mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00005051.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "9",
    "document_number": "336",
    "date": "09/07/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 336 Filed 09/07/21 Page 9 of 10\nthat the items turn out to have been altered or do not exist the absence of this evidence is also relevant and admissible at trial as exculpatory evidence.\n\nIV. Request\n\nMs. Maxwell filed various pretrial motions which are currently pending before the Court.\nMs. Maxwell anticipates that one or more of her pending motions will require the presentation of evidence, that certain evidence central to the accusations in this matter will need to be examined in advance of trial as part of the investigation of her defense, and that the requested evidence is admissible at trial. Accordingly, Ms. Maxwell seeks production of these materials in advance of trial. She makes this motion ex parte for the \"strong policy reasons in favor of an ex parte\" process and because she is providing detail regarding her investigative and trial strategy to demonstrate compliance with the specificity, relevance, and admissibility requirements of a Rule 17(c) subpoena. United States v. Reyes, 162 F.R.D. 468, 470 (S.D.N.Y. 1995).\nIt is well-established that the Court may order that the materials should be produced to counsel's office, rather than the courtroom itself. See, e.g., United States v. DNRB, Inc., No. 4:15-cr-0362, 2017 WL 2806251, at *3 (W.D. Mo. June 27, 2017) (directing production to requesting party); United States v. Jewell, Crim. No. 4:07-cr-00103, 2008 WL 3871736, at *3 (E.D. Ark. Aug. 15, 2008) (directing third-party to produce nonprivileged responsive material to defendant's counsel). Once delivered to counsel's office, the materials are not automatically required to be shared with the government. Whether they are required to be shared is determined by other applicable rules, e.g., Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(b).\nAs with her First Motion, she makes this motion ex parte for the \"strong policy reasons in favor of an ex parte\" process and because she is providing detail regarding her investigative and trial strategy to demonstrate compliance with the specificity, relevance, and admissibility\n8\nDOJ-OGR-00005051",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 336 Filed 09/07/21 Page 9 of 10",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "that the items turn out to have been altered or do not exist the absence of this evidence is also relevant and admissible at trial as exculpatory evidence.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "IV. Request",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Ms. Maxwell filed various pretrial motions which are currently pending before the Court.\nMs. Maxwell anticipates that one or more of her pending motions will require the presentation of evidence, that certain evidence central to the accusations in this matter will need to be examined in advance of trial as part of the investigation of her defense, and that the requested evidence is admissible at trial. Accordingly, Ms. Maxwell seeks production of these materials in advance of trial. She makes this motion ex parte for the \"strong policy reasons in favor of an ex parte\" process and because she is providing detail regarding her investigative and trial strategy to demonstrate compliance with the specificity, relevance, and admissibility requirements of a Rule 17(c) subpoena. United States v. Reyes, 162 F.R.D. 468, 470 (S.D.N.Y. 1995).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "It is well-established that the Court may order that the materials should be produced to counsel's office, rather than the courtroom itself. See, e.g., United States v. DNRB, Inc., No. 4:15-cr-0362, 2017 WL 2806251, at *3 (W.D. Mo. June 27, 2017) (directing production to requesting party); United States v. Jewell, Crim. No. 4:07-cr-00103, 2008 WL 3871736, at *3 (E.D. Ark. Aug. 15, 2008) (directing third-party to produce nonprivileged responsive material to defendant's counsel). Once delivered to counsel's office, the materials are not automatically required to be shared with the government. Whether they are required to be shared is determined by other applicable rules, e.g., Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(b).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "As with her First Motion, she makes this motion ex parte for the \"strong policy reasons in favor of an ex parte\" process and because she is providing detail regarding her investigative and trial strategy to demonstrate compliance with the specificity, relevance, and admissibility",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "8",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00005051",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell",
      "Reyes",
      "Jewell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Court",
      "United States"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y.",
      "W.D. Mo.",
      "E.D. Ark."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "09/07/21",
      "June 27, 2017",
      "Aug. 15, 2008",
      "1995"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "336",
      "4:15-cr-0362",
      "4:07-cr-00103",
      "DOJ-OGR-00005051"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ms. Maxwell. The text is mostly printed, with no handwritten content or stamps visible. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}