mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES001/DOJ-OGR-00002895.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "6",
    "document_number": "195",
    "date": "04/05/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 195 Filed 04/05/21 Page 6 of 11\n\nPage 6\ncase or motivation to move to quash an otherwise improper subpoena.2 Accordingly, the Government respectfully requests notice of all subpoenas with pretrial return dates issued or sought to be issued under Rule 17(c).3\nWhile, as the Court noted in its Order, Rule 17(c) subpoenas are frequently issued ex parte in this district, the issue is rarely litigated. See, e.g., United States v. Wey, 252 F. Supp. 3d 237, 243 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (noting, without extended discussion, that subpoena had issued upon ex parte application); United States v. Earls, No. 03 Cr.0364 (NRB), 2004 WL 350725, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2004) (noting that the defendant may seek subpoenas ex parte). When courts have considered the issue, however, many have directed that the parties should give each other notice of Rule 17(c) subpoenas unless a party can justify proceeding ex parte. See United States v. Skelos, No. 15 Cr. 317 (KMW), 2018 WL 2254538, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. May 17, 2018) (explaining that courts have permitted ex parte requests “where a reason existed for doing so,” and requiring notice “[t]o further reduce the risk that trial will be delayed, unless a party has a compelling reason for proceeding ex parte with a subpoena request”), aff’d, 988 F.3d 645 (2d Cir. 2021); United States v. St. Lawrence, 16 Cr. 259 (CS), Dkt. No. 66 at 6 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2016) (requiring motions for Rule 17(c) subpoenas and permitting ex parte applications “if the movant can articulate a reason why it should be”); United States v. Boyle, No. 08 Cr. 523 (CM), 2009 WL 484436, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2009) (requiring noticed motions for Rule 17(c) subpoenas to “assur[e] that such subpoenas are not abused or used for impermissible discovery,” and permitting ex parte applications “where a reason exists”).\n2 For example, a financial institution may lack sufficient knowledge about the case or motivation to expend the resources to move to quash what appears to be a routine subpoena that broadly seeks financial records for a Government cooperater or lay witness to be used for impeachment purposes, notwithstanding the fact that such a subpoena may run afoul of the Nixon standard.\n3 The Government is not seeking notice of subpoenas returnable at trial.\nDOJ-OGR-00002895",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 195 Filed 04/05/21 Page 6 of 11",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Page 6",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "case or motivation to move to quash an otherwise improper subpoena.2 Accordingly, the Government respectfully requests notice of all subpoenas with pretrial return dates issued or sought to be issued under Rule 17(c).3\nWhile, as the Court noted in its Order, Rule 17(c) subpoenas are frequently issued ex parte in this district, the issue is rarely litigated. See, e.g., United States v. Wey, 252 F. Supp. 3d 237, 243 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (noting, without extended discussion, that subpoena had issued upon ex parte application); United States v. Earls, No. 03 Cr.0364 (NRB), 2004 WL 350725, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2004) (noting that the defendant may seek subpoenas ex parte). When courts have considered the issue, however, many have directed that the parties should give each other notice of Rule 17(c) subpoenas unless a party can justify proceeding ex parte. See United States v. Skelos, No. 15 Cr. 317 (KMW), 2018 WL 2254538, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. May 17, 2018) (explaining that courts have permitted ex parte requests “where a reason existed for doing so,” and requiring notice “[t]o further reduce the risk that trial will be delayed, unless a party has a compelling reason for proceeding ex parte with a subpoena request”), aff’d, 988 F.3d 645 (2d Cir. 2021); United States v. St. Lawrence, 16 Cr. 259 (CS), Dkt. No. 66 at 6 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2016) (requiring motions for Rule 17(c) subpoenas and permitting ex parte applications “if the movant can articulate a reason why it should be”); United States v. Boyle, No. 08 Cr. 523 (CM), 2009 WL 484436, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2009) (requiring noticed motions for Rule 17(c) subpoenas to “assur[e] that such subpoenas are not abused or used for impermissible discovery,” and permitting ex parte applications “where a reason exists”).",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2 For example, a financial institution may lack sufficient knowledge about the case or motivation to expend the resources to move to quash what appears to be a routine subpoena that broadly seeks financial records for a Government cooperater or lay witness to be used for impeachment purposes, notwithstanding the fact that such a subpoena may run afoul of the Nixon standard.",
      "position": "footnote"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "3 The Government is not seeking notice of subpoenas returnable at trial.",
      "position": "footnote"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00002895",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y.",
      "2d Cir."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "04/05/21",
      "2017",
      "Feb. 25, 2004",
      "May 17, 2018",
      "Dec. 22, 2016",
      "Feb. 24, 2009",
      "2021"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 195",
      "252 F. Supp. 3d 237",
      "03 Cr.0364",
      "2004 WL 350725",
      "15 Cr. 317",
      "2018 WL 2254538",
      "988 F.3d 645",
      "16 Cr. 259",
      "Dkt. No. 66",
      "08 Cr. 523",
      "2009 WL 484436",
      "DOJ-OGR-00002895"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case, discussing the use of Rule 17(c) subpoenas. The text is mostly printed, with some footnotes and a header/footer. There are no visible stamps or handwritten text."
}