mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00021543.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "19",
    "document_number": "620",
    "date": "02/25/22",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 22-1426, Document 78, 06/29/2023, 3536039, Page113 of 217\nSA-367\nCase 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 620 Filed 02/25/22 Page 19 of 21\nThe Court concludes that the Defendant has not made a showing that any pre-hearing discovery is appropriate, and the request to engage in an intrusive fishing expedition is denied.\nC. The Court will release Juror 50's questionnaire\nThis Court previously reserved ruling on Juror 50's request that the Court release his jury questionnaire to counsel, but that the document otherwise remain under seal to protect his supposed privacy interest. See Dkt. No. 596 at 5 n.1. The Defendant opposes both the unsealing and releasing the questionnaire to counsel, arguing that \"advance disclosure . . . will undoubt[edly] color Juror No. 50's testimony and allow him to place himself in the best possible posture.\" Maxwell Br. at 53. The Government argues that there is no legitimate interest in limiting Juror 50's access and opposes maintaining the questionnaire under seal. Gov. Br. at 42; see also Dkt. No. 594.\nThe Court will provide Juror 50 a copy of his completed questionnaire. Unlike the parties' proposed questions, Juror 50's access to his completed questionnaire—the answers to which he wrote—will not undermine the integrity of the inquiry. The Defendant's concern that advance disclosure may somehow taint Juror 50's testimony is unfounded. See United States v. McCoy et al., No. 14-CR-6181 (EAW), Dkt. No. 329, at 15 (W.D.N.Y. June 2, 2017) (providing the jury questionnaire to juror's counsel in advance of the hearing). Rather, delaying disclosure until the hearing would needlessly delay the fact-finding process.\nMoreover, the Court concludes that the presumption of access dictates that the questionnaire must be docketed. Juror 50's and the Defendant's request that the questionnaire remain sealed is governed by the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). See Dkt. No. 596 at 2 (outlining the test). First, the jury questionnaire easily qualifies as a judicial document. It is a key exhibit to\n19\nDOJ-OGR-00021543",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 78, 06/29/2023, 3536039, Page113 of 217",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SA-367",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 620 Filed 02/25/22 Page 19 of 21",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Court concludes that the Defendant has not made a showing that any pre-hearing discovery is appropriate, and the request to engage in an intrusive fishing expedition is denied.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "C. The Court will release Juror 50's questionnaire",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "This Court previously reserved ruling on Juror 50's request that the Court release his jury questionnaire to counsel, but that the document otherwise remain under seal to protect his supposed privacy interest. See Dkt. No. 596 at 5 n.1. The Defendant opposes both the unsealing and releasing the questionnaire to counsel, arguing that \"advance disclosure . . . will undoubt[edly] color Juror No. 50's testimony and allow him to place himself in the best possible posture.\" Maxwell Br. at 53. The Government argues that there is no legitimate interest in limiting Juror 50's access and opposes maintaining the questionnaire under seal. Gov. Br. at 42; see also Dkt. No. 594.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Court will provide Juror 50 a copy of his completed questionnaire. Unlike the parties' proposed questions, Juror 50's access to his completed questionnaire—the answers to which he wrote—will not undermine the integrity of the inquiry. The Defendant's concern that advance disclosure may somehow taint Juror 50's testimony is unfounded. See United States v. McCoy et al., No. 14-CR-6181 (EAW), Dkt. No. 329, at 15 (W.D.N.Y. June 2, 2017) (providing the jury questionnaire to juror's counsel in advance of the hearing). Rather, delaying disclosure until the hearing would needlessly delay the fact-finding process.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Moreover, the Court concludes that the presumption of access dictates that the questionnaire must be docketed. Juror 50's and the Defendant's request that the questionnaire remain sealed is governed by the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). See Dkt. No. 596 at 2 (outlining the test). First, the jury questionnaire easily qualifies as a judicial document. It is a key exhibit to",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "19",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00021543",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [
      "W.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "02/25/22",
      "June 2, 2017",
      "06/29/2023"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 22-1426",
      "Document 78",
      "3536039",
      "Page113 of 217",
      "SA-367",
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "Document 620",
      "Dkt. No. 596",
      "Dkt. No. 594",
      "No. 14-CR-6181 (EAW)",
      "Dkt. No. 329",
      "DOJ-OGR-00021543"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is mostly printed, with no handwritten content. There are no visible stamps or signatures."
}