mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011459.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "9",
    "document_number": "734",
    "date": "07/15/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 734 Filed 07/15/22 Page 9 of 16\n\nNovember 19, 2021\nPage Nine\n\nArgument\n\nThe subpoena should be quashed because (i) compliance would be unreasonable or oppressive; (ii) it seeks documents that are inadmissible under Rule 408 of the Federal Rules of Evidence; and (iii) it seeks \"statements\" of a witness that are not subject to subpoena under Rule 17(h) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.\n\nA. Compliance with the subpoena would be unreasonable or oppressive.\n\nUnder Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17(c)(2), the Court \"may quash or modify the subpoena if compliance would be unreasonable or oppressive.\" Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(c)(2). The determination of whether compliance would be unreasonable or oppressive is \"committed to the sound discretion of the trial court.\" United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 702 (1974).\n\nCompliance may be unreasonable or oppressive if the subpoena seeks information protected by \"constitutional, statutory, or common-law privilege[s],\" or if the subpoena is \"irrelevant, abusive or harassing, overly vague, or excessively broad.\" In re Grand Jury Subpoena for THCF Med. Clinic Recs., 504 F. Supp. 2d 1085, 1088 (E.D. Wash. 2007) (citations omitted) (quashing subpoena under Rule 17(c)(2)). In addition, \"[c]ourts have relied on Rule 17(c) to quash a subpoena that intrudes gravely on significant interests outside the scope of a recognized privilege, if compliance is likely to 'entail consequences more serious than even severe inconveniences occasioned by irrelevant or overbroad requests for records.'\" THCF Med. Clinic Recs., 504 F. Supp. 2d at 1088 (quoting In re Grand Jury Matters, 751 F.2d 13, 18 (1st Cir. 1984)).\n\nHere, it would be unreasonable or oppressive to require a court-approved victims' compensation program whose effectiveness depends on maintaining the confidentiality of victims' information to produce the very information it promised to keep confidential.\n\nDOJ-OGR-00011459",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 734 Filed 07/15/22 Page 9 of 16",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "November 19, 2021\nPage Nine",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Argument",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The subpoena should be quashed because (i) compliance would be unreasonable or oppressive; (ii) it seeks documents that are inadmissible under Rule 408 of the Federal Rules of Evidence; and (iii) it seeks \"statements\" of a witness that are not subject to subpoena under Rule 17(h) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "A. Compliance with the subpoena would be unreasonable or oppressive.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17(c)(2), the Court \"may quash or modify the subpoena if compliance would be unreasonable or oppressive.\" Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(c)(2). The determination of whether compliance would be unreasonable or oppressive is \"committed to the sound discretion of the trial court.\" United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 702 (1974).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Compliance may be unreasonable or oppressive if the subpoena seeks information protected by \"constitutional, statutory, or common-law privilege[s],\" or if the subpoena is \"irrelevant, abusive or harassing, overly vague, or excessively broad.\" In re Grand Jury Subpoena for THCF Med. Clinic Recs., 504 F. Supp. 2d 1085, 1088 (E.D. Wash. 2007) (citations omitted) (quashing subpoena under Rule 17(c)(2)). In addition, \"[c]ourts have relied on Rule 17(c) to quash a subpoena that intrudes gravely on significant interests outside the scope of a recognized privilege, if compliance is likely to 'entail consequences more serious than even severe inconveniences occasioned by irrelevant or overbroad requests for records.'\" THCF Med. Clinic Recs., 504 F. Supp. 2d at 1088 (quoting In re Grand Jury Matters, 751 F.2d 13, 18 (1st Cir. 1984)).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Here, it would be unreasonable or oppressive to require a court-approved victims' compensation program whose effectiveness depends on maintaining the confidentiality of victims' information to produce the very information it promised to keep confidential.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011459",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Nixon"
    ],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [
      "E.D. Wash.",
      "1st Cir."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "November 19, 2021",
      "07/15/22",
      "1974",
      "2007",
      "1984"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 734",
      "Rule 408",
      "Rule 17(h)",
      "Rule 17(c)(2)",
      "418 U.S. 683",
      "504 F. Supp. 2d 1085",
      "751 F.2d 13",
      "DOJ-OGR-00011459"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is well-formatted and printed. There are no visible stamps or handwritten notes."
}