DOJ-OGR-00009167.jpg
791 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court filing / legal brief
File Size:
791 KB
Summary
This document is page 48 of a court filing from the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), dated February 24, 2022. The text argues against the defendant's request to seal Juror 50's motion to intervene, asserting it is a judicial document that should be public. It also defends the Government's previous decision to publicly file a letter regarding Juror 50's public statements, noting that defense counsel failed to respond to attempts to confer prior to that filing.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Juror 50 | Juror / Potential Witness |
Subject of a motion to intervene and potential witness at a hearing regarding public statements.
|
| The Defendant | Defendant |
Ghislaine Maxwell (based on case number 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The text discusses her legal team's challenges to docketi...
|
| Defense Counsel | Legal Counsel |
Representing the defendant; failed to respond to Government's attempt to confer.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Court |
The entity deciding on the motions and sealing requests.
|
|
| The Government |
Party filing the brief; defending its decision to publicly docket a letter regarding Juror 50.
|
|
| 2d Cir. |
Cited in case law (Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga).
|
Relationships (2)
Defendant is challenging the public docketing of Juror 50's motion to intervene.
Dispute over conferring before filing letters and docketing procedures.
Key Quotes (3)
"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."Source
DOJ-OGR-00009167.jpg
Quote #1
"There is no reason that Juror 50’s motion to intervene should be treated differently and litigated in secret."Source
DOJ-OGR-00009167.jpg
Quote #2
"Contrary to the defendant’s suggestion... 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."Source
DOJ-OGR-00009167.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,403 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 615 Filed 02/24/22 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).
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
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).
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-00009167
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document