{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "2",
    "document_number": "596",
    "date": "02/11/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 596 Filed 02/11/22 Page 2 of 7\n\nSecond, 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.\n\nI. Temporary sealing of documents related to the motion for a new trial\n\nThe 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)).\n\nBoth 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\n\n2\n\nDOJ-OGR-00008910",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 596 Filed 02/11/22 Page 2 of 7",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "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.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "I. Temporary sealing of documents related to the motion for a new trial",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "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)).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "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",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00008910",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "02/11/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 596",
      "Dkt. No. 590",
      "Dkt. No. 594",
      "DOJ-OGR-00008910"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is mostly printed, with no handwritten content or stamps visible. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}