mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00022084.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "22 of 34",
    "document_number": "35",
    "date": "04/24/20",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 35 Filed 04/24/20 Page 22 of 34\n56, 112 (2d Cir. 2003) (defendants were not deprived of due process by any alleged failure of U.S. government to help them obtain cooperation from foreign authorities).\nIn considering whether Rule 16 and Brady apply to records in the possession of another government agency, a prosecutor's duty extends to reviewing such evidence only where the Government conducts a \"joint investigation\" with that agency or branch of government. See United States v. Rigas, 583 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2009) (affirming district court opinion holding that there was \"no joint investigation with the [Securities and Exchange Commission (\"SEC\")]\" and therefore the Government did not need to produce documents in the custody of the SEC); United States v. Blaszczak, 308 F. Supp. 3d 736, 742-43 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (holding that the Government was not obligated to review SEC material for Brady where SEC was not involved in grand jury presentation, did not attend every interview, did not review documents gathered only by prosecution, and did not develop prosecutorial strategy); United States v. Middendorf, No. 18 Cr. 36 (JPO), 2018 WL 3956494, at *4-5 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2018) (holding that the Government was not required to conduct a search because the [Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (\"PCAOB\")] was not involved in witness interviews or developing prosecutorial strategy, and the SEC was not involved in the grand jury presentation, reviewing the fruits of the Government's investigation, or developing prosecutorial strategy); United States v. Collins, 409 F. Supp. 3d 228, 241-42 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (no joint investigation between Government and SEC); United States v. Finnerty, 411 F. Supp. 2d 428, 433 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (Chin, J.) (no joint investigation between Government and New York Stock Exchange (\"NYSE\")); United States v. Upton, 856 F. Supp. 727, 749-50 (E.D.N.Y. 1994) (holding that USAO and Federal Aviation Administration (\"FAA\") did not conduct a \"joint investigation\" even though the FAA provided two inspectors to assist the criminal investigation).\n17\nDOJ-OGR-00022084",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 35 Filed 04/24/20 Page 22 of 34",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "56, 112 (2d Cir. 2003) (defendants were not deprived of due process by any alleged failure of U.S. government to help them obtain cooperation from foreign authorities).",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In considering whether Rule 16 and Brady apply to records in the possession of another government agency, a prosecutor's duty extends to reviewing such evidence only where the Government conducts a \"joint investigation\" with that agency or branch of government. See United States v. Rigas, 583 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2009) (affirming district court opinion holding that there was \"no joint investigation with the [Securities and Exchange Commission (\"SEC\")]\" and therefore the Government did not need to produce documents in the custody of the SEC); United States v. Blaszczak, 308 F. Supp. 3d 736, 742-43 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (holding that the Government was not obligated to review SEC material for Brady where SEC was not involved in grand jury presentation, did not attend every interview, did not review documents gathered only by prosecution, and did not develop prosecutorial strategy); United States v. Middendorf, No. 18 Cr. 36 (JPO), 2018 WL 3956494, at *4-5 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2018) (holding that the Government was not required to conduct a search because the [Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (\"PCAOB\")] was not involved in witness interviews or developing prosecutorial strategy, and the SEC was not involved in the grand jury presentation, reviewing the fruits of the Government's investigation, or developing prosecutorial strategy); United States v. Collins, 409 F. Supp. 3d 228, 241-42 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (no joint investigation between Government and SEC); United States v. Finnerty, 411 F. Supp. 2d 428, 433 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (Chin, J.) (no joint investigation between Government and New York Stock Exchange (\"NYSE\")); United States v. Upton, 856 F. Supp. 727, 749-50 (E.D.N.Y. 1994) (holding that USAO and Federal Aviation Administration (\"FAA\") did not conduct a \"joint investigation\" even though the FAA provided two inspectors to assist the criminal investigation).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "17",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00022084",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "Securities and Exchange Commission",
      "Public Company Accounting Oversight Board",
      "New York Stock Exchange",
      "Federal Aviation Administration",
      "USAO"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "04/24/20",
      "2003",
      "2009",
      "2018",
      "2019",
      "2006",
      "1994",
      "Aug. 17, 2018"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:19-cr-00830-AT",
      "Document 35",
      "56, 112",
      "583 F.3d 108",
      "308 F. Supp. 3d 736",
      "No. 18 Cr. 36 (JPO)",
      "2018 WL 3956494",
      "409 F. Supp. 3d 228",
      "411 F. Supp. 2d 428",
      "856 F. Supp. 727",
      "DOJ-OGR-00022084"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with citations to various legal cases and references to government agencies. The text is printed and there is no handwriting or stamps visible on the page."
}