mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00005035.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "6",
    "document_number": "334",
    "date": "08/13/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 334 Filed 08/13/21 Page 6 of 10\n\nB. Subpoena Recipient-2\n\nThe proposed subpoena to Subpoena Recipient-2 contains four requests. The first seeks any contingent fee and engagement agreements between Subpoena Recipient-2 and any attorneys; the second seeks an envelope that allegedly has Epstein's and Maxwell's \"touch DNA\"; the third seeks certain physical evidence, including photographs, old diaries, and telephone books; and the fourth seeks EVCP materials. The first and fourth requests fail for the same reasons as discussed above; their only plausible theory of relevance is impeachment, which places them outside the proper scope of Rule 17(c).\n\nThe second and third requests are plainly sought for impeachment purposes. Indeed, Maxwell's briefing makes clear that she seeks production of the envelope in order to \"disprove\" claims that Subpoena Recipient-2 might make at trial if called to testify. Beyond a conclusory assertion regarding Subpoena Recipient-2, however, Maxwell does not make any effort to identify which claims she seeks to disprove. Nor does she explain why the envelope, or any information derived from its inspection, is relevant to the criminal charges she is facing. At most, that is, she seeks the envelope in order to impeach any testimony that Subpoena Recipient-2 might have if called to testify. The request is speculative and clearly beyond the proper scope of Rule 17(c).\n\nThe third request, for vast amounts of physical evidence that Subpoena Recipient-2 showed or produced to Subpoena Recipient-3, fails for two reasons. The first is relevance; as above, Maxwell's briefing makes clear that she seeks to examine the evidence in order to prepare to rebut any testimony that Subpoena Recipient-2 might make at trial (or any evidence introduced through Subpoena Recipient-2). Here, too, the request seeks to impeach Subpoena Recipient-2's potential testimony. That is insufficient. Other than that, Maxwell makes no effort",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 334 Filed 08/13/21 Page 6 of 10",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "B. Subpoena Recipient-2",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The proposed subpoena to Subpoena Recipient-2 contains four requests. The first seeks any contingent fee and engagement agreements between Subpoena Recipient-2 and any attorneys; the second seeks an envelope that allegedly has Epstein's and Maxwell's \"touch DNA\"; the third seeks certain physical evidence, including photographs, old diaries, and telephone books; and the fourth seeks EVCP materials. The first and fourth requests fail for the same reasons as discussed above; their only plausible theory of relevance is impeachment, which places them outside the proper scope of Rule 17(c).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The second and third requests are plainly sought for impeachment purposes. Indeed, Maxwell's briefing makes clear that she seeks production of the envelope in order to \"disprove\" claims that Subpoena Recipient-2 might make at trial if called to testify. Beyond a conclusory assertion regarding Subpoena Recipient-2, however, Maxwell does not make any effort to identify which claims she seeks to disprove. Nor does she explain why the envelope, or any information derived from its inspection, is relevant to the criminal charges she is facing. At most, that is, she seeks the envelope in order to impeach any testimony that Subpoena Recipient-2 might have if called to testify. The request is speculative and clearly beyond the proper scope of Rule 17(c).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The third request, for vast amounts of physical evidence that Subpoena Recipient-2 showed or produced to Subpoena Recipient-3, fails for two reasons. The first is relevance; as above, Maxwell's briefing makes clear that she seeks to examine the evidence in order to prepare to rebut any testimony that Subpoena Recipient-2 might make at trial (or any evidence introduced through Subpoena Recipient-2). Here, too, the request seeks to impeach Subpoena Recipient-2's potential testimony. That is insufficient. Other than that, Maxwell makes no effort",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "6",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00005035",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Epstein",
      "Maxwell",
      "Subpoena Recipient-2",
      "Subpoena Recipient-3"
    ],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/13/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 334",
      "DOJ-OGR-00005035"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case involving Maxwell. The text discusses subpoena requests and their relevance to the case."
}