mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00003856.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "4",
    "document_number": "218",
    "date": "April 19, 2021",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 218 Filed 04/19/21 Page 4 of 8\nThe Hon. Alison J. Nathan\nApril 15, 2021\nPage 4\nthe Fourteenth Amendment or in the Compulsory Process or Confrontation clauses of the\nSixth Amendment, the Constitution guarantees criminal defendants a meaningful opportunity\nto present a complete defense.\").\nII. The Government Lacks Standing\nA party lacks standing to challenge a subpoena issued to a third party absent a claim of\nprivilege or a proprietary interest in the subpoenaed matter. Langford v. Chrysler Motor\nCorp., 513 F.2d 1121 (2d Cir. 1975). Accord United States v. Ray, No. 20-CR-110 (LJL),\n2020 WL 6939677, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 25, 2020) (\"[C]ourts in this District have generally\ncome to the conclusion that the Government can move to quash subpoenas issued for the\nrecords of non-parties only on the basis of the Government's own legitimate interests.\") See\nalso United States v. Cole, No. 19 CR. 869 (ER), 2021 WL 912425, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 10,\n2021) (noting \"the majority rule in this District\" that the government has standing to quash\na subpoena of a non-party only if the alleged victim has asked it to, or if the government can\nassert legitimate interests of its own in quashing the subpoenas).\nThe government has failed to articulate any of its own \"legitimate interest\" here. First,\nthe government speculates, without knowing, that the defense subpoenas implicate the\ngovernment's \"interest in preventing any undue lengthening of the trial, any undue harassment\nof the witness and his family, and any prejudicial over-emphasis on the witness's credibility.\"\nLetter, p. 4. In support of this speculation, the government cites United States v. Ray, supra.\nThe government does not acknowledge, however, that in Ray the court denied it standing to\nmove to quash the subpoena.\nIn turn, other than quoting the cliché, the government has failed to articulate how the\ndefense subpoenas would implicate this interest. Moreover, the defendant has no reason to\nDOJ-OGR-00003856",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 218 Filed 04/19/21 Page 4 of 8",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Hon. Alison J. Nathan\nApril 15, 2021\nPage 4",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "the Fourteenth Amendment or in the Compulsory Process or Confrontation clauses of the\nSixth Amendment, the Constitution guarantees criminal defendants a meaningful opportunity\nto present a complete defense.\").",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "II. The Government Lacks Standing",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "A party lacks standing to challenge a subpoena issued to a third party absent a claim of\nprivilege or a proprietary interest in the subpoenaed matter. Langford v. Chrysler Motor\nCorp., 513 F.2d 1121 (2d Cir. 1975). Accord United States v. Ray, No. 20-CR-110 (LJL),\n2020 WL 6939677, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 25, 2020) (\"[C]ourts in this District have generally\ncome to the conclusion that the Government can move to quash subpoenas issued for the\nrecords of non-parties only on the basis of the Government's own legitimate interests.\") See\nalso United States v. Cole, No. 19 CR. 869 (ER), 2021 WL 912425, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 10,\n2021) (noting \"the majority rule in this District\" that the government has standing to quash\na subpoena of a non-party only if the alleged victim has asked it to, or if the government can\nassert legitimate interests of its own in quashing the subpoenas).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The government has failed to articulate any of its own \"legitimate interest\" here. First,\nthe government speculates, without knowing, that the defense subpoenas implicate the\ngovernment's \"interest in preventing any undue lengthening of the trial, any undue harassment\nof the witness and his family, and any prejudicial over-emphasis on the witness's credibility.\"\nLetter, p. 4. In support of this speculation, the government cites United States v. Ray, supra.\nThe government does not acknowledge, however, that in Ray the court denied it standing to\nmove to quash the subpoena.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In turn, other than quoting the cliché, the government has failed to articulate how the\ndefense subpoenas would implicate this interest. Moreover, the defendant has no reason to",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003856",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Alison J. Nathan"
    ],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "April 15, 2021",
      "April 19, 2021",
      "Nov. 25, 2020",
      "Mar. 10, 2021"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 218",
      "20-CR-110 (LJL)",
      "19 CR. 869 (ER)",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003856"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}