mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00004040.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "2",
    "document_number": "252",
    "date": "04/27/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 252 Filed 04/27/21 Page 2 of 9\n\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 an item is not discoverable under Rule 16, a party cannot make it discoverable simply by subpoenaing it under Rule 17. United States v. Barnes, No. S9 04-CR-186 (SCR), 2008 WL 9359654, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2008).\n\nTo determine whether issuance of the subpoena is appropriate, the Court considers the factors articulated in United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. at 699–700. In Nixon, the Supreme Court explained that in order to require production prior to trial, the moving party must show: (1) that the documents are evidentiary and relevant; (2) that they are not otherwise procurable reasonably in advance of trial by exercise of due diligence; (3) that the party cannot properly prepare for trial without such production and inspection in advance of trial and that the failure to obtain such inspection may tend unreasonably to delay the trial; and (4) that the application is made in good faith and is not intended as a general ‘fishing expedition.’” Id. at 698–700. To clear that hurdle, the Court considers (1) relevancy, (2) admissibility, and (3) specificity. Id. at 700.\n\nII. Discussion\n\nA. The BSF Subpoena\n\nThe proposed subpoena makes twelve requests. Some of the requests relate to documents that Maxwell believes will be relevant at trial. For others, the proffered relevance relates to",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 252 Filed 04/27/21 Page 2 of 9",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The 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 an item is not discoverable under Rule 16, a party cannot make it discoverable simply by subpoenaing it under Rule 17. United States v. Barnes, No. S9 04-CR-186 (SCR), 2008 WL 9359654, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2008).\n\nTo determine whether issuance of the subpoena is appropriate, the Court considers the factors articulated in United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. at 699–700. In Nixon, the Supreme Court explained that in order to require production prior to trial, the moving party must show: (1) that the documents are evidentiary and relevant; (2) that they are not otherwise procurable reasonably in advance of trial by exercise of due diligence; (3) that the party cannot properly prepare for trial without such production and inspection in advance of trial and that the failure to obtain such inspection may tend unreasonably to delay the trial; and (4) that the application is made in good faith and is not intended as a general ‘fishing expedition.’” Id. at 698–700. To clear that hurdle, the Court considers (1) relevancy, (2) admissibility, and (3) specificity. Id. at 700.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "II. Discussion",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "A. The BSF Subpoena",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The proposed subpoena makes twelve requests. Some of the requests relate to documents that Maxwell believes will be relevant at trial. For others, the proffered relevance relates to",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00004040",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Nixon",
      "Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "U.S. Supreme Court",
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "04/27/21",
      "1974",
      "1951",
      "1995",
      "2008",
      "Apr. 2, 2008"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 252",
      "418 U.S. 683",
      "341 U.S. 214",
      "876 F. Supp. 547",
      "No. S9 04-CR-186 (SCR)",
      "2008 WL 9359654"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is well-formatted and legible. There are no visible redactions or damage to the document."
}