{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "24",
    "document_number": "311-4",
    "date": "07/02/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 311-4 Filed 07/02/21 Page 24 of 27 To Be Filed Under Seal The term \"extraordinary circumstances\" is not well defined. See Talco Contractors, Inc., 153 F.R.D. at 511. However, the Second Circuit has recognized that this requirement may be met in circumstances involving significant public interest, particularly where no good cause showing was made to the court initially. See Agent Orange, 821 F.2d at 148 (\"exceptionally pervasive protection granted appellants during the pretrial stages of this litigation, coupled with the fact that appellants never were required to show good cause,\" as well as the fact that there was \"enormous public interest in the Agent Orange litigation,\" demonstrated extraordinary circumstances); but see Ionosphere Clubs, 156 B.R. at 435 (\"[M]ere breadth\" of a protective order does not, by itself constitute \"extraordinary circumstances.\"). Indeed, some district courts in this Circuit go one step further, holding that \"The heightened Martindell 'extraordinary circumstances' standard . . . is not appropriate in cases with stipulated protective orders that grant parties open-ended and unilateral deference to protect whichever discovery materials they choose.\" EPDM, 255 F.R.D. at 321. Here, as discussed, no party was required to make a good cause showing before designating any particular discovery materials as confidential. Moreover, there is significant public interest: the Government has convened a grand jury to investigate a serious crime (potentially involving multiple victims), which from its inception has garnered extensive publicity, and which (most recently) includes troubling allegations of misconduct on the part of Government officials, including a then-United States Attorney who is now a member of the President's Cabinet. The Court agrees with the Government that, because the investigation is not publicly known, \"the ordinary exercise of grand jury power [i.e., to subpoena witnesses to testify and to produce documents] . . . would implicate and invite the very risk of disclosure—and the possibility of alerting potential criminal targets that they are under investigation, causing them to 23 SDNY_GM_00000897 DOJ-OGR-00004947",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 311-4 Filed 07/02/21 Page 24 of 27 To Be Filed Under Seal",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The term \"extraordinary circumstances\" is not well defined. See Talco Contractors, Inc., 153 F.R.D. at 511. However, the Second Circuit has recognized that this requirement may be met in circumstances involving significant public interest, particularly where no good cause showing was made to the court initially. See Agent Orange, 821 F.2d at 148 (\"exceptionally pervasive protection granted appellants during the pretrial stages of this litigation, coupled with the fact that appellants never were required to show good cause,\" as well as the fact that there was \"enormous public interest in the Agent Orange litigation,\" demonstrated extraordinary circumstances); but see Ionosphere Clubs, 156 B.R. at 435 (\"[M]ere breadth\" of a protective order does not, by itself constitute \"extraordinary circumstances.\"). Indeed, some district courts in this Circuit go one step further, holding that \"The heightened Martindell 'extraordinary circumstances' standard . . . is not appropriate in cases with stipulated protective orders that grant parties open-ended and unilateral deference to protect whichever discovery materials they choose.\" EPDM, 255 F.R.D. at 321. Here, as discussed, no party was required to make a good cause showing before designating any particular discovery materials as confidential. Moreover, there is significant public interest: the Government has convened a grand jury to investigate a serious crime (potentially involving multiple victims), which from its inception has garnered extensive publicity, and which (most recently) includes troubling allegations of misconduct on the part of Government officials, including a then-United States Attorney who is now a member of the President's Cabinet. The Court agrees with the Government that, because the investigation is not publicly known, \"the ordinary exercise of grand jury power [i.e., to subpoena witnesses to testify and to produce documents] . . . would implicate and invite the very risk of disclosure—and the possibility of alerting potential criminal targets that they are under investigation, causing them to",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "23",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SDNY_GM_00000897 DOJ-OGR-00004947",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "Second Circuit",
      "Government",
      "President's Cabinet",
      "United States Attorney"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "07/02/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "311-4",
      "SDNY_GM_00000897",
      "DOJ-OGR-00004947"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a grand jury investigation. It discusses the concept of 'extraordinary circumstances' in the context of protective orders and grand jury proceedings. The document is marked 'To Be Filed Under Seal', indicating that it contains sensitive information."
}