DOJ-OGR-00009164.jpg
783 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
7
Organizations
2
Locations
4
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
783 KB
Summary
This legal document, filed on February 24, 2022, discusses a motion by Juror 50 to obtain his own jury questionnaire and voir dire testimony transcript. The defendant opposes the request, framing it as a 'discovery request' that would prejudice an 'investigation' into the juror's conduct. The Government argues that Juror 50 is not a defendant seeking discovery and that the privacy concerns for sealing such documents do not apply to the juror himself.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Juror 50 | Juror |
Subject of a motion requesting a copy of his own questionnaire and testimony transcript.
|
| Juror 50's counsel | Counsel |
Requested a copy of Juror 50's questionnaire and testimony on his behalf.
|
| the defendant | Defendant |
Opposes Juror 50's request for his questionnaire.
|
Organizations (7)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| the Court | government agency |
The judicial body being addressed in the legal filings.
|
| the Government | government agency |
A party in the case, submitting its position on Juror 50's request.
|
| Press-Enter. Co. | company |
A party in the cited case Press-Enter. Co. v. Superior Ct. of California.
|
| Superior Ct. of California, Riverside Cty. | government agency |
A court mentioned in the case citation Press-Enter. Co. v. Superior Ct. of California.
|
| John Doe Agency | government agency |
A party in the cited case John Doe Agency v. John Doe Corp.
|
| John Doe Corp. | company |
A party in the cited case John Doe Agency v. John Doe Corp.
|
| The New York Times Company | company |
Filed a motion to unseal the questionnaires for the twelve seated jurors.
|
Timeline (4 events)
2022-01-24
The New York Times Company moved to unseal the filled-out questionnaires for the twelve seated jurors.
2022-02-11
The Government intends to address the New York Times Company's motion on or before this date.
Juror 50's counsel requested a copy of Juror 50's questionnaire and the transcript of his testimony during voir dire.
The defendant opposed Juror 50's request, describing it as a 'discovery request' that would prejudice an investigation.
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in the case citation Press-Enter. Co. v. Superior Ct. of California, Riverside Cty.
|
|
|
Mentioned in the case citation Press-Enter. Co. v. Superior Ct. of California.
|
Relationships (2)
Juror 50's counsel filed a motion on his behalf.
The defendant opposes a motion made by Juror 50's counsel.
Key Quotes (4)
"discovery request"Source
— the defendant
(Used to characterize Juror 50's request for his own questionnaire.)
DOJ-OGR-00009164.jpg
Quote #1
"investigation"Source
— the defendant
(The defendant claims the release of the questionnaire would prejudice the 'investigation' of Juror 50's 'conduct'.)
DOJ-OGR-00009164.jpg
Quote #2
"undoubtedly color Juror No. 50’s testimony and allow him to place himself in the best possible posture."Source
— the defendant
(The defendant's claim about the potential effect of releasing Juror 50's questionnaire to him.)
DOJ-OGR-00009164.jpg
Quote #3
"refused discovery to individuals or entities under investigation” “[u]nder analogous circumstances."Source
— the defendant
(A claim made by the defendant, which the document argues is not supported by the cited case law.)
DOJ-OGR-00009164.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,376 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 615 Filed 02/24/22 Page 45 of 49
into the subject, by allowing [him] an opportunity to fully and fairly brief the Court on the relevant issues.” (Id. at 7).
In his motion, Juror 50’s counsel requested a copy of Juror 50’s questionnaire, as well as the transcript of his testimony during voir dire. (Juror 50 Mem. at 4). The defendant opposes Juror 50’s request, describing it as a “discovery request” and claiming that the release of Juror 50’s questionnaire would prejudice the “investigation” of Juror 50’s “conduct” and “undoubtedly color Juror No. 50’s testimony and allow him to place himself in the best possible posture.” (Def. Mem. at 52-53). As an initial matter, the Government notes that Juror 50’s voir dire was conducted in open court and is therefore available to Juror 50 and his counsel. As to the request for his questionnaire, the Government submits that Juror 50 should get a copy of his own questionnaire.
The defendant has characterized Juror 50’s request for his own questionnaire as a “discovery request,” but Juror 50 is not a defendant and he is not seeking discovery.18 He is asking for access to his questionnaire: a document that he himself prepared and swore under penalty of perjury, and which, now that trial is complete, is maintained under seal principally if not entirely to protect his own privacy interests. See, e.g., Press-Enter. Co. v. Superior Ct. of California, Riverside Cty., 464 U.S. 501, 511-12 (1984). The privacy concerns that otherwise might require limiting access to Juror 50’s questionnaire plainly do not apply to Juror 50 himself or his counsel.19
18 The defendant claims that courts have “refused discovery to individuals or entities under investigation” “[u]nder analogous circumstances.” (Def. Mem. at 53). But in support of that argument, the defendant cites only John Doe Agency v. John Doe Corp., 493 U.S. 146 (1989), which is clearly not analogous as it involved a request under the Freedom of Information Act and an ongoing grand jury proceeding.
19 On January 24, 2022, the New York Times Company moved to unseal, among other things, the filled-out questionnaires for the twelve seated jurors. (Dkt. No. 583). The Government intends to address that motion on or before February 11, 2022 in accordance with the Court’s January 26, 2022 order (Dkt. No. 585).
19 On January 24, 2022, the New York Times Company moved to unseal, among other things, the filled-out questionnaires for the twelve seated jurors. (Dkt. No. 583). The Government intends to address that motion on or before February 11, 2022 in accordance with the Court’s January 26, 2022 order (Dkt. No. 585).
43
DOJ-OGR-00009164
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document