DOJ-OGR-00019227.jpg
591 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
1
Organizations
2
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
591 KB
Summary
This legal document, filed on July 2, 2020, is a court finding that justifies providing public access to court proceedings via telephone conference. The court argues this measure is narrowly tailored to protect public health from COVID-19 and is less restrictive than in-person hearings, which have attendance limitations. This approach allows for broad public access, even for individuals who would otherwise be barred from the courthouse under a previous order (Standing Order 20-9).
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| public | General public |
Mentioned as having access to court proceedings via telephone conference.
|
| parties | Parties to the case |
Their health is being protected by limiting potential exposure to COVID-19.
|
| court staff | Court employees |
Their health is being protected by limiting potential exposure to COVID-19.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| the court | Government agency |
The entity making findings and decisions regarding public access to proceedings during the COVID-19 pandemic.
|
Timeline (2 events)
The court is holding proceedings with partial closure, allowing public access via telephone instead of in-person attendance to protect public health.
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
The physical location for hearings, where the number of people permitted is restricted.
|
|
|
The building from which certain individuals, such as those with COVID-19, were prohibited from entering under Standin...
|
Relationships (1)
The court is balancing the public's right to access judicial proceedings with the need to implement public health and safety measures during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Key Quotes (2)
"the court finds that this partial closure of court proceedings is narrowly tailored to protect public health and safety and is less restrictive than the court's current in-court hearing protocols."Source
— the court
(The court's primary finding justifying the use of telephonic access for public proceedings.)
DOJ-OGR-00019227.jpg
Quote #1
"Providing the public access to this proceeding via telephone is the least restrictive means of protecting the"Source
— the court
(The court's conclusion on the legality and appropriateness of using telephone access for proceedings during the pandemic.)
DOJ-OGR-00019227.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,494 characters)
Case 1:20-mj-00132-AJD Document 2 Filed 07/02/20 Page 5 of 33
that was justified by substantial interest of promoting security
and preventing terrorism).
and preventing terrorism).
B. Second, the court finds that this partial closure of court
proceedings is narrowly tailored to protect public health
and safety and is less restrictive than the court's current
in-court hearing protocols.
proceedings is narrowly tailored to protect public health
and safety and is less restrictive than the court's current
in-court hearing protocols.
Allowing the public to access these proceedings through
telephone conference allows a large number (up to 500) of
members of the public to access the proceedings while, at the
same time, protecting the health of all involved by limiting the
potential exposure of the public, parties, and court staff to
COVID-19.
telephone conference allows a large number (up to 500) of
members of the public to access the proceedings while, at the
same time, protecting the health of all involved by limiting the
potential exposure of the public, parties, and court staff to
COVID-19.
Importantly, the court finds that, in light of the court's
current restrictions on the number of people permitted in the
courtroom, providing public telephonic access is less
restrictive than holding an in-person hearing which only a
limited number of people can attend. Further, via telephone,
even individuals who would have otherwise been prohibited from
entering the courthouse – for example, people who have tested
positive for COVID-19 – now have access (even though virtual) to
the proceedings. See Standing Order 20-9 (Mar. 20, 2020)
(prohibiting certain individuals from entering the courthouse,
including people diagnosed with or exposed to someone diagnosed
with COVID-19). Providing the public access to this proceeding
via telephone is the least restrictive means of protecting the
current restrictions on the number of people permitted in the
courtroom, providing public telephonic access is less
restrictive than holding an in-person hearing which only a
limited number of people can attend. Further, via telephone,
even individuals who would have otherwise been prohibited from
entering the courthouse – for example, people who have tested
positive for COVID-19 – now have access (even though virtual) to
the proceedings. See Standing Order 20-9 (Mar. 20, 2020)
(prohibiting certain individuals from entering the courthouse,
including people diagnosed with or exposed to someone diagnosed
with COVID-19). Providing the public access to this proceeding
via telephone is the least restrictive means of protecting the
5
DOJ-OGR-00019227
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document