mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES001/DOJ-OGR-00002892.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "3",
    "document_number": "195",
    "date": "04/05/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 195 Filed 04/05/21 Page 3 of 11\nPage 3\nof due diligence; (3) that the party cannot properly prepare for trial without such production and inspection in advance of trial and that the failure to obtain such inspection may tend unreasonably to delay the trial; and (4) that the application is made in good faith and is not intended as a general “fishing expedition.”\nUnited States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 699-700 (1974) (footnote omitted); see United States v. Skelos, 988 F.3d 645, 661 (2d Cir. 2021) (affirming a decision to quash subpoenas through application of Nixon); United States v. Pena, No. 15 Cr. 551 (AJN), 2016 WL 8735699, at *1-*2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 12, 2016) (applying Nixon, rather than the “more liberal standard” of United States v. Tucker, 249 F.R.D. 58 (S.D.N.Y. 2008), to the propriety of a Rule 17(c) subpoena).\nThe Nixon test is demanding. The defendant must establish that the defense’s “application is made in good faith and is not intended as a general ‘fishing expedition.’” Nixon, 418 U.S. at 700; United States v. Yian, No. 94 Cr. 719 (DLC), 1995 WL 614563, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 19, 1995) (quashing subpoena that “call[s] for the production of the entire investigative file and is accurately described as a fishing expedition”); United States v. Cuthbertson, 630 F.2d 139, 144 (3d Cir. 1980) (“[T]est for enforcement is whether the subpoena constitutes a good faith effort to obtain identified evidence rather than a general ‘fishing expedition’ that attempts to use the rule as a discovery device.” (emphasis added)). Indeed, because the Rule poses such a risk of abuse and misuse, courts are stringent in holding those seeking to obtain documents to Rule 17(c) to their burden of demonstrating that the documents sought are (1) relevant, (2) admissible, (3) specifically identified, and (4) not otherwise procurable, and it is “insufficient” for a party to show only that the subpoenaed documents “are potentially relevant or may be admissible,” United States v. RW Prof’l Leasing Servs. Corp., 228 F.R.D. 158, 162 (E.D.N.Y 2005) (emphasis added). “[A] mere hope that the documents, if produced, may contain evidence favorable to the defendant’s case will not suffice. Rule 17(c) requires a showing that the materials sought are currently admissible in\nDOJ-OGR-00002892",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 195 Filed 04/05/21 Page 3 of 11",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Page 3",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "of due diligence; (3) that the party cannot properly prepare for trial without such production and inspection in advance of trial and that the failure to obtain such inspection may tend unreasonably to delay the trial; and (4) that the application is made in good faith and is not intended as a general “fishing expedition.”",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 699-700 (1974) (footnote omitted); see United States v. Skelos, 988 F.3d 645, 661 (2d Cir. 2021) (affirming a decision to quash subpoenas through application of Nixon); United States v. Pena, No. 15 Cr. 551 (AJN), 2016 WL 8735699, at *1-*2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 12, 2016) (applying Nixon, rather than the “more liberal standard” of United States v. Tucker, 249 F.R.D. 58 (S.D.N.Y. 2008), to the propriety of a Rule 17(c) subpoena).",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Nixon test is demanding. The defendant must establish that the defense’s “application is made in good faith and is not intended as a general ‘fishing expedition.’” Nixon, 418 U.S. at 700; United States v. Yian, No. 94 Cr. 719 (DLC), 1995 WL 614563, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 19, 1995) (quashing subpoena that “call[s] for the production of the entire investigative file and is accurately described as a fishing expedition”); United States v. Cuthbertson, 630 F.2d 139, 144 (3d Cir. 1980) (“[T]est for enforcement is whether the subpoena constitutes a good faith effort to obtain identified evidence rather than a general ‘fishing expedition’ that attempts to use the rule as a discovery device.” (emphasis added)). Indeed, because the Rule poses such a risk of abuse and misuse, courts are stringent in holding those seeking to obtain documents to Rule 17(c) to their burden of demonstrating that the documents sought are (1) relevant, (2) admissible, (3) specifically identified, and (4) not otherwise procurable, and it is “insufficient” for a party to show only that the subpoenaed documents “are potentially relevant or may be admissible,” United States v. RW Prof’l Leasing Servs. Corp., 228 F.R.D. 158, 162 (E.D.N.Y 2005) (emphasis added). “[A] mere hope that the documents, if produced, may contain evidence favorable to the defendant’s case will not suffice. Rule 17(c) requires a showing that the materials sought are currently admissible in",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00002892",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Nixon",
      "Skelos",
      "Pena",
      "Tucker",
      "Yian",
      "Cuthbertson"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y",
      "E.D.N.Y"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "04/05/21",
      "1974",
      "2021",
      "Feb. 12, 2016",
      "2008",
      "Oct. 19, 1995",
      "1980",
      "2005"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 195",
      "No. 15 Cr. 551 (AJN)",
      "No. 94 Cr. 719 (DLC)",
      "DOJ-OGR-00002892"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 3 of 11."
}