mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00004098.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "5",
    "document_number": "269",
    "date": "05/04/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 269 Filed 05/04/21 Page 5 of 9\n\nPage 5\n\n(N.D.N.Y. Feb. 6, 1989) (reaching the unremarkable result that an “undercover agent’s diary” is “not discoverable in and of itself” except “to the extent that this diary contains” Brady material).\n\nAlternatively, the defendant states that she needs to inspect the “entire journal” to “establish whether the journal is authentic and complete and whether or not spoilation has occurred.” (4/2/21 Letter from Def., Dkt. No. 244 at 9). “This examination,” she continues, “requires the services of a qualified forensic document examiner.” (Id.) This argument lacks merit. The defendant’s bare assertion that authenticity might somehow be in doubt is hardly a sufficiently detailed explanation of relevance and admissibility to justify a subpoena for a minor victim’s personal journal. The defendant does not identify any basis for doubting the authenticity of the documents, which the Government expects that Minor Victim-2 will be able to properly authenticate at trial. Nor does the defendant identify what kind of examiner she intends to use, what kind of examination will occur, or how that examination might bear on the journal’s authenticity. See Wey, 252 F. Supp. 3d at 253 (explaining that the “items sought cannot merely be potentially relevant or admissible. Rather, they must be shown to be relevant and admissible at the time the subpoena is sought.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also United States v. Skelos, No. 15-CR-317 (KMW), 2018 WL 2254538, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. May 17, 2018), aff’d, 988 F.3d 645 (2d Cir. 2021) (“[A] criminal subpoena should not be used as ‘a discovery device,’ but instead should be used only as ‘a mechanism for obtaining specific admissible evidence.’” (quoting United States v. Barnes, No. 04 Cr. 186 (SCR), 2008 WL 9359654, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2008))). “Conclusory statements,” like the defendant’s here, are “insufficient to satisfy the Nixon requirements.” Barnes, 2008 WL 9359654, at *3.2\n\n2 In addition to the explicit bases identified in her letter on the subpoena and described above, elsewhere the defendant has made clear that she seeks the diary for impeachment purposes. (See Mot. for a Bill of Particulars and Pretrial Disclosures, Dkt. No. 148 at 10; 3/22/21 Letter from\n\nDOJ-OGR-00004098",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 269 Filed 05/04/21 Page 5 of 9",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Page 5",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "(N.D.N.Y. Feb. 6, 1989) (reaching the unremarkable result that an “undercover agent’s diary” is “not discoverable in and of itself” except “to the extent that this diary contains” Brady material).",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Alternatively, the defendant states that she needs to inspect the “entire journal” to “establish whether the journal is authentic and complete and whether or not spoilation has occurred.” (4/2/21 Letter from Def., Dkt. No. 244 at 9). “This examination,” she continues, “requires the services of a qualified forensic document examiner.” (Id.) This argument lacks merit. The defendant’s bare assertion that authenticity might somehow be in doubt is hardly a sufficiently detailed explanation of relevance and admissibility to justify a subpoena for a minor victim’s personal journal. The defendant does not identify any basis for doubting the authenticity of the documents, which the Government expects that Minor Victim-2 will be able to properly authenticate at trial. Nor does the defendant identify what kind of examiner she intends to use, what kind of examination will occur, or how that examination might bear on the journal’s authenticity. See Wey, 252 F. Supp. 3d at 253 (explaining that the “items sought cannot merely be potentially relevant or admissible. Rather, they must be shown to be relevant and admissible at the time the subpoena is sought.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also United States v. Skelos, No. 15-CR-317 (KMW), 2018 WL 2254538, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. May 17, 2018), aff’d, 988 F.3d 645 (2d Cir. 2021) (“[A] criminal subpoena should not be used as ‘a discovery device,’ but instead should be used only as ‘a mechanism for obtaining specific admissible evidence.’” (quoting United States v. Barnes, No. 04 Cr. 186 (SCR), 2008 WL 9359654, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2008))). “Conclusory statements,” like the defendant’s here, are “insufficient to satisfy the Nixon requirements.” Barnes, 2008 WL 9359654, at *3.2",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2 In addition to the explicit bases identified in her letter on the subpoena and described above, elsewhere the defendant has made clear that she seeks the diary for impeachment purposes. (See Mot. for a Bill of Particulars and Pretrial Disclosures, Dkt. No. 148 at 10; 3/22/21 Letter from",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00004098",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "N.D.N.Y.",
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "Feb. 6, 1989",
      "4/2/21",
      "May 17, 2018",
      "Apr. 2, 2008",
      "05/04/21",
      "3/22/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "269",
      "244",
      "15-CR-317",
      "04 Cr. 186"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a clear and legible text. There are no visible redactions or damages."
}