mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00004006.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "6",
    "document_number": "247",
    "date": "04/23/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 247 Filed 04/23/21 Page 6 of 17\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nApril 5, 2021\nPage 6 of 17\nv. Rajaratnam, 753 F. Supp. 2d 317, 320 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (Rule 17(c) \"was not intended to provide a means of discovery for criminal cases\"; rather, \"its chief innovation was to expedite the trial by providing a time and place before trial for the inspection of subpoenaed materials\" (emphasis added)). The Defendant has failed to explain how the communications sought in Requests 1 through 5 will be relevant and admissible at trial, and only points to three pending pre-trial motions.\nSecond, although BSF cannot fully respond to the Defendant's relevance arguments as to the Defendant's two motions to suppress because it has not been provided unredacted versions of those motions and because it has not been provided a copy of the Defendant's ex parte motion,4 one thing is clear—it is not conceivable that every communication the Defendant requests in Requests 1 through 5 would be relevant and admissible at an evidentiary hearing on her motions. A defendant must demonstrate that all of the evidence it seeks pursuant to a Rule 17 subpoena would be relevant and admissible, not just that the defendant is likely to find something relevant and admissible in the nonparty's production. See, e.g., United States v. Pena, No. 15 Cr. 551 (AJN), 2016 WL 8735699, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 12, 2016) (\"Pena has failed to make the requisite showing regarding the admissibility of 'any and all' other records regarding the cooperators that might exist at the MDC, MCC, or DOC.\").\nFor example, it is entirely unclear how communications regarding ______________ would be relevant to any of the Defendant's pretrial motions; her two motions to suppress relate to evidence obtained by the Government by means of a grand jury subpoena to what appears to be\n4 If the Court is inclined to grant the Defendants' motion as to Requests 1 through 5, BSF requests that it first be provided with an opportunity to fully respond to the Defendant's relevance arguments after being provided with unredacted versions of the two pretrial motions that the Defendant cites in her response and a copy of her ex parte motion, in which she presumably attempts to explain the relevance of her Requests in a more fulsome way than her barebones response letter.\nDOJ-OGR-00004006",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 247 Filed 04/23/21 Page 6 of 17",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nApril 5, 2021\nPage 6 of 17",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "v. Rajaratnam, 753 F. Supp. 2d 317, 320 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (Rule 17(c) \"was not intended to provide a means of discovery for criminal cases\"; rather, \"its chief innovation was to expedite the trial by providing a time and place before trial for the inspection of subpoenaed materials\" (emphasis added)). The Defendant has failed to explain how the communications sought in Requests 1 through 5 will be relevant and admissible at trial, and only points to three pending pre-trial motions.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Second, although BSF cannot fully respond to the Defendant's relevance arguments as to the Defendant's two motions to suppress because it has not been provided unredacted versions of those motions and because it has not been provided a copy of the Defendant's ex parte motion,4 one thing is clear—it is not conceivable that every communication the Defendant requests in Requests 1 through 5 would be relevant and admissible at an evidentiary hearing on her motions. A defendant must demonstrate that all of the evidence it seeks pursuant to a Rule 17 subpoena would be relevant and admissible, not just that the defendant is likely to find something relevant and admissible in the nonparty's production. See, e.g., United States v. Pena, No. 15 Cr. 551 (AJN), 2016 WL 8735699, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 12, 2016) (\"Pena has failed to make the requisite showing regarding the admissibility of 'any and all' other records regarding the cooperators that might exist at the MDC, MCC, or DOC.\").",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "For example, it is entirely unclear how communications regarding ______________ would be relevant to any of the Defendant's pretrial motions; her two motions to suppress relate to evidence obtained by the Government by means of a grand jury subpoena to what appears to be",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "4 If the Court is inclined to grant the Defendants' motion as to Requests 1 through 5, BSF requests that it first be provided with an opportunity to fully respond to the Defendant's relevance arguments after being provided with unredacted versions of the two pretrial motions that the Defendant cites in her response and a copy of her ex parte motion, in which she presumably attempts to explain the relevance of her Requests in a more fulsome way than her barebones response letter.",
      "position": "footnote"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00004006",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Alison J. Nathan",
      "Rajaratnam",
      "Pena"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "BSF",
      "MDC",
      "MCC",
      "DOC",
      "DOJ"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "April 5, 2021",
      "04/23/21",
      "Feb. 12, 2016"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 247",
      "753 F. Supp. 2d 317",
      "15 Cr. 551",
      "2016 WL 8735699",
      "DOJ-OGR-00004006"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a redacted section."
}