. Nathan"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States District Court",
      "United States of America"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "08/13/21",
      "1974",
      "1951",
      "1995"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 334",
      "20-CR-330 (AJN)"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a stamp indicating electronic filing. The text is clear and legible, with no visible redactions or damage."
}