DOJ-OGR-00015156.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 809 Filed 08/11/25 Page 24 of 31

2. Whether the Defendant to the Grand Jury Proceedings or the Government Opposes Disclosure

Maxwell opposes disclosure because, among other reasons, her case remains on direct appeal. Dkt. 803 at 2 (“Because this is ongoing litigation in a criminal case involving a living defendant with existing legal remedies, the government’s motion should be denied.”)

This factor thus weighs against unsealing. The Court, however, assigns limited weight to this factor because Maxwell, who does not have a legal right to access the grand jury materials, has not seen it. Her opposition is therefore fairly viewed as precautionary. Had Maxwell been aware that the grand jury materials are duplicative of information in the public record, her position might have been different.

3. Why Disclosure Is Being Sought in the Particular Case

This factor addresses the present-day significance of the grand jury materials at issue and whether their disclosure would advance the public interest. This factor so decisively weighs against unsealing that it alone would require denying the Government’s motion.

Arguments to disclose grand jury testimony on account of historical or public interest are “totally appropriate” and sometimes may even be weighty. In re Craig, 131 F.3d at 106. But for the reasons reviewed above, the grand jury materials here are neither of historical nor public-interest importance. This evidence was put before the grand juries in June 2020 and March 2021, in a case that remains on direct appeal. Cf. In re National Security Archive, 104 F. Supp. 3d at 628–29 (1950 grand jury testimony regarding Julius and Ethel Rosenberg); In re AHA, 49 F. Supp. at 278, 297–98 (1947–1950 grand jury testimony regarding Alger Hiss). And it is not of present-day public importance because it consists of summary testimony by law enforcement agents recounting information that today is a matter of public record, on account of the month-long trial on the charges returned by the grand jury. Cf. In re Biaggi, 478 F.2d at 494 (grand jury

24

DOJ-OGR-00015156