mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008841.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": null,
    "document_number": null,
    "date": "January 26, 2022",
    "document_type": "Letter",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "MILLER KORZENIK SOMMERS RAYMAN LLP\nTHE PARAMOUNT BUILDING • 1501 BROADWAY, SUITE 2015 • NEW YORK, NY 10036\nTEL 212-752-9200 • FAX 212-688-3996 • WWW.MKSR.LAW\nJanuary 26, 2022\nVIA EMAIL\nHon. Alison J. Nathan\nUnited States District Court\nSouthern District of New York\n40 Foley Square, Room 2102\nNew York, NY 10007\nRe: United States v. Maxwell, No. 1:20-cr-00330-AJN\nDear Judge Nathan:\nI write on behalf of Daily News, L.P., publisher of the New York Daily News, to respectfully join in the requests of The Miami Herald, The New York Times, ABC News, and NBC News to unseal the motion for new trial and supporting exhibits filed by the Defendant in this case, to unseal Juror 50's motion to intervene, and to unseal the juror questionnaires for the 12 seated jurors.1\nAs the Court is aware, the public and the press have a presumptive First Amendment and common law right of access to criminal proceedings and records. See Press Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of California, 464 U.S. 501, 508 (1984) (“Press Enterprise I”). The presumption of openness can only be overcome if “specific, on the record findings are made demonstrating that closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.” Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1, 13-14 (1986) (“Press-Enterprise II”). Under this standard, the presumption in favor of access to court proceedings and records requires “the most compelling circumstances” to justify any restriction upon that right. In re Application of Nat'l B'casting Co., 635 F.2d 945, 952 (2d Cir. 1980).\nThe reasons why the documents in question should be unsealed have been clearly set forth in the submissions by the other media entities. The Daily News would simply emphasize that the right of access applies fully to post-trial proceedings, including motions for a new trial and accompanying exhibits and memoranda. See, e.g., United States v. Donato, 714 F. App'x 75, 76 (2d Cir. 2018) (summary order) (concluding that documents attached to motion for a new trial were judicial documents subject to right of access and holding that district court abused its discretion in refusing to unseal documents); United States v. Gonzalez, 927 F. Supp. 768, 784 (D. Del. 1996) (“the public, through its surrogate, the press, has a right of access to the post-trial briefs and appendix filed in support of defendant's Motion for a New Trial”); United States v.\n1 Non-parties such as the Daily News have standing to intervene in criminal proceedings to assert the public's right of access. United States v. Aref, 533 F.3d 72, 81 (2d Cir. 2008).\nDOJ-OGR-00008841",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "MILLER KORZENIK SOMMERS RAYMAN LLP\nTHE PARAMOUNT BUILDING • 1501 BROADWAY, SUITE 2015 • NEW YORK, NY 10036\nTEL 212-752-9200 • FAX 212-688-3996 • WWW.MKSR.LAW",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "January 26, 2022\nVIA EMAIL\nHon. Alison J. Nathan\nUnited States District Court\nSouthern District of New York\n40 Foley Square, Room 2102\nNew York, NY 10007\nRe: United States v. Maxwell, No. 1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Dear Judge Nathan:\nI write on behalf of Daily News, L.P., publisher of the New York Daily News, to respectfully join in the requests of The Miami Herald, The New York Times, ABC News, and NBC News to unseal the motion for new trial and supporting exhibits filed by the Defendant in this case, to unseal Juror 50's motion to intervene, and to unseal the juror questionnaires for the 12 seated jurors.1",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "As the Court is aware, the public and the press have a presumptive First Amendment and common law right of access to criminal proceedings and records. See Press Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of California, 464 U.S. 501, 508 (1984) (“Press Enterprise I”). The presumption of openness can only be overcome if “specific, on the record findings are made demonstrating that closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.” Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1, 13-14 (1986) (“Press-Enterprise II”). Under this standard, the presumption in favor of access to court proceedings and records requires “the most compelling circumstances” to justify any restriction upon that right. In re Application of Nat'l B'casting Co., 635 F.2d 945, 952 (2d Cir. 1980).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The reasons why the documents in question should be unsealed have been clearly set forth in the submissions by the other media entities. The Daily News would simply emphasize that the right of access applies fully to post-trial proceedings, including motions for a new trial and accompanying exhibits and memoranda. See, e.g., United States v. Donato, 714 F. App'x 75, 76 (2d Cir. 2018) (summary order) (concluding that documents attached to motion for a new trial were judicial documents subject to right of access and holding that district court abused its discretion in refusing to unseal documents); United States v. Gonzalez, 927 F. Supp. 768, 784 (D. Del. 1996) (“the public, through its surrogate, the press, has a right of access to the post-trial briefs and appendix filed in support of defendant's Motion for a New Trial”);",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 Non-parties such as the Daily News have standing to intervene in criminal proceedings to assert the public's right of access. United States v. Aref, 533 F.3d 72, 81 (2d Cir. 2008).\nDOJ-OGR-00008841",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Alison J. Nathan",
      "Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Miller Korzenik Sommers Rayman LLP",
      "Daily News, L.P.",
      "The Miami Herald",
      "The New York Times",
      "ABC News",
      "NBC News",
      "United States District Court",
      "Southern District of New York"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "January 26, 2022",
      "1984",
      "1986",
      "1980",
      "2018",
      "1996",
      "2008"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "DOJ-OGR-00008841"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document is a letter from Miller Korzenik Sommers Rayman LLP to Hon. Alison J. Nathan, United States District Court, Southern District of New York. The letter is regarding the case United States v. Maxwell, No. 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. The document is typed and does not contain any handwritten text or stamps."
}