DOJ-OGR-00001738.jpg
1.06 MB
Extraction Summary
2
People
9
Organizations
2
Locations
2
Events
0
Relationships
8
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
1.06 MB
Summary
This document is page 2 of a legal filing dated August 21, 2020, addressed to the Honorable Alison J. Nathan. The author, presumably the Government, argues for keeping grand jury-related exhibits under seal by citing historical precedent for grand jury secrecy and analyzing the First Amendment's presumptive right of public access. The filing references multiple court cases to support the position that sealing is justified and necessary to protect higher values, even when a presumptive right of access applies.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Alison J. Nathan | Honorable |
Recipient of the document, addressed as "Honorable Alison J. Nathan".
|
| Pellegrino |
Named as a party in the cited court case "Hartford Courant Co. v. Pellegrino".
|
Organizations (9)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Government | government agency |
Mentioned as a party that made ex parte applications and has discovery obligations.
|
| Douglas Oil Co. | company |
Named as a party in the cited court case "Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Northwest".
|
| Petrol Stops Northwest | company |
Named as a party in the cited court case "Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Northwest".
|
| N.Y. Civil Liberties Union | organization |
Named as a party in the cited court case "N.Y. Civil Liberties Union v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth."
|
| N.Y.C. Transit Auth. ("NYCTA") | government agency |
Named as a party in the cited court case "N.Y. Civil Liberties Union v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth."
|
| Pyramid Co. of Onondaga | company |
Named as a party in the cited court case "Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga".
|
| Hartford Courant Co. | company |
Named as a party in the cited court case "Hartford Courant Co. v. Pellegrino".
|
| Press-Enterprise Co. | company |
Named as a party in the cited court case "Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., Riverside Cnty."
|
| Superior Court of Cal., Riverside Cnty. | government agency |
Named as a party in the cited court case "Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., Riverside Cnty."
|
Timeline (2 events)
2019-04
A certain order was issued containing permission for the order itself to be provided to the recipient of a subpoena.
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in the case name "Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga".
|
|
|
Mentioned in the case name "Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., Riverside Cnty."
|
Key Quotes (8)
"[r]ecords, orders, and subpoenas relating to grand-jury proceedings must be kept under seal to the extent and as long as necessary to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of a matter occurring before a grand jury."Source
— Unnamed source (quoted in the document)
(Quoted at the beginning of the page to establish the basis for sealing grand jury materials.)
DOJ-OGR-00001738.jpg
Quote #1
"Since the 17th century, grand jury proceedings have been closed to the public; and records of such proceedings have been kept from the public eye. The rule of grand jury secrecy . . . is an integral part of our criminal justice system."Source
— Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U.S. 211, 218 n.9 (1979)
(Cited to provide historical context and legal precedent for the secrecy of grand jury proceedings.)
DOJ-OGR-00001738.jpg
Quote #2
"protects the public against the government’s arbitrary interference with access to important information."Source
— N.Y. Civil Liberties Union v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth. (“NYCTA”), 684 F.3d 286, 298 (2d Cir. 2012)
(Quoted to define the purpose of the First Amendment presumptive right of access.)
DOJ-OGR-00001738.jpg
Quote #3
"both whether the documents have historically been open to the press and general public and whether public access plays a significant positive role in the functioning of the particular process in question."Source
— Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 120 (2d Cir. 2006)
(Describing the "experience-and-logic" approach for determining if the First Amendment right of access applies.)
DOJ-OGR-00001738.jpg
Quote #4
"are derived from or are a necessary corollary of the capacity to attend the relevant proceedings."Source
— Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 120 (2d Cir. 2006)
(Describing the second approach for analyzing judicial documents related to judicial proceedings.)
DOJ-OGR-00001738.jpg
Quote #5
"presumption is rebuttable upon demonstration that suppression ‘is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.’"Source
— Hartford Courant Co. v. Pellegrino, 380 F.3d 83, 96 (2d Cir. 2004)
(Explaining how the presumptive right of access can be overcome.)
DOJ-OGR-00001738.jpg
Quote #6
"What offends the First Amendment is the attempt to [exclude the public] without sufficient justification."Source
— NYCTA, 684 F.3d at 296
(Clarifying that the act of exclusion itself is not the issue, but the lack of justification.)
DOJ-OGR-00001738.jpg
Quote #7
"specific, on-the-record findings that sealing is necessary to preserve higher values and only if the sealing order is narrowly tailored to achieve that aim."Source
— Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 124
(Stating the requirements for overcoming the presumptive right of access.)
DOJ-OGR-00001738.jpg
Quote #8
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (3,677 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 47 Filed 08/21/20 Page 2 of 4
Honorable Alison J. Nathan
August 21, 2020
Page 2
August 21, 2020
Page 2
that “[r]ecords, orders, and subpoenas relating to grand-jury proceedings must be kept under seal to the extent and as long as necessary to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of a matter occurring before a grand jury.”
Relatedly, the exhibits at issue—all of which pertain to several ex parte applications made by the Government—have previously been ordered to kept under seal by the relevant judicial officers, who have made the requisite findings to warrant sealing. The requested redactions and sealing would thus be necessary to ensure compliance with those sealing orders and is justified based upon them.² Cf. Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U.S. 211, 218 n.9 (1979) (“Since the 17th century, grand jury proceedings have been closed to the public; and records of such proceedings have been kept from the public eye. The rule of grand jury secrecy . . . is an integral part of our criminal justice system.”).
Assuming without agreeing that these materials constitute “judicial documents” within the meaning of First Amendment right-of-access jurisprudence, such a determination would not be dispositive. The First Amendment presumptive right of access applies to civil and criminal proceedings and “protects the public against the government’s arbitrary interference with access to important information.” N.Y. Civil Liberties Union v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth. (“NYCTA”), 684 F.3d 286, 298 (2d Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Circuit has applied two different approaches when deciding whether the First Amendment right applies to particular material. The “experience-and-logic” approach asks “both whether the documents have historically been open to the press and general public and whether public access plays a significant positive role in the functioning of the particular process in question.” Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 120 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). The second approach—employed when analyzing judicial documents related to judicial proceedings covered by the First Amendment right—asks whether the documents at issue “are derived from or are a necessary corollary of the capacity to attend the relevant proceedings.” Id. (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted).
Even when it applies, the First Amendment right creates only a presumptive right of access, and the “presumption is rebuttable upon demonstration that suppression ‘is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.’” Hartford Courant Co. v. Pellegrino, 380 F.3d 83, 96 (2d Cir. 2004) (quoting Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., Riverside Cnty., 464 U.S. 501, 510(1984)) (internal citation omitted). “What offends the First Amendment is the attempt to [exclude the public] without sufficient justification.” NYCTA, 684 F.3d at 296, not the simple act of exclusion itself. Thus, the presumptive right of access may be overcome by “specific, on-the-record findings that sealing is necessary to preserve higher values and only if the sealing order is narrowly tailored to achieve that aim.” Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 124.
² The only exceptions to those sealing orders are the permission contained in a certain order issued in April 2019, namely that the order itself may be provided to the recipient of a subpoena, and, pursuant to separate permissions the Government has obtained in connection with its discovery obligations, that the entirety of the relevant filings may be provided to the defendant as discovery in this criminal case.
DOJ-OGR-00001738
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document