DOJ-OGR-00009062.jpg
723 KB
Extraction Summary
8
People
3
Organizations
2
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
723 KB
Summary
This legal document is a filing on behalf of Ms. Maxwell arguing that the court should strike all filings made by 'Juror No. 50.' The argument posits that the juror, as a non-party, lacks standing and that the filings are an improper attempt at discovery, not 'judicial documents' entitled to public access. Alternatively, it requests that the juror's filings remain sealed pending the outcome of Ms. Maxwell's motion for a new trial, which is based on the same juror's alleged dishonesty during jury selection.
People (8)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Maxwell |
A party in the case requesting the court to strike filings made by Juror No. 50 or keep them under seal.
|
|
| Juror No. 50 | Juror / Proposed Intervenor |
A juror who has made filings that Ms. Maxwell seeks to have stricken or sealed. Accused of failing to answer truthful...
|
| Mazzeo |
Party in the cited case Mazzeo v. Gibbons.
|
|
| Gibbons |
Party in the cited case Mazzeo v. Gibbons.
|
|
| Metzger |
Party in the cited case Metzger v. Hussman.
|
|
| Hussman |
Party in the cited case Metzger v. Hussman.
|
|
| Smith |
Party in the cited case United States v. Smith.
|
|
| Amodeo |
Party in the cited case United States v. Amodeo (“Amodeo I”).
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Federal Rules of Civil Procedure | legal framework |
Referenced in relation to Rule 12(f) concerning pleadings.
|
| SEC | government agency |
The plaintiff in the cited case SEC v. The Street.Com.
|
| The Street.Com | company |
The defendant in the cited case SEC v. The Street.Com.
|
Timeline (3 events)
2022-02-24
Document 613 was filed in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE.
Juror No. 50 filed a Motion and accompanying Memorandum.
Ms. Maxwell filed a motion for a new trial based on Juror No. 50's failure to answer truthfully during jury selection.
Relationships (1)
Ms. Maxwell is requesting the court to strike filings made by Juror No. 50 and has based a motion for a new trial on the juror's alleged failure to answer truthfully during jury selection.
Key Quotes (4)
"a district court has the inherent power to strike a party’s submissions other than pleadings."Source
— Mazzeo v. Gibbons
(Cited to support the argument that the court can strike Juror No. 50's filings.)
DOJ-OGR-00009062.jpg
Quote #1
"experience and logic show that there is no right of access to discovery materials"Source
— United States v. Smith
(Cited to argue that Juror No. 50's filings, considered an attempt at discovery, are not subject to public access.)
DOJ-OGR-00009062.jpg
Quote #2
"because the Court reviewed it in order to decide whether or not to enter [a] protective order"Source
— SEC v. The Street.Com
(Cited as part of a rejection of a claim that deposition testimony became a 'judicial document' simply because a court reviewed it.)
DOJ-OGR-00009062.jpg
Quote #3
"We think that the mere filing of a paper or document with the court is insufficient to"Source
— United States v. Amodeo (“Amodeo I”)
(Cited to argue that the fact Juror No. 50 filed pleadings does not automatically make them 'judicial documents' with a presumption of public access.)
DOJ-OGR-00009062.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,910 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 61 of 66
no legal effect). Although Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure references “pleadings,” “a district court has the inherent power to strike a party’s submissions other than pleadings.” Mazzeo v. Gibbons, No. 2:08-CV-01387-RLH-PA, 2010 WL 3910072, at *3 (D. Nev. Sept. 30, 2010); see also Metzger v. Hussman, 682 F. Supp. 1109, 1110 (D. Nev. 1988) (motion to strike granted and motion in opposition not considered by the court). This Court should strike all the filings made by Juror No. 50.
Alternatively, Ms. Maxwell requests that the “Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Intervene and for Release of Sealed Jury Questionnaire and Transcript, on Behalf of Proposed Intervenor, Juror 50” and its companion Motion remain under seal, at least until a resolution of Ms. Maxwell’s motion for new trial based on this Juror’s failure to answer truthfully during jury selection. Juror No. 50’s Motion and accompanying Memorandum are an attempt to obtain discovery by a non-party to this criminal case, made by someone who lacks standing to participate in this prosecution. Accordingly, these pleadings are not “judicial documents” and are afforded no presumption of public access. United States v. Smith, 985 F. Supp. 2d 506, 519 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (“experience and logic show that there is no right of access to discovery materials”). See SEC v. The Street.Com, 273 F.3d 222, 233 (2d Cir.2001) (rejecting claim that deposition testimony became a “judicial document” “because the Court reviewed it in order to decide whether or not to enter [a] protective order”).
The fact that Juror No. 50 filed these pleadings does not make them “judicial documents.” United States v. Amodeo (“Amodeo I”), 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995) (“We think that the mere filing of a paper or document with the court is insufficient to
Alternatively, Ms. Maxwell requests that the “Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Intervene and for Release of Sealed Jury Questionnaire and Transcript, on Behalf of Proposed Intervenor, Juror 50” and its companion Motion remain under seal, at least until a resolution of Ms. Maxwell’s motion for new trial based on this Juror’s failure to answer truthfully during jury selection. Juror No. 50’s Motion and accompanying Memorandum are an attempt to obtain discovery by a non-party to this criminal case, made by someone who lacks standing to participate in this prosecution. Accordingly, these pleadings are not “judicial documents” and are afforded no presumption of public access. United States v. Smith, 985 F. Supp. 2d 506, 519 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (“experience and logic show that there is no right of access to discovery materials”). See SEC v. The Street.Com, 273 F.3d 222, 233 (2d Cir.2001) (rejecting claim that deposition testimony became a “judicial document” “because the Court reviewed it in order to decide whether or not to enter [a] protective order”).
The fact that Juror No. 50 filed these pleadings does not make them “judicial documents.” United States v. Amodeo (“Amodeo I”), 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995) (“We think that the mere filing of a paper or document with the court is insufficient to
54
DOJ-OGR-00009062
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document