mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00004101.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "8",
    "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 8 of 9 Page 8 thus, that the Court need not resolve Request 10 at this time, as the Court will likely be able to deny it as moot in the near term. C. Request 11 Request 11 appears to seek a series of photographs. The Government's understanding is that the defendant already has copies of those photographs. (See 4/2/21 Letter from Def., Dkt. No. 244 at 11 (\"[C]opies were produced by BSF in civil litigation.\")). It also appears that the Government also produced copies of some of these photographs in Rule 16 discovery. In any event, and again although the Government is not obligated to do so, the Government requested that BSF provide it with copies of the complete set of requested photographs, which it has obtained and produced to the defendant. Remaining at issue, then, are only the original versions of the photographs. The Government understands from BSF that the photographs were all taken on film and are not digital photographs. Accordingly, the originals are physical photographs, not digital files. The defense subpoena for these original photographs should be denied, at least unless and until the defendant provides further justification for the need for and entitlement to the originals. Because the defendant already has copies of the photographs, the defendant must explain how her request for the originals can satisfy the Nixon test without being \"otherwise procurable.\" 418 U.S. at 699. The defendant suggests that she needs the originals to identify the \"dates of creation or any other specifics.\" (4/2/21 Letter from Def., Dkt. No. 244 at 11). It is entirely unclear what \"other specifics\" refers to, but as noted above, the Government understands that these photographs were taken on film, such that the originals would generally not contain metadata regarding the date or other information regarding when they were taken. And in any event, the defendant has not explained the relevance or admissibility of this information—and specifically, whether it would DOJ-OGR-00004101",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 269 Filed 05/04/21 Page 8 of 9",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Page 8",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "thus, that the Court need not resolve Request 10 at this time, as the Court will likely be able to deny it as moot in the near term. C. Request 11 Request 11 appears to seek a series of photographs. The Government's understanding is that the defendant already has copies of those photographs. (See 4/2/21 Letter from Def., Dkt. No. 244 at 11 (\"[C]opies were produced by BSF in civil litigation.\")). It also appears that the Government also produced copies of some of these photographs in Rule 16 discovery. In any event, and again although the Government is not obligated to do so, the Government requested that BSF provide it with copies of the complete set of requested photographs, which it has obtained and produced to the defendant. Remaining at issue, then, are only the original versions of the photographs. The Government understands from BSF that the photographs were all taken on film and are not digital photographs. Accordingly, the originals are physical photographs, not digital files. The defense subpoena for these original photographs should be denied, at least unless and until the defendant provides further justification for the need for and entitlement to the originals. Because the defendant already has copies of the photographs, the defendant must explain how her request for the originals can satisfy the Nixon test without being \"otherwise procurable.\" 418 U.S. at 699. The defendant suggests that she needs the originals to identify the \"dates of creation or any other specifics.\" (4/2/21 Letter from Def., Dkt. No. 244 at 11). It is entirely unclear what \"other specifics\" refers to, but as noted above, the Government understands that these photographs were taken on film, such that the originals would generally not contain metadata regarding the date or other information regarding when they were taken. And in any event, the defendant has not explained the relevance or admissibility of this information—and specifically, whether it would",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00004101",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "BSF",
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "05/04/21",
      "4/2/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "269",
      "244",
      "418 U.S. at 699",
      "DOJ-OGR-00004101"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is well-formatted and legible. There are no visible redactions or damages."
}