mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00003137.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "203 of 239",
    "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 203 of 239 (denying bill of particulars request in stock fraud case where indictment was fifteen pages long and substantial discovery had been provided). Although the Government cannot provide “mountains of documents to defense counsel” as a substitute for a bill of particulars where one would otherwise be required, see Bortnovsky, 820 F.2d at 575, the provision of voluminous discovery in combination with some guidance about what is most relevant can vitiate a need for further particulars, see, e.g., United States v. Mandell, 710 F. Supp. 2d 368, 385 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (denying request for particularization of alleged misrepresentations where the indictment was thirty-four pages long and Government had provided voluminous, organized discovery). In no event should volume of discovery alone warrant a bill of particulars; “[w]hile [a] [c]ourt may sympathize with counsel’s task of reviewing a large quantity of materials that continue to be produced,” that concern is addressed by granting the defense sufficient time in which to conduct the review in advance of trial. See United States v. Levy, No. 11 Cr. 62 (PAC), 2013 WL 664712, at *13 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2013). A bill of particulars would undoubtedly be helpful to the defense in any case. But “the law does not impose upon the Government an obligation to preview its case or expose its legal theories,” United States v. Leonelli, 428 F. Supp. 880, 882 (S.D.N.Y. 1977), and therefore “[t]he ultimate test must be whether the information sought is necessary, not whether it is helpful.” United States v. Mitlof, 165 F. Supp. 2d 558, 569 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (emphasis added); Mahabub, 2014 WL 4243657, at *2 (“The purpose of a bill of particulars is to ensure that a defendant has the information necessary to prepare a defense, not to turn over all information that would aid the defendant.”); United States v. Rittweger, 259 F. Supp. 2d 275, 292-93 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (denying bill of particulars request as “an impermissible attempt to compel the Government to provide the 176 DOJ-OGR-00003137",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 203 of 239",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "(denying bill of particulars request in stock fraud case where indictment was fifteen pages long and substantial discovery had been provided).",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Although the Government cannot provide “mountains of documents to defense counsel” as a substitute for a bill of particulars where one would otherwise be required, see Bortnovsky, 820 F.2d at 575, the provision of voluminous discovery in combination with some guidance about what is most relevant can vitiate a need for further particulars, see, e.g., United States v. Mandell, 710 F. Supp. 2d 368, 385 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (denying request for particularization of alleged misrepresentations where the indictment was thirty-four pages long and Government had provided voluminous, organized discovery). In no event should volume of discovery alone warrant a bill of particulars; “[w]hile [a] [c]ourt may sympathize with counsel’s task of reviewing a large quantity of materials that continue to be produced,” that concern is addressed by granting the defense sufficient time in which to conduct the review in advance of trial. See United States v. Levy, No. 11 Cr. 62 (PAC), 2013 WL 664712, at *13 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2013).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "A bill of particulars would undoubtedly be helpful to the defense in any case. But “the law does not impose upon the Government an obligation to preview its case or expose its legal theories,” United States v. Leonelli, 428 F. Supp. 880, 882 (S.D.N.Y. 1977), and therefore “[t]he ultimate test must be whether the information sought is necessary, not whether it is helpful.” United States v. Mitlof, 165 F. Supp. 2d 558, 569 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (emphasis added); Mahabub, 2014 WL 4243657, at *2 (“The purpose of a bill of particulars is to ensure that a defendant has the information necessary to prepare a defense, not to turn over all information that would aid the defendant.”); United States v. Rittweger, 259 F. Supp. 2d 275, 292-93 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (denying bill of particulars request as “an impermissible attempt to compel the Government to provide the",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "176",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003137",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "04/16/21",
      "2010",
      "Feb. 25, 2013",
      "1977",
      "2001",
      "2003"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 204",
      "11 Cr. 62 (PAC)"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a stock fraud case. The text is dense and includes multiple citations to legal precedents. There are no visible redactions or damage to the document."
}