{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "25 of 43",
    "document_number": "459",
    "date": "11/15/21",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 459 Filed 11/15/21 Page 25 of 43 25 LalWmaxC I'm asking the government's position. MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, we defer to the Court on this. THE COURT: I'll take that as you continue not to oppose. OK, Ms. Pomerantz? That's the last position stated, and you're not changing that view, as I hear you. Correct? MS. POMERANTZ: Correct, your Honor. THE COURT: I am prepared to rule on this. The request to file the joint proposed questionnaire and voir dire under seal as well as the Court's proposed questionnaire, which the government does not oppose, has been requested by letter and now argued here. Several news organizations have opposed the request. I do conclude that the defendant has failed to justify sealing the proposed voir dire and questionnaire. First, there's no privacy interest in a blank questionnaire, like the kind of interest that is articulated in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). The parties' sole rationale for sealing the submission is to at a general level avoid media coverage that may prejudice the jury selection process. The jurors are sworn to give true and complete answers to the questionnaire and voir dire. I will be individually, one-on-one, questioning the jurors, and with the parties present, I feel confident that I can discern any clear dishonesty. This is not just going to be SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00006997",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 459 Filed 11/15/21 Page 25 of 43 25",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "LalWmaxC I'm asking the government's position. MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, we defer to the Court on this. THE COURT: I'll take that as you continue not to oppose. OK, Ms. Pomerantz? That's the last position stated, and you're not changing that view, as I hear you. Correct? MS. POMERANTZ: Correct, your Honor. THE COURT: I am prepared to rule on this. The request to file the joint proposed questionnaire and voir dire under seal as well as the Court's proposed questionnaire, which the government does not oppose, has been requested by letter and now argued here. Several news organizations have opposed the request. I do conclude that the defendant has failed to justify sealing the proposed voir dire and questionnaire. First, there's no privacy interest in a blank questionnaire, like the kind of interest that is articulated in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). The parties' sole rationale for sealing the submission is to at a general level avoid media coverage that may prejudice the jury selection process. The jurors are sworn to give true and complete answers to the questionnaire and voir dire. I will be individually, one-on-one, questioning the jurors, and with the parties present, I feel confident that I can discern any clear dishonesty. This is not just going to be",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00006997",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Pomerantz",
      "Lugosch"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Pyramid Co. of Onondaga",
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Onondaga"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "11/15/21",
      "2006"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "459",
      "DOJ-OGR-00006997",
      "435 F.3d 110"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage to the document."
}