mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00004094.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "1",
    "document_number": "269",
    "date": "05/04/21",
    "document_type": "Letter",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 269 Filed 05/04/21 Page 1 of 9\nU.S. Department of Justice\nUnited States Attorney\nSouthern District of New York\nThe Silvio J. Mollo Building\nOne Saint Andrew's Plaza\nNew York, New York 10007\nMay 4, 2021\nBY ECF\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nUnited States District Judge\nSouthern District of New York\n40 Foley Square\nNew York, New York 10007\nRe: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)\nDear Judge Nathan:\nThe Government respectfully submits this letter in connection with the Court's Order of April 27, 2021, regarding the defendant's request for an order authorizing a subpoena pursuant to Rule 17(c)(3) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure for records from Boies Schiller Flexner LLP (\"BSF\"). In the Order, the Court directed the Government to notify the Court of its views as to Requests 9 through 11. For the reasons set forth below, the Government respectfully submits that Requests 9 and 11 should be denied, and the Court should reserve decision with respect to Request 10, which the Government expects may be rendered moot.\nI. Applicable Law\nAs the Court explained in its Order, a defendant seeking material pursuant to a Rule 17(c) subpoena bears the burden of satisfying the standard in United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974). Pursuant to that standard, a Rule 17(c) subpoena \"should not issue unless it meets three criteria: '(1) relevancy, (2) admissibility, (3) specificity.'\" United States v. Binday, 908 F. Supp. 2d 485, 491 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (quoting Nixon, 418 U.S. at 700).\nDOJ-OGR-00004094",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 269 Filed 05/04/21 Page 1 of 9",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "U.S. Department of Justice\nUnited States Attorney\nSouthern District of New York",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Silvio J. Mollo Building\nOne Saint Andrew's Plaza\nNew York, New York 10007\nMay 4, 2021",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "BY ECF",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nUnited States District Judge\nSouthern District of New York\n40 Foley Square\nNew York, New York 10007",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Dear Judge Nathan:",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Government respectfully submits this letter in connection with the Court's Order of April 27, 2021, regarding the defendant's request for an order authorizing a subpoena pursuant to Rule 17(c)(3) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure for records from Boies Schiller Flexner LLP (\"BSF\"). In the Order, the Court directed the Government to notify the Court of its views as to Requests 9 through 11. For the reasons set forth below, the Government respectfully submits that Requests 9 and 11 should be denied, and the Court should reserve decision with respect to Request 10, which the Government expects may be rendered moot.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "I. Applicable Law",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "As the Court explained in its Order, a defendant seeking material pursuant to a Rule 17(c) subpoena bears the burden of satisfying the standard in United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974). Pursuant to that standard, a Rule 17(c) subpoena \"should not issue unless it meets three criteria: '(1) relevancy, (2) admissibility, (3) specificity.'\" United States v. Binday, 908 F. Supp. 2d 485, 491 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (quoting Nixon, 418 U.S. at 700).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00004094",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Alison J. Nathan",
      "Ghislaine Maxwell",
      "Nixon"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "U.S. Department of Justice",
      "United States Attorney",
      "Boies Schiller Flexner LLP"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "May 4, 2021",
      "April 27, 2021",
      "1974",
      "2012"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 269",
      "S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)",
      "DOJ-OGR-00004094"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a formal letter from the U.S. Department of Justice to a U.S. District Judge. The text is typed, and there are no visible handwritten notes or stamps."
}