DOJ-OGR-00009166.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 615 Filed 02/24/22 Page 47 of 49

Mar. 9, 2020); Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, 19 Civ. 2552 (LAK) (OTW), 2019 WL 4855039, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 2, 2019).

Finally, the defendant requests that that the Court strike Juror 50’s motion to intervene and the supporting memorandum of law or, alternatively, permit his filings to remain under seal pending resolution of the Defense Motion. (Def. Mem. at 53-56). The cases cited by the defendant in support of its motion to strike are inapposite,20 and in any event Juror 50’s motion, whether or not ultimately granted, is hardly “redundant, immaterial, impertinent or scandalous.” The defendant further claims that the pleadings are not “judicial documents” at the current stage of the proceedings as they have not been ruled upon by the Court and, therefore, “are afforded no presumption of public access.” (Id. at 54, 56). She is wrong. Juror 50’s motion to intervene is quite obviously “relevant to the performance of a judicial function and useful in the judicial process.” United States v. Amodeo, 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995); see also S.E.C. v. TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d 222, 232 (2d Cir. 2001) (noting that a “document which is presented to

20 The defendant cites United States v. All Right, Title & Int. in Prop., Appurtenances, & Improvements Known as 479 Tamarind Drive, Hallendale, Fla., No. 98 Civ. 2279 (DLC), 2011 WL 1045095, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 11, 2011), a civil forfeiture action in which the Government filed a motion to strike, which is explicitly governed by Rule G of the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions. The defendant also cites civil cases involving discussions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) under which “[a] court may strike from a pleading . . . any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” The defendant ignores that even in that context, “motions to strike are disfavored and should not be granted ‘unless there is a strong reason for so doing.’” Bailey v. Pataki, No. 08 Civ. 8563 (JSR), 2010 WL 234995, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 19, 2010) (citation omitted); see also Velez v. Lisi, 164 F.R.D. 165, 166 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (“A motion to strike is an extraordinary remedy which will not be granted unless it is clear that the allegations in question can have no possible bearing on the subject matter of the litigation.”). Metzger v. Hussman, 682 F. Supp. 1109, 1110 (D. Nev. 1988), which the defendant cites (Def. Mem. at 54), is also inapposite. Metzger is a civil case in which the court granted a motion to strike an opposition to a motion to dismiss that was filed in an untimely manner because “[a]pplicable rules of procedure . . . must be enforced in this case, as in any case, so that the Court may maintain control over the progress of litigation before it.” Metzger, 682 F. Supp. at 1111.

45

DOJ-OGR-00009166