mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00003077.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "143",
    "document_number": "204",
    "date": "04/16/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 143 of 239\n\nGovernment has responded with reliable information directly rebutting the defendant's allegations, there is no material issue of fact sufficient to justify an evidentiary hearing.44\n\nThe defendant cites Franks, to suggest that a hearing is somehow warranted, but her motion falls far short of the standard required to obtain a hearing. “While the Franks analysis discussed above is typically employed to evaluate misstatements and omissions relating to probable cause, the Second Circuit has extended the Franks analysis to other Title III requirements for obtaining a warrant.” United States v. Rajaratnam, No. 09 Cr. 1184 (RJH), 2010 WL 4867402, at *18 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 24, 2010). The defendant fails to identify the standard that would govern such a hearing. In light of the interests implicated by a Title III wiretap, the USAO-SDNY submits that the defendant's depositions in a civil matter, even with a protective order, are no more significant than the interests implicated by a Title III wiretap. As such, the exacting standard of Franks should apply. On this record, the defendant has not made a threshold showing that the Government acted with the intent to mislead or in reckless disregard for the truth. The Franks standard is rightly a “high one,” Rivera, 928 F.2d at 604, and one the defendant has failed to meet here.\n\nThe defendant's bald assertions alone do not entitle her to a fishing expedition in the form of a hearing.\n\nV. The Jury Should Decide Whether the Defendant Committed Perjury\n\nCounts Five and Six of the Indictment allege that, during the course of two depositions, the defendant knowingly made false material declarations, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623. The defendant moves to dismiss those Counts, arguing that the Court can determine now—on a pre-\n\n44 For similar reasons, the defendant's request for discovery regarding this matter should be denied. The defendant has failed to meet her burden under Rule 16 of making “a prima facie showing of materiality and must offer more than the conclusory allegation that the requested evidence is material.” Urena, 989 F. Supp. 2d at 261 (citations omitted). Because the defendant has offered nothing more than her conjecture, based on an inaccurate and hearsay-ridden article, that some unspecified evidence might exist, her request for discovery should be denied.\n\n116\nDOJ-OGR-00003077",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 143 of 239",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Government has responded with reliable information directly rebutting the defendant's allegations, there is no material issue of fact sufficient to justify an evidentiary hearing.44",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The defendant cites Franks, to suggest that a hearing is somehow warranted, but her motion falls far short of the standard required to obtain a hearing. “While the Franks analysis discussed above is typically employed to evaluate misstatements and omissions relating to probable cause, the Second Circuit has extended the Franks analysis to other Title III requirements for obtaining a warrant.” United States v. Rajaratnam, No. 09 Cr. 1184 (RJH), 2010 WL 4867402, at *18 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 24, 2010). The defendant fails to identify the standard that would govern such a hearing. In light of the interests implicated by a Title III wiretap, the USAO-SDNY submits that the defendant's depositions in a civil matter, even with a protective order, are no more significant than the interests implicated by a Title III wiretap. As such, the exacting standard of Franks should apply. On this record, the defendant has not made a threshold showing that the Government acted with the intent to mislead or in reckless disregard for the truth. The Franks standard is rightly a “high one,” Rivera, 928 F.2d at 604, and one the defendant has failed to meet here.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The defendant's bald assertions alone do not entitle her to a fishing expedition in the form of a hearing.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "V. The Jury Should Decide Whether the Defendant Committed Perjury",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Counts Five and Six of the Indictment allege that, during the course of two depositions, the defendant knowingly made false material declarations, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623. The defendant moves to dismiss those Counts, arguing that the Court can determine now—on a pre-",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "44 For similar reasons, the defendant's request for discovery regarding this matter should be denied. The defendant has failed to meet her burden under Rule 16 of making “a prima facie showing of materiality and must offer more than the conclusory allegation that the requested evidence is material.” Urena, 989 F. Supp. 2d at 261 (citations omitted). Because the defendant has offered nothing more than her conjecture, based on an inaccurate and hearsay-ridden article, that some unspecified evidence might exist, her request for discovery should be denied.",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "116",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003077",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Rajaratnam",
      "Rivera",
      "Urena"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "USAO-SDNY",
      "DOJ"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "04/16/21",
      "Nov. 24, 2010"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 204",
      "09 Cr. 1184 (RJH)",
      "2010 WL 4867402",
      "18 U.S.C. § 1623",
      "18 U.S.C. § 1623",
      "Rule 16",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003077"
    ]
  },
  "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 well-formatted and legible."
}