You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
DOJ-OGR-00009846.jpg
791 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
791 KB
Summary
This legal document argues against the defendant's position that Juror 50's motion to intervene should be sealed. The author asserts that the motion is a judicial document that should be publicly docketed, citing the case Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga and refuting the defendant's claims that it is merely a discovery request or that public filing would interfere with testimony. A footnote defends the Government's prior action of publicly filing a letter about Juror 50's public statements, stating it was appropriate and that an attempt was made to confer with defense counsel beforehand.
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Pyramid Co. of Onondaga | company |
Mentioned in the case citation 'Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga'.
|
| Government | government agency |
Mentioned in the footnote as the entity that publicly docketed a letter regarding Juror 50 and sought to confer with ...
|
| Court | government agency |
Referenced throughout as the judicial body that makes decisions, grants motions, and to whom Juror 50's statements we...
|
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in the case citation 'Pyramid Co. of Onondaga'.
|
Relationships (2)
The defendant is challenging Juror 50's motion to intervene and arguing it should not be a public judicial document.
The Government sought to confer with the defense counsel before filing a letter but received no response, indicating a professional interaction within the context of litigation.
Key Quotes (3)
"different footing"Source
— unspecified
(Used to describe how a motion to invoke court powers differs from items passed in discovery.)
DOJ-OGR-00009846.jpg
Quote #1
"until a district court knows the disposition of the underlying motion, any attempt at calling something a judicial document is premature"Source
— 2d Cir. in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga
(An argument rejected by the court in a cited case, used here to support the idea that Juror 50's motion is a judicial document regardless of the outcome.)
DOJ-OGR-00009846.jpg
Quote #2
"discovery request"Source
— defendant
(The defendant's characterization of Juror 50's motion, which the author argues is inaccurate.)
DOJ-OGR-00009846.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,401 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 643 Filed 03/11/22 Page 48 of 49
the court to invoke its powers or affect its decisions” stands on a “different footing” than items merely passed between parties in discovery (quotations omitted)). The defendant’s challenge to the merits of Juror 50’s motion to intervene ignores that the motion is a judicial document whether or not the Court ultimately grants the motion. See Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 121 (2d Cir. 2006) (rejecting the argument that “until a district court knows the disposition of the underlying motion, any attempt at calling something a judicial document is premature”).
And the defendant’s assertion that the motion is not a judicial document because it is a “discovery request” is supported only by cases addressing whether discovery materials themselves should be docketed, not whether a motion for discovery can be. (See Def. Mem. at 54).
At bottom, the defendant fails to credibly explain how publicly docketing Juror 50’s own motion to intervene will interfere with Juror 50’s own testimony. There is no need to litigate Juror 50’s motion to intervene under seal just because the Court and the parties are contemplating a hearing where Juror 50 may be a witness. Throughout the course of this case, the parties have publicly litigated evidentiary issues implicating witness testimony, such that witnesses or their counsel could access the briefing if they so wished. There is no reason that Juror 50’s motion to intervene should be treated differently and litigated in secret.²¹
And the defendant’s assertion that the motion is not a judicial document because it is a “discovery request” is supported only by cases addressing whether discovery materials themselves should be docketed, not whether a motion for discovery can be. (See Def. Mem. at 54).
At bottom, the defendant fails to credibly explain how publicly docketing Juror 50’s own motion to intervene will interfere with Juror 50’s own testimony. There is no need to litigate Juror 50’s motion to intervene under seal just because the Court and the parties are contemplating a hearing where Juror 50 may be a witness. Throughout the course of this case, the parties have publicly litigated evidentiary issues implicating witness testimony, such that witnesses or their counsel could access the briefing if they so wished. There is no reason that Juror 50’s motion to intervene should be treated differently and litigated in secret.²¹
²¹ Contrary to the defendant’s suggestion (Def. Mem. at 42 n.15), there is nothing nefarious about the Government’s decision to publicly docket the letter in which it brought Juror 50’s public statements to the Court’s attention and sought an inquiry. That letter is clearly a judicial document, and as such must be publicly filed unless there are compelling interests for sealing, such as third-party privacy interests and identifying information for witnesses testifying under pseudonyms. None of those interests were implicated by this short letter, which merely recites public information and sought certain relief. And contrary to the defendant’s representation, the Government sought to confer with the defense counsel before filing the letter, but received no response, as the letter notes. (Dkt. 568 at 2).
46
DOJ-OGR-00009846
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document