DOJ-OGR-00009538.jpg
722 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
6
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing / court document (page 2 of 3)
File Size:
722 KB
Summary
This document is page 2 of a legal filing (Document 617) in Case 1:20-cr-00330 (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on February 24, 2022. The text argues against the defendant's claim that 'Juror 50's' motion to intervene constitutes a discovery request, clarifying that the juror is seeking access to his own questionnaire which he swore under penalty of perjury. The filing argues that the motion is a judicial document that should not remain sealed, noting the defendant's arguments regarding privacy and potential prejudice lack merit.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Juror 50 | Juror / Intervenor |
Subject of a motion to intervene; requesting access to his own questionnaire; asserted he did not recall answering qu...
|
| The Defendant | Defendant |
Implied to be Ghislaine Maxwell based on case number 1:20-cr-00330; arguing against unsealing Juror 50's motion.
|
Organizations (6)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| 2d Cir. |
Second Circuit Court of Appeals (cited in legal precedent)
|
|
| S.E.C. |
Securities and Exchange Commission (cited in legal precedent)
|
|
| TheStreet.Com |
Party in cited legal precedent
|
|
| Press-Enter. Co. |
Party in cited legal precedent
|
|
| Superior Ct. of California, Riverside Cty. |
Court cited in legal precedent
|
|
| DOJ-OGR |
Department of Justice - Office of Government Relations (indicated in footer)
|
Timeline (2 events)
2022-02-24
Filing of Document 617 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE
Federal Court (implied SDNY)
Relationships (1)
Defendant arguing against Juror 50's motion to intervene and the unsealing of documents related to him.
Key Quotes (3)
"Juror 50 is not asking for discovery. He is asking for access to his questionnaire: a document that he himself prepared and swore under penalty of perjury"Source
DOJ-OGR-00009538.jpg
Quote #1
"The only substantive factual assertion in the motion is a brief statement that Juror 50 “does not recall answering questions regarding his prior experience with sexual assault,”"Source
DOJ-OGR-00009538.jpg
Quote #2
"The defendant’s letter previews her argument on the merits of Juror 50’s motion to intervene"Source
DOJ-OGR-00009538.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,170 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 617 Filed 02/24/22 Page 2 of 3
v. Amodeo, 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995); see also S.E.C. v. TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d 222, 232
(2d Cir. 2001) (noting that a “document which is presented to the court to invoke its powers or
affect its decisions” stands on a “different footing” than items merely passed between parties in
discovery). The defendant’s letter previews her argument on the merits of Juror 50’s motion to
intervene, which the parties have not yet briefed, yet ignores that the motion is a judicial document
whether or not the Court ultimately grants the motion. See Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 121 (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”).
(2d Cir. 2001) (noting that a “document which is presented to the court to invoke its powers or
affect its decisions” stands on a “different footing” than items merely passed between parties in
discovery). The defendant’s letter previews her argument on the merits of Juror 50’s motion to
intervene, which the parties have not yet briefed, yet ignores that the motion is a judicial document
whether or not the Court ultimately grants the motion. See Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 121 (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”).
The defendant also argues that Juror 50’s motion is not a judicial document because it is a
“discovery request.” First, Juror 50 is not asking for discovery. 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). Second, the cases the defendant cites address whether discovery materials
themselves should be docketed, not whether a motion for discovery should be. The issue here is
not whether the questionnaire should be docketed, but whether the motion should be.
“discovery request.” First, Juror 50 is not asking for discovery. 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). Second, the cases the defendant cites address whether discovery materials
themselves should be docketed, not whether a motion for discovery should be. The issue here is
not whether the questionnaire should be docketed, but whether the motion should be.
Turning to the balancing factors set forth in Lugosch, the defendant has identified no
privacy interest implicated by public filing of the motion, nor could she. Instead, the defendant
cites the vague concern that potential witnesses at a hearing may learn Juror 50’s views if the
motion is unsealed, or that publicity regarding the filing will prejudice her. This argument has no
merit. The only substantive factual assertion in the motion is a brief statement that Juror 50 “does
not recall answering questions regarding his prior experience with sexual assault,” which, as the
privacy interest implicated by public filing of the motion, nor could she. Instead, the defendant
cites the vague concern that potential witnesses at a hearing may learn Juror 50’s views if the
motion is unsealed, or that publicity regarding the filing will prejudice her. This argument has no
merit. The only substantive factual assertion in the motion is a brief statement that Juror 50 “does
not recall answering questions regarding his prior experience with sexual assault,” which, as the
2
DOJ-OGR-00009538
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document