mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008914.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "6",
    "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 6 of 7\nto have falsely represented information on pre-selection questionnaire and during oral voir dire).\nJuror 50 is the potential subject of a post-verdict inquiry, not a party with an interest in the criminal case. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Juror 50's motion to intervene.\nThe Court also DENIES the Defendant's request to strike or seal the motion. The Defendant first requests that the Court strike Juror 50's motion, relying on the example of a civil forfeiture action and on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f). See Defense Motion, at 53 (citing United States v. All Right, Title & Int. in Prop., Appurtenances, & Improvements Known as 479 Tamarind Drive, Hallandale, Fla., No. 98 CIV. 2279 (DLC), 2011 WL 1045095, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 11, 2011)). Such authority is unpersuasive. Even in the civil context, \"motions to strike are disfavored and should not be granted 'unless there is a strong reason for so doing.'\" Bailey v. Pataki, No. 08 Civ. 8563 (JSR), 2010 WL 234995, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 19, 2010). And Juror 50's motion is certainly not \"redundant, immaterial, impertinent or scandalous.\" Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 51-52 (2d Cir. 2019). Accordingly, the Court DENIES the Defendant's request to strike the motion.\nThe Defendant alternatively requests that the Court seal Juror 50's motion until her motion for a new trial is resolved. Defense Motion, at 54; see also Defense Ltr., Jan. 13, 2022. The three-part Lugosch test, as outlined above, compels denial of this request. First, Juror 50's motion is a judicial document and accordingly subject to the presumption of access. It is clearly \"relevant to the performance of a judicial function and useful in the judicial process.\" United States v. Amodeo, 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995). Whether this Court grants or denies the motion does not alter this conclusion. See Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 121 (rejecting the argument that \"until a district court knows the disposition of the underlying motion, any attempt at calling something a judicial document is premature\"). The Defendant's effort to liken the motion to 6 DOJ-OGR-00008914",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 596 Filed 02/11/22 Page 6 of 7",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "to have falsely represented information on pre-selection questionnaire and during oral voir dire).\nJuror 50 is the potential subject of a post-verdict inquiry, not a party with an interest in the criminal case. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Juror 50's motion to intervene.\nThe Court also DENIES the Defendant's request to strike or seal the motion. The Defendant first requests that the Court strike Juror 50's motion, relying on the example of a civil forfeiture action and on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f). See Defense Motion, at 53 (citing United States v. All Right, Title & Int. in Prop., Appurtenances, & Improvements Known as 479 Tamarind Drive, Hallandale, Fla., No. 98 CIV. 2279 (DLC), 2011 WL 1045095, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 11, 2011)). Such authority is unpersuasive. Even in the civil context, \"motions to strike are disfavored and should not be granted 'unless there is a strong reason for so doing.'\" Bailey v. Pataki, No. 08 Civ. 8563 (JSR), 2010 WL 234995, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 19, 2010). And Juror 50's motion is certainly not \"redundant, immaterial, impertinent or scandalous.\" Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 51-52 (2d Cir. 2019). Accordingly, the Court DENIES the Defendant's request to strike the motion.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Defendant alternatively requests that the Court seal Juror 50's motion until her motion for a new trial is resolved. Defense Motion, at 54; see also Defense Ltr., Jan. 13, 2022. The three-part Lugosch test, as outlined above, compels denial of this request. First, Juror 50's motion is a judicial document and accordingly subject to the presumption of access. It is clearly \"relevant to the performance of a judicial function and useful in the judicial process.\" United States v. Amodeo, 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995). Whether this Court grants or denies the motion does not alter this conclusion. See Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 121 (rejecting the argument that \"until a district court knows the disposition of the underlying motion, any attempt at calling something a judicial document is premature\"). The Defendant's effort to liken the motion to",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "6",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00008914",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Juror 50",
      "Bailey",
      "Pataki",
      "Maxwell",
      "Lugosch",
      "Amodeo"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Court",
      "Defense"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Hallandale, Fla.",
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "02/11/22",
      "Mar. 11, 2011",
      "Jan. 19, 2010",
      "Jan. 13, 2022"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 596",
      "98 CIV. 2279 (DLC)",
      "08 Civ. 8563 (JSR)"
    ]
  },
  "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 6 of 7."
}