DOJ-OGR-00008999.jpg
671 KB
Extraction Summary
6
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
671 KB
Summary
This document is page 3 of a legal memorandum dated January 13, 2022, addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan. The author argues that pleadings filed by 'Juror 50' do not meet the legal standard for 'judicial documents' and therefore should not be subject to public access. The argument relies on precedent from Second Circuit cases, including United States v. Amodeo and Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, and notes that Ms. Maxwell intends to move to strike the pleadings, which would further support their exclusion from public view.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Alison J. Nathan | The Honorable |
Recipient of the letter/document.
|
| Juror 50 | Juror |
Mentioned as having filed pleadings that are the subject of the legal argument.
|
| Ms. Maxwell | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned as anticipating a motion to strike the pleadings filed by Juror 50. Also a party in the cited case Brown v....
|
| Amodeo | Party in a legal case |
Party in the cited case United States v. Amodeo.
|
| Brown | Party in a legal case |
Party in the cited case Brown v. Maxwell.
|
| Lugosch | Party in a legal case |
Party in the cited case Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Second Circuit | government agency |
A U.S. Court of Appeals circuit mentioned for establishing a framework for determining public access to documents.
|
| Pyramid Co. of Onondaga | company |
A party in the cited case Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga.
|
| Court of Appeals | government agency |
Mentioned as having held a specific position in the Lugosch case.
|
Timeline (3 events)
Ms. Maxwell anticipates moving to strike the pleadings filed by Juror 50.
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in the name of the company in the case Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga.
|
Relationships (1)
The document states that Ms. Maxwell anticipates moving to strike the pleadings filed by Juror 50.
Key Quotes (5)
"We think that the mere filing of a paper or document with the court is insufficient to render that paper a judicial document subject to the right of public access. We think that the item filed must be relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process in order for it to be designated a judicial document."Source
— United States v. Amodeo (“Amodeo I”)
(Quoted from a 1995 Second Circuit case to define what constitutes a 'judicial document'.)
DOJ-OGR-00008999.jpg
Quote #1
"[under Civil Rule 12], “the district court may strike such material from the filings on the grounds that it is “redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous.”"Source
— Brown v. Maxwell
(Quoted from a 2019 Second Circuit case regarding the court's power to strike material from filings.)
DOJ-OGR-00008999.jpg
Quote #2
"[b]efore any such common law right can attach, however, a court must first conclude that the documents at issue are indeed ‘judicial documents.’"Source
— Court of Appeals in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga
(Quoted from a 2006 Second Circuit case establishing the first step in determining public access rights.)
DOJ-OGR-00008999.jpg
Quote #3
"Once the court has determined that the documents are judicial documents and that therefore a common law presumption of access attaches, it must determine the weight of that presumption."Source
— Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 119
(Quoted from the Lugosch case, describing the process after a document is deemed 'judicial'.)
DOJ-OGR-00008999.jpg
Quote #4
"Finally, after determining the weight of the presumption of access, the court must ‘balance competing considerations against it.’"Source
— Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 120
(Quoted from the Lugosch case, describing the final step in the public access determination process.)
DOJ-OGR-00008999.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,951 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 612 Filed 02/24/22 Page 3 of 5
The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
January 13, 2022
Page 3
January 13, 2022
Page 3
The fact that Juror 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 render that paper a judicial
document subject to the right of public access. We think that the item filed must be relevant to
the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process in order for it to be
designated a judicial document.”). Moreover, Ms. Maxwell anticipates moving to strike the
pleadings and, if stricken, the documents enjoy no presumption of public access. Brown v.
Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 51–52 (2d Cir. 2019) ([under Civil Rule 12], “the district court may strike
such material from the filings on the grounds that it is “redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or
scandalous.” Because such rejected or stricken material is not “relevant to the performance of the
judicial function” it would not be considered a “judicial document” and would enjoy no
presumption of public access.”).
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 render that paper a judicial
document subject to the right of public access. We think that the item filed must be relevant to
the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process in order for it to be
designated a judicial document.”). Moreover, Ms. Maxwell anticipates moving to strike the
pleadings and, if stricken, the documents enjoy no presumption of public access. Brown v.
Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 51–52 (2d Cir. 2019) ([under Civil Rule 12], “the district court may strike
such material from the filings on the grounds that it is “redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or
scandalous.” Because such rejected or stricken material is not “relevant to the performance of the
judicial function” it would not be considered a “judicial document” and would enjoy no
presumption of public access.”).
The Second Circuit established a framework in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of
Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) for courts to utilize in determining when the public has a
right of access to particular documents. The Court of Appeals held that “[b]efore any such
common law right can attach, however, a court must first conclude that the documents at issue
are indeed ‘judicial documents.’” Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 119. “Once the court has determined that
the documents are judicial documents and that therefore a common law presumption of access
attaches, it must determine the weight of that presumption.” Id. “Finally, after determining the
weight of the presumption of access, the court must ‘balance competing considerations against
it.’” Id. at 120.
Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) for courts to utilize in determining when the public has a
right of access to particular documents. The Court of Appeals held that “[b]efore any such
common law right can attach, however, a court must first conclude that the documents at issue
are indeed ‘judicial documents.’” Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 119. “Once the court has determined that
the documents are judicial documents and that therefore a common law presumption of access
attaches, it must determine the weight of that presumption.” Id. “Finally, after determining the
weight of the presumption of access, the court must ‘balance competing considerations against
it.’” Id. at 120.
DOJ-OGR-00008999
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document