mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00004738.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "2",
    "document_number": "298",
    "date": "06/04/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 298 Filed 06/04/21 Page 2 of 6\n\nMaxwell appears to proffer two theories of relevance as to the entire journal. While she studiously avoids using the word, one such theory relates to impeachment. As this Court has noted, the potential impeachment of a witness does not provide grounds for issuance or enforcement of a Rule 17(c) subpoena because such materials would only become relevant after a witness has testified. United States v. Skelos, No. 15-CR-317 (KMW), 2018 WL 2254538, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. May 17, 2018), aff'd, 988 F.3d 645 (2d Cir. 2021) (collecting cases).\n\nThe other theory of relevance that Maxwell proffers is that if the rest of the journal does not mention her, the journal as a whole may serve as exculpatory evidence. At best, the theory amounts to little more than a \"fishing expedition,\" which is not the proper use of Rule 17(c). See United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 698–70 (1974). In any event, the argument is too speculative to meet the standard set forth in Nixon. To begin with, the request appears to be overbroad; under Rule 17(c), the moving party must show that all of the requested material is relevant. Cf. United States v. Pena, No. 15-CR-551 (AJN), 2016 WL 8735699, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 12, 2016). It appears from the briefing that the diary includes entries from before Minor Victim-2's first time meeting Epstein or Maxwell. Maxwell does not explain why the absence of references to her in those entries would be relevant, and she provides no other basis as to the relevance of any portions of the diary that precede her meeting Epstein or Maxwell. And here, too, the theory that the rest of the journal contradicts Minor Victim-2's anticipated testimony as to specific incidents is, in its nature, targeted at impeaching the alleged victim's anticipated testimony.\n\nIn addition, Maxwell does not plausibly establish the relevance of the rest of the diary other than the pages she has already received. BSF has represented that the rest of the journal does not discuss Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein. Dkt. No. 191 at 5. The Government has similarly\n\n2\n\nDOJ-OGR-00004738",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 298 Filed 06/04/21 Page 2 of 6",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Maxwell appears to proffer two theories of relevance as to the entire journal. While she studiously avoids using the word, one such theory relates to impeachment. As this Court has noted, the potential impeachment of a witness does not provide grounds for issuance or enforcement of a Rule 17(c) subpoena because such materials would only become relevant after a witness has testified. United States v. Skelos, No. 15-CR-317 (KMW), 2018 WL 2254538, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. May 17, 2018), aff'd, 988 F.3d 645 (2d Cir. 2021) (collecting cases).",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The other theory of relevance that Maxwell proffers is that if the rest of the journal does not mention her, the journal as a whole may serve as exculpatory evidence. At best, the theory amounts to little more than a \"fishing expedition,\" which is not the proper use of Rule 17(c). See United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 698–70 (1974). In any event, the argument is too speculative to meet the standard set forth in Nixon. To begin with, the request appears to be overbroad; under Rule 17(c), the moving party must show that all of the requested material is relevant. Cf. United States v. Pena, No. 15-CR-551 (AJN), 2016 WL 8735699, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 12, 2016). It appears from the briefing that the diary includes entries from before Minor Victim-2's first time meeting Epstein or Maxwell. Maxwell does not explain why the absence of references to her in those entries would be relevant, and she provides no other basis as to the relevance of any portions of the diary that precede her meeting Epstein or Maxwell. And here, too, the theory that the rest of the journal contradicts Minor Victim-2's anticipated testimony as to specific incidents is, in its nature, targeted at impeaching the alleged victim's anticipated testimony.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In addition, Maxwell does not plausibly establish the relevance of the rest of the diary other than the pages she has already received. BSF has represented that the rest of the journal does not discuss Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein. Dkt. No. 191 at 5. The Government has similarly",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00004738",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell",
      "Jeffrey Epstein",
      "Nixon",
      "Pena",
      "Skelos",
      "Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "BSF",
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "06/04/21",
      "May 17, 2018",
      "Feb. 12, 2016"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 298",
      "No. 15-CR-317 (KMW)",
      "No. 15-CR-551 (AJN)",
      "Dkt. No. 191",
      "DOJ-OGR-00004738"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case United States v. Maxwell. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 2 of 6."
}