mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00003780.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "6",
    "document_number": "212",
    "date": "04/16/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 212 Filed 04/16/21 Page 6 of 20\n\nGhislaine Maxwell moves under the Fourth Amendment, Martindell v. Int'l Tel. & Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979), and the Fifth Amendment, to suppress all evidence the government obtained from a grand jury subpoena it issued to Boies Schiller Flexner LLP and to dismiss Counts Five and Six, which are the fruits of that unlawful subpoena.\n\nFactual Background\n\nThe facts relevant to this Motion are described in Maxwell's Pretrial Motion No. 3 and the Reply in Support Thereof.\n\nArgument\n\nI. The Government's violation of the Fourth Amendment requires suppression.\n\nThe government does not defend the overbreadth of its subpoena, or even respond to Maxwell's argument. Resp. at 82–95. The government also does not deny that the subpoena effected both a search and a seizure under the Fourth Amendment. Id.\n\nInstead, the government argues that (1) Maxwell has no standing to challenge the subpoena; (2) the government acted in good faith; and (3) the government inevitably would have come to possess the 90,000-sum pages of material it obtained from Boies Schiller.\n\nThe facts and law belie the government's claims.\n\nA. Maxwell has standing.\n\nThe government's standing argument boils down to this: Maxwell cannot challenge the search because the material was in the possession of a third party and Maxwell lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy. Resp. at 84–86. This argument fails.\n\nAbundant authority holds that when confidential material is in the possession of a third-party, a defendant has standing to challenge a grand jury subpoena of that material. Matter of Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Feb. 18, 1988, 685 F. Supp. 49, 51 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) (law firm could intervene and join motion to quash grand jury subpoena issued to private\n\n1\n\nDOJ-OGR-00003780",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 212 Filed 04/16/21 Page 6 of 20",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Ghislaine Maxwell moves under the Fourth Amendment, Martindell v. Int'l Tel. & Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979), and the Fifth Amendment, to suppress all evidence the government obtained from a grand jury subpoena it issued to Boies Schiller Flexner LLP and to dismiss Counts Five and Six, which are the fruits of that unlawful subpoena.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Factual Background",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The facts relevant to this Motion are described in Maxwell's Pretrial Motion No. 3 and the Reply in Support Thereof.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Argument",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "I. The Government's violation of the Fourth Amendment requires suppression.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The government does not defend the overbreadth of its subpoena, or even respond to Maxwell's argument. Resp. at 82–95. The government also does not deny that the subpoena effected both a search and a seizure under the Fourth Amendment. Id.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Instead, the government argues that (1) Maxwell has no standing to challenge the subpoena; (2) the government acted in good faith; and (3) the government inevitably would have come to possess the 90,000-sum pages of material it obtained from Boies Schiller.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The facts and law belie the government's claims.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "A. Maxwell has standing.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The government's standing argument boils down to this: Maxwell cannot challenge the search because the material was in the possession of a third party and Maxwell lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy. Resp. at 84–86. This argument fails.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Abundant authority holds that when confidential material is in the possession of a third-party, a defendant has standing to challenge a grand jury subpoena of that material. Matter of Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Feb. 18, 1988, 685 F. Supp. 49, 51 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) (law firm could intervene and join motion to quash grand jury subpoena issued to private",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003780",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ghislaine Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Boies Schiller Flexner LLP"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "04/16/21",
      "Feb. 18, 1988"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 212",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003780"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ghislaine Maxwell. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 6 of 20."
}