DOJ-OGR-00009061.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 60 of 66

sought to distance himself from his original statements, attempted to destroy evidence,
and tried to flee from the media.

Under analogous circumstances courts have refused discovery to individuals or
entities under investigation. See John Doe Agency v. John Doe Corp., 493 U.S. 146,
(1989) (recipient of a grand jury subpoena for certain records relating to a cost allocation
appropriately denied access to records pursuant to a FOIA request).

Any advance disclosure to Juror No. 50 of the questionnaire will undoubtably
color Juror No. 50’s testimony and allow him to place himself in the best possible
posture. Although there may come a time when Juror No. 50 is entitled to this
discovery—if he is charged with perjury, criminal contempt, or some other crime, for
example—the time is not now.

C. Juror No. 50’s filings should be stricken or, alternatively, remain under
seal.

Whether a claimant has standing is “the threshold question in every federal case,
determining the power of the court to entertain the suit.” In re Gucci, 126 F.3d 380, 387–
88 (2d Cir. 1997) (citing Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498, (1975)). Striking the
pleading of a putative litigant is appropriate where the litigant lacks standing. United
States v. All Right, Title & Int. in Prop., Appurtenances, & Improvements Known as 479
Tamarind Drive, Hallendale, Fla., No. 98 CIV. 2279 DLC, 2011 WL 1045095, at *2
(S.D.N.Y. Mar. 11, 2011). A stricken pleading is a nullity with no legal effect. Davis v.
Bombardier Recreational Prod., Inc., No. 3:11CV236-TSL-MTP, 2012 WL 112202, at
*3 (S.D. Miss. Jan. 12, 2012) (stricken amended complaint deemed a nullity and of

53

DOJ-OGR-00009061