mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009559.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "18",
    "document_number": "620",
    "date": "02/25/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 620 Filed 02/25/22 Page 18 of 21\n\nmust be \"limited to only what is absolutely necessary to determine the facts with precision.\" Ianniello, 866 F.2d at 544. The Defendant can only speculate that the requested communications between Juror 50 and unknown persons and entities would shed any light on Juror 50's answers to the questionnaire and his bias before the trial at the time of voir dire. Nor has the Defendant explained why Juror 50's receipt of financial payment for interviews after the trial, if true, would be probative of his inclination to not disclose at voir dire prior to trial. The Court will not grant the Defendant \"the opportunity to 'conduct a fishing expedition.'\" Moon, 718 F.2d at 1234 (quoting Moten, 582 F.2d at 667).\n\nMoreover, the Defendant's requested subpoenas directed at social media companies who have custody of Juror 50's communications, comments, and posts are procedurally improper. Those requests for social media content are subject to the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2701-11, which requires an additional factual showing for the Court to order disclosure, see 2 Wayne LaFave et al., Criminal Procedure §§ 4.8(b), 4.8(d) (4th ed. 2021); Matter of Warrant to Search a Certain E-Mail Acct. Controlled & Maintained by Microsoft Corp., 829 F.3d 197, 206 (2d Cir. 2016), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 138 S. Ct. 1186 (2018). And only the Government, not private parties like the Defendant, may request disclosure pursuant to the Act. United States v. Nix, 251 F. Supp. 3d 555, 559 (W.D.N.Y. 2017) (\"[T]he [SCA] does not permit a defendant in a criminal case to subpoena the content of a Facebook or Instagram account.\"); Facebook, Inc. v. Wint, 199 A.3d 625, 629 (D.C. 2019) (collecting cases). Though the Government raised the Act in its briefing, the Defendant does not acknowledge it or purport to show she is entitled to make a request. Accordingly, the requests as to the listed social media companies are denied.\n\n18\n\nDOJ-OGR-00009559",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 620 Filed 02/25/22 Page 18 of 21",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "must be \"limited to only what is absolutely necessary to determine the facts with precision.\" Ianniello, 866 F.2d at 544. The Defendant can only speculate that the requested communications between Juror 50 and unknown persons and entities would shed any light on Juror 50's answers to the questionnaire and his bias before the trial at the time of voir dire. Nor has the Defendant explained why Juror 50's receipt of financial payment for interviews after the trial, if true, would be probative of his inclination to not disclose at voir dire prior to trial. The Court will not grant the Defendant \"the opportunity to 'conduct a fishing expedition.'\" Moon, 718 F.2d at 1234 (quoting Moten, 582 F.2d at 667).\n\nMoreover, the Defendant's requested subpoenas directed at social media companies who have custody of Juror 50's communications, comments, and posts are procedurally improper. Those requests for social media content are subject to the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2701-11, which requires an additional factual showing for the Court to order disclosure, see 2 Wayne LaFave et al., Criminal Procedure §§ 4.8(b), 4.8(d) (4th ed. 2021); Matter of Warrant to Search a Certain E-Mail Acct. Controlled & Maintained by Microsoft Corp., 829 F.3d 197, 206 (2d Cir. 2016), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 138 S. Ct. 1186 (2018). And only the Government, not private parties like the Defendant, may request disclosure pursuant to the Act. United States v. Nix, 251 F. Supp. 3d 555, 559 (W.D.N.Y. 2017) (\"[T]he [SCA] does not permit a defendant in a criminal case to subpoena the content of a Facebook or Instagram account.\"); Facebook, Inc. v. Wint, 199 A.3d 625, 629 (D.C. 2019) (collecting cases). Though the Government raised the Act in its briefing, the Defendant does not acknowledge it or purport to show she is entitled to make a request. Accordingly, the requests as to the listed social media companies are denied.",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "18",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009559",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ianniello",
      "Moten",
      "Moon",
      "Juror 50",
      "LaFave",
      "Nix",
      "Wint"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Microsoft Corp.",
      "Facebook, Inc.",
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "W.D.N.Y.",
      "D.C."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "02/25/22",
      "2016",
      "2018",
      "2017",
      "2019",
      "2021"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 620",
      "18 U.S.C. §§ 2701-11",
      "829 F.3d 197",
      "138 S. Ct. 1186",
      "251 F. Supp. 3d 555",
      "199 A.3d 625",
      "DOJ-OGR-00009559"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is mostly printed, with no handwritten content or stamps visible. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}