DOJ-OGR-00010755.jpg
825 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
6
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
825 KB
Summary
This legal document argues against a defendant's request to seal a motion for a new trial, which was based on a juror's alleged failure to properly answer a questionnaire. The author asserts the public's common law right of access to judicial documents, citing legal precedents like 'Amodeo' and 'Lugosch' to argue that the defendant has not met the high standard for secrecy. The document suggests that limited redactions, rather than a complete seal, would be a more appropriate course of action.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Amodeo | Party in a cited legal case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Amodeo' ('Amodeo I').
|
| Lugosch | Party in a cited legal case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. v. Onondaga' and the 'Lugosch standard'.
|
| Bernstein | Party in a cited legal case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP'.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States | Government agency |
Party in the cited case 'United States v. Amodeo'.
|
| Pyramid Co. | Company |
Party in the cited case 'Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. v. Onondaga'.
|
| Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP | Law firm |
Party in the cited case 'Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP'.
|
| The Court | Government agency |
The judicial body asked to keep a motion under seal and whose assessment is informed by the motion.
|
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Party in the cited case 'Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. v. Onondaga'.
|
Relationships (2)
The Defendant filed a motion with the Court and asked the Court to rule on it.
Defendant
→
Legal
→
juror
The Defendant's motion for a new trial appears to be based on the juror's answers (or lack thereof) on a questionnaire.
Key Quotes (6)
"flew through"Source
— juror
(The juror's description of how he completed the questionnaire.)
DOJ-OGR-00010755.jpg
Quote #1
"not recall being asked"Source
— juror
(The juror's response when asked about a specific question on the questionnaire.)
DOJ-OGR-00010755.jpg
Quote #2
"judicial document"Source
— Legal term
(A term defining items to which the common law presumption of access attaches.)
DOJ-OGR-00010755.jpg
Quote #3
"relevant to the performance of judicial function and useful in the judicial process."Source
— United States v. Amodeo
(The definition of a 'judicial document' cited from a legal case.)
DOJ-OGR-00010755.jpg
Quote #4
"substantive legal rights"Source
— Legal term
(Used to describe the rights affected by court verdicts and orders, strengthening the presumption of public access.)
DOJ-OGR-00010755.jpg
Quote #5
"countervailing factors"Source
— Legal term
(Factors that must be shown to outweigh the public's right to monitor judicial proceedings in order to overcome the presumption of access.)
DOJ-OGR-00010755.jpg
Quote #6
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,285 characters)
Case 20-20003-CR-JND Document 583 Filed 06/29/22 Page 22 of 53
influenced deliberations. See Dkts. 568–70. When asked about his juror questionnaire, which included a question about whether he had been a victim of sexual abuse, the juror asserted that he “flew through” the questionnaire and did “not recall being asked” this question. Dkt. 568. Defendant filed a motion for a new trial and asked the Court to keep the motion completely under seal until it ruled on the motion. Dkt. 580.
Defendant’s request for secrecy is contrary to both the common law and the First Amendment.
The Common Law Right of Access
The common law presumption of access attaches to any “judicial document,” defined as items “relevant to the performance of judicial function and useful in the judicial process.” United States v. Amodeo (“Amodeo I”), 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995). The presumption is strongest when, as here, documents contribute materially to the Article III powers of the court—that is, to the rendering of verdicts and orders affecting “substantive legal rights.” Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. v. Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 121 (2d Cir. 2006). Once the right attaches, it is overcome only by a showing that there are “countervailing factors” that outweigh the public’s right to monitor judicial proceedings.
Defendant’s Motion for New Trial. There is no question that Defendant’s motion, which will directly inform the Court’s assessment of whether a new trial is necessary, is a “judicial document.” See Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP, 814 F.3d 132, 140, 142 (2d Cir. 2016). Because the motion will be used to determine the parties’ “substantive legal rights,” the presumptive right of access it at its highest. Id.
We do not see anything on the public record indicating that Defendant has met—or tried to meet—the high showing required to justify a blanket sealing of its motion. It is simply not plausible that every word of a legal filing such as this one requires total secrecy. To the extent that the motion contains any sensitive information, there is a reasonable alternative to wholesale sealing: limited redactions of personally identifiable or sensitive information, if justified under the Lugosch standard. See Amodeo I, 44 F.3d at 147.
2
DOJ-OGR-00010755
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document