DOJ-OGR-00008910.jpg
720 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
720 KB
Summary
This legal document, dated February 11, 2022, is a court ruling from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The Court denies Juror 50's motion to intervene and also denies the Defendant's request to seal that motion, citing the public's right to access judicial documents. The document then details the Court's analysis of a separate request from the Defendant to temporarily seal documents related to a motion for a new trial, outlining the three-part legal test from the Second Circuit used to evaluate such requests.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Juror 50 | Juror |
Mentioned as having their motion to intervene denied by the Court.
|
| Defendant | Defendant |
Mentioned as having their request to seal a motion denied, and requesting to seal documents related to a motion for a...
|
| Lugosch |
Party in the cited case Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga.
|
|
| Amodeo |
Party in the cited case United States v. Amodeo.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Pyramid Co. of Onondaga | Company |
Party in the cited case Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga.
|
| Second Circuit | Government agency |
Cited as the source of a three-part test for sealing documents.
|
| United States | Government agency |
Party in the cited case United States v. Amodeo.
|
Timeline (3 events)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Part of the name of the company in the cited case Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga.
|
Key Quotes (3)
"judicial document”—that is, a document “relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process."Source
— Second Circuit (in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga)
(Defining what constitutes a 'judicial document' as the first step in the test for sealing documents.)
DOJ-OGR-00008910.jpg
Quote #1
"after determining the weight of the presumption of access, the Court must ‘balance competing considerations against it,’ such as ‘‘the danger of impairing law enforcement or judicial efficiency” and “‘the privacy interests of those resisting disclosure."Source
— Second Circuit (in United States v. Amodeo)
(Describing the final step in the legal test for sealing court documents.)
DOJ-OGR-00008910.jpg
Quote #2
"judicial document[s] that [are] subject to a strong presumption of access under both the First Amendment and common law."Source
— Both parties (quoting Dkt. No. 590)
(An area of agreement between the parties regarding the nature of the motion papers.)
DOJ-OGR-00008910.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,141 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 596 Filed 02/11/22 Page 2 of 7
Second, the Court DENIES Juror 50’s motion to intervene as it is unnecessary and unsupported by any authority or precedent. Juror 50’s motion to intervene, however, will be docketed because the Court DENIES the Defendant’s request to seal the motion. Even though the motion to intervene is denied, it is a judicial document to which the presumption in favor of public access applies and no interests are served by maintaining it under seal.
I. Temporary sealing of documents related to the motion for a new trial
The Court first addresses the Defendant’s request that this Court seal all documents related to the motion for a new trial either until the motion is resolved or until after a hearing is conducted, should one be ordered. Dkt. No. 590 at 1-2. The Court considers a request to seal pursuant to the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). First, the Court determines whether the document in question is a “judicial document”—that is, a document “relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process.” Id. at 119. If so, a presumption of access under the First Amendment and common law attaches. In the second step of the inquiry, the Court determines the weight to be accorded the presumption of access. Id. Finally, “after determining the weight of the presumption of access, the Court must ‘balance competing considerations against it,’” such as “‘the danger of impairing law enforcement or judicial efficiency” and “‘the privacy interests of those resisting disclosure.” Id. at 120 (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1050-51 (2d Cir. 1995)).
Both parties agree that the motion papers are “judicial document[s] that [are] subject to a strong presumption of access under both the First Amendment and common law.” Dkt. No. 594 at 2 (quoting Dkt. No. 590 at 4). However, the Defendant argues that sealing pending a hearing or resolution is necessary “to ensure the integrity of any fact-gathering process that may take
2
DOJ-OGR-00008910
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document