mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES007/DOJ-OGR-00019575.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "2",
    "document_number": "120366006380",
    "date": "August 24, 2020",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan August 24, 2020 Page 2 The government's ad hominem suggestion that Ms. Maxwell has \"cherry-pick[ed] materials\" to seek an \"advantage in their efforts to defend against accusations of abuse\" or \"delay court-ordered disclosure of previously sealed materials\" reveals a fundamental (or feigned) lack of understanding . It also begs the question, to be fleshed out at a later time, . Ms. Maxwell simply seeks to alert the judicial officers in the related Civil Litigation to facts about which her adversary is already aware. Issuance of the Subpoenas Not \"Standard Practice\": Second, the government tries to normalize, without citation to authority, its conduct as \"standard practice.\" Resp. at 2. To the contrary, the controlling case in this Circuit, Martindell v. Int'l Telephone & Telegraph Corp., 594 F.2d 291, 293 (2d Cir. 1979), mandates a wholly different procedure: the use of a non-ex parte subpoena with an opportunity for the aggrieved party to move to quash. Similar cases in this district demonstrate the \"non-standard\" nature of the government's conduct regarding these subpoenas. For example, Judge Koeltl observed when considering whether to release a single deposition transcript to the government: \"the Second Circuit has made clear that the Government may not use its 'awesome' investigative powers to seek modification of a protective order merely to compare the fruits of the plaintiff's discovery in a civil action with the results of a prosecutorial investigation in a criminal action.\" Botha v. Don King Prods., Inc., No. 97 CIV. 7587 (JGK), 1998 WL 88745, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 1998) (citing Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity Servs., Inc., 832 F.2d 739, 743 (2d Cir. 1987) and Martindell, 594 F.2d at 297). App.116 DOJ-OGR-00019575",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan August 24, 2020 Page 2",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The government's ad hominem suggestion that Ms. Maxwell has \"cherry-pick[ed] materials\" to seek an \"advantage in their efforts to defend against accusations of abuse\" or \"delay court-ordered disclosure of previously sealed materials\" reveals a fundamental (or feigned) lack of understanding . It also begs the question, to be fleshed out at a later time, .",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Ms. Maxwell simply seeks to alert the judicial officers in the related Civil Litigation to facts about which her adversary is already aware.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Issuance of the Subpoenas Not \"Standard Practice\": Second, the government tries to normalize, without citation to authority, its conduct as \"standard practice.\" Resp. at 2. To the contrary, the controlling case in this Circuit, Martindell v. Int'l Telephone & Telegraph Corp., 594 F.2d 291, 293 (2d Cir. 1979), mandates a wholly different procedure: the use of a non-ex parte subpoena with an opportunity for the aggrieved party to move to quash. Similar cases in this district demonstrate the \"non-standard\" nature of the government's conduct regarding these subpoenas. For example, Judge Koeltl observed when considering whether to release a single deposition transcript to the government: \"the Second Circuit has made clear that the Government may not use its 'awesome' investigative powers to seek modification of a protective order merely to compare the fruits of the plaintiff's discovery in a civil action with the results of a prosecutorial investigation in a criminal action.\" Botha v. Don King Prods., Inc., No. 97 CIV. 7587 (JGK), 1998 WL 88745, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 1998) (citing Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity Servs., Inc., 832 F.2d 739, 743 (2d Cir. 1987) and Martindell, 594 F.2d at 297).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "App.116 DOJ-OGR-00019575",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Alison J. Nathan",
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Judge Koeltl",
      "JGK"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Int'l Telephone & Telegraph Corp.",
      "Don King Prods., Inc.",
      "Minpeco S.A.",
      "Conticommodity Servs., Inc."
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "August 24, 2020",
      "Feb. 27, 1998"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "120366006380",
      "97 CIV. 7587",
      "DOJ-OGR-00019575",
      "App.116"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with redactions. The redactions are likely due to sensitive information being withheld."
}