{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "9",
    "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 9 of 27\nTo Be Filed Under Seal\n\nAlternatively, the Government could have moved ex parte for permissive intervention in the Giuffre Action, and then sought modification of the Protective Order. Permissive intervention is the appropriate procedural device when any non-party seeks to modify a protective order. AT&T Corp. v. Sprint Corp., 407 F.3d 560, 562 (2d Cir. 2005) (“We have stated that permissive intervention is the proper method for a nonparty to seek a modification of a protective order.”); H.L. Hayden Co. of New York v. Siemens Med. Sys., Inc., 797 F.2d 85, 90 (2d Cir. 1986) (“[W]e continue to adhere to our holding in Martindell [v. International Tel. and Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291, 294 (2d Cir. 1979)], that ‘this extraordinary writ [mandamus] would hardly be available . . . where the only purpose was to obtain modification of a pretrial order for investigative purposes.’”). Or it could have filed a writ of mandamus, since “mandamus lies to compel a judge to unseal documents shown to be material and necessary in litigation,” United States v. Davis, 702 F.2d 418, 423 (2d Cir. 1983). But the Government has done neither of the above; instead, it has moved pursuant to the All Writs Act. It cites no authority for that procedure.\n\nNonetheless, there is precedent in this Circuit for granting procedurally puzzling applications by the Government to unseal materials for use by a grand jury. For example, in Davis, 702 F.2d 418, the Government, which was not a party to the underlying civil litigation, successfully “moved the Bankruptcy Court for an order permitting it access to the materials under seal,” including transcripts of examinations taken under Rule 205 and exhibits marked at those examinations. Id. at 420–21. On appeal, the Second Circuit rejected the defendant-appellants’ argument that the bankruptcy court had abused its discretion in granting the Government’s application: “A court may direct access to such material upon a proper showing of\n\n8\nSDNY_GM_00000882\nDOJ-OGR-00004932",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 311-4 Filed 07/02/21 Page 9 of 27",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "To Be Filed Under Seal",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Alternatively, the Government could have moved ex parte for permissive intervention in the Giuffre Action, and then sought modification of the Protective Order. Permissive intervention is the appropriate procedural device when any non-party seeks to modify a protective order. AT&T Corp. v. Sprint Corp., 407 F.3d 560, 562 (2d Cir. 2005) (“We have stated that permissive intervention is the proper method for a nonparty to seek a modification of a protective order.”); H.L. Hayden Co. of New York v. Siemens Med. Sys., Inc., 797 F.2d 85, 90 (2d Cir. 1986) (“[W]e continue to adhere to our holding in Martindell [v. International Tel. and Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291, 294 (2d Cir. 1979)], that ‘this extraordinary writ [mandamus] would hardly be available . . . where the only purpose was to obtain modification of a pretrial order for investigative purposes.’”). Or it could have filed a writ of mandamus, since “mandamus lies to compel a judge to unseal documents shown to be material and necessary in litigation,” United States v. Davis, 702 F.2d 418, 423 (2d Cir. 1983). But the Government has done neither of the above; instead, it has moved pursuant to the All Writs Act. It cites no authority for that procedure.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Nonetheless, there is precedent in this Circuit for granting procedurally puzzling applications by the Government to unseal materials for use by a grand jury. For example, in Davis, 702 F.2d 418, the Government, which was not a party to the underlying civil litigation, successfully “moved the Bankruptcy Court for an order permitting it access to the materials under seal,” including transcripts of examinations taken under Rule 205 and exhibits marked at those examinations. Id. at 420–21. On appeal, the Second Circuit rejected the defendant-appellants’ argument that the bankruptcy court had abused its discretion in granting the Government’s application: “A court may direct access to such material upon a proper showing of",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "8",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SDNY_GM_00000882",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00004932",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "AT&T Corp.",
      "Sprint Corp.",
      "H.L. Hayden Co. of New York",
      "Siemens Med. Sys., Inc.",
      "International Tel. and Tel. Corp.",
      "United States"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "07/02/21",
      "2005",
      "1986",
      "1979",
      "1983"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "311-4",
      "702 F.2d 418",
      "407 F.3d 560",
      "797 F.2d 85",
      "594 F.2d 291",
      "SDNY_GM_00000882",
      "DOJ-OGR-00004932"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a header indicating it is to be filed under seal. The content discusses legal precedents and procedures related to modifying protective orders and accessing sealed materials. The footer contains a page number and two reference numbers."
}