mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008911.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "3",
    "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 3 of 7\n\nplace\" and, more specifically, to \"ensure that the most critical evidence to be elicited at the hearing—namely, the testimony of Juror 50—is not tainted by outside information and influence.\" Dkt. No. 590 at 2. The Court agrees that the integrity of any inquiry is a \"higher value\" that must be weighed in determining public access to the documents. As the Court has previously articulated, it must \"ensure the integrity of any potential inquiry process going forward, should one be ordered,\" as \"[t]hat too is in the public, as well as the Defendant's and the Government's, interest.\" Dkt. No. 585.\n\nBut restricting public access to judicial documents, whether through sealing or redaction, must be \"narrowly tailored to serve that interest.\" Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 120. Wholesale sealing of the motion papers, even on a temporary basis, is not narrowly tailored to serve the interest in ensuring the integrity of any potential inquiry. The Court is unpersuaded by the Defendant's concern that media interest in the motion warrants temporary sealing of the documents in their entirety. Defendant argues that \"there is a substantial probability that the defendant's right to a fair trial will be prejudiced by publicity\" because coverage \"will influence the memories of other potential witnesses,\" as well as Juror 50. Dkt. No. 590 at 3-5 (relying on United States v. Silver, No. 15 Cr. 93 (VEC), 2016 WL 1572993, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 14, 2016)). As the Government properly notes, however, the concern in the pretrial posture, as in Silver, is that potential jurors may learn prejudicial information they would otherwise not. Here, however, the concern is entirely absent for at least two reasons. First, much of the information relied upon in the Defendant's motion and the Government's response is publicly available. And second, the Court is the relevant fact-finder with respect to any potential hearing and it is obviously privy to the information whether filed under seal or filed publicly.\n\n3\nDOJ-OGR-00008911",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 596 Filed 02/11/22 Page 3 of 7",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "place\" and, more specifically, to \"ensure that the most critical evidence to be elicited at the hearing—namely, the testimony of Juror 50—is not tainted by outside information and influence.\" Dkt. No. 590 at 2. The Court agrees that the integrity of any inquiry is a \"higher value\" that must be weighed in determining public access to the documents. As the Court has previously articulated, it must \"ensure the integrity of any potential inquiry process going forward, should one be ordered,\" as \"[t]hat too is in the public, as well as the Defendant's and the Government's, interest.\" Dkt. No. 585.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "But restricting public access to judicial documents, whether through sealing or redaction, must be \"narrowly tailored to serve that interest.\" Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 120. Wholesale sealing of the motion papers, even on a temporary basis, is not narrowly tailored to serve the interest in ensuring the integrity of any potential inquiry. The Court is unpersuaded by the Defendant's concern that media interest in the motion warrants temporary sealing of the documents in their entirety. Defendant argues that \"there is a substantial probability that the defendant's right to a fair trial will be prejudiced by publicity\" because coverage \"will influence the memories of other potential witnesses,\" as well as Juror 50. Dkt. No. 590 at 3-5 (relying on United States v. Silver, No. 15 Cr. 93 (VEC), 2016 WL 1572993, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 14, 2016)). As the Government properly notes, however, the concern in the pretrial posture, as in Silver, is that potential jurors may learn prejudicial information they would otherwise not. Here, however, the concern is entirely absent for at least two reasons. First, much of the information relied upon in the Defendant's motion and the Government's response is publicly available. And second, the Court is the relevant fact-finder with respect to any potential hearing and it is obviously privy to the information whether filed under seal or filed publicly.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "3",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00008911",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "Government",
      "Court"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "02/11/22",
      "Apr. 14, 2016"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 596",
      "Dkt. No. 590",
      "Dkt. No. 585",
      "435 F.3d",
      "No. 15 Cr. 93 (VEC)",
      "2016 WL 1572993"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 3 of 7."
}