mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008896.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "4",
    "document_number": "594",
    "date": "02/04/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 594 Filed 02/04/22 Page 4 of 5\nPage 4\nobviously will be reading the Defense Motion prior to any hearing. The defendant has cited no case holding that a risk that witnesses will learn information about a case justifies the sealing of pre-trial, let alone post-trial, briefing.1\nIn sum, Lugosch does not contemplate that cases or issues be litigated in secret until all factfinding in a case is completed. Were that true, cases in this District would frequently be litigated in secret until hearings or trials concluded. The relief sought by the defendant—sealing of a document with significant publicly available information—is not narrowly tailored and, therefore, is inconsistent with the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch.2\nThe Government additionally notes that the same arguments apply with equal force to the Government’s opposition brief, in which the only items marked for redaction are references to sealed portions of the voir dire transcripts and corresponding portions of the juror questionnaires.\nThese proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to protect the privacy interests of prospective jurors and are consistent with Lugosch because, as the Court already ordered in sealing the transcripts, they contain private information of those jurors. See, e.g., Press-Enter. Co. v. Superior Ct. of California, Riverside Cty., 464 U.S. 501, 511-12 (1984). Accordingly, the Government respectfully requests that the Court adopt the proposed redactions to the Government’s opposition brief.\n1 The defendant’s attempt to equate its post-trial motion with a criminal investigation in which it serves as the prosecutor is meritless. This is not a criminal investigation, as this Court has already made clear. See Dkt. No. 576 at 2 (noting that any inquiry is under the strict supervision and control of the court). And the defendant’s conception of her role in these proceedings merely serves to highlight the Second Circuit’s concern about how such inquiries have the “evil consequences” of, among other things, “subjecting juries to harassment.” United States v. Ianniello, 866 F.2d 540, 543 (2d Cir. 1989).\n2 While the defendant claims that it would be “too difficult or impractical” to redact the Defense Motion (Def. Letter at 8), the Government respectfully disagrees. Throughout the course of this case, the parties have submitted proposed redactions to hundreds of pages of briefing. The Defense Motion is not exceptional.\nDOJ-OGR-00008896",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 594 Filed 02/04/22 Page 4 of 5",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Page 4",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "obviously will be reading the Defense Motion prior to any hearing. The defendant has cited no case holding that a risk that witnesses will learn information about a case justifies the sealing of pre-trial, let alone post-trial, briefing.1\nIn sum, Lugosch does not contemplate that cases or issues be litigated in secret until all factfinding in a case is completed. Were that true, cases in this District would frequently be litigated in secret until hearings or trials concluded. The relief sought by the defendant—sealing of a document with significant publicly available information—is not narrowly tailored and, therefore, is inconsistent with the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch.2\nThe Government additionally notes that the same arguments apply with equal force to the Government’s opposition brief, in which the only items marked for redaction are references to sealed portions of the voir dire transcripts and corresponding portions of the juror questionnaires.\nThese proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to protect the privacy interests of prospective jurors and are consistent with Lugosch because, as the Court already ordered in sealing the transcripts, they contain private information of those jurors. See, e.g., Press-Enter. Co. v. Superior Ct. of California, Riverside Cty., 464 U.S. 501, 511-12 (1984). Accordingly, the Government respectfully requests that the Court adopt the proposed redactions to the Government’s opposition brief.",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 The defendant’s attempt to equate its post-trial motion with a criminal investigation in which it serves as the prosecutor is meritless. This is not a criminal investigation, as this Court has already made clear. See Dkt. No. 576 at 2 (noting that any inquiry is under the strict supervision and control of the court). And the defendant’s conception of her role in these proceedings merely serves to highlight the Second Circuit’s concern about how such inquiries have the “evil consequences” of, among other things, “subjecting juries to harassment.” United States v. Ianniello, 866 F.2d 540, 543 (2d Cir. 1989).\n2 While the defendant claims that it would be “too difficult or impractical” to redact the Defense Motion (Def. Letter at 8), the Government respectfully disagrees. Throughout the course of this case, the parties have submitted proposed redactions to hundreds of pages of briefing. The Defense Motion is not exceptional.",
      "position": "footnote"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00008896",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "Second Circuit",
      "Court",
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "California",
      "Riverside Cty."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "02/04/22",
      "1984",
      "1989"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 594",
      "Dkt. No. 576",
      "464 U.S. 501",
      "866 F.2d 540",
      "DOJ-OGR-00008896"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is mostly printed, with no handwritten content or stamps visible. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}