EPSTEIN
page 1 / 1108 . OCR, unverified
2024-IMAGES004
==================== DOCUMENT: root__DOJ-OGR-00008909.jpg.txt ====================
METADATA_SOURCE: .
METADATA_FILENAME: DOJ-OGR-00008909.jpg
----------------------------------------
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document596 - Filed 02/11/22 Pagelof7
USDC SDNY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOCUMENT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOCH,
DATE FILED: 2/11/22
United States of America,
_y—
20-CR-330 (AJN)
Ghislaine Maxwell,
ORDER
Defendant.
ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:
The Court is in receipt of the parties’ letters addressing the Defendant’s request to
temporarily seal her motion for a new trial and accompanying exhibits, and the Government’s
response in opposition and accompanying exhibits. See Dkt. Nos. 590, 594, 595. Several media
organizations have also filed letters seeking unsealing. The Court is also in receipt of Juror 50’s
motion to intervene. Both the Government and the Defendant oppose intervention. The
Defendant seeks to strike or, in the alternative, seal Juror 50’s motion.
For the reasons outlined more fully below, the Court rules as follows. First, the
Defendant’s motion to temporarily seal in their entirety all documents related to the motion for a
new trial is DENIED. Any sealing of judicial documents must be narrowly tailored to serve
competing interests. In this case, important interests include preserving the integrity of any
inquiry process going forward as well as protecting juror anonymity and privacy. Protection of
these interests, however, can plainly be accomplished through tailored redactions. Following the
Court’s resolution of the Defendant’s motion or a hearing, if one is ordered, all redactions will be
promptly unsealed except those necessary to protect any continuing interest in juror anonymity
and privacy.
DOJ-OGR-00008909
==================== END OF root__DOJ-OGR-00008909.jpg.txt ====================
==================== DOCUMENT: root__DOJ-OGR-00008910.jpg.txt ====================
METADATA_SOURCE: .
METADATA_FILENAME: DOJ-OGR-00008910.jpg
----------------------------------------
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document596- Filed 02/11/22 Page2of7
Second, the Court DENIES Juror 50’s motion to intervene as it is unnecessary and
unsupported by any authority or precedent. Juror 50’s motion to intervene, however, will be
docketed because the Court DENIES the Defendant’s request to seal the motion. Even though
the motion to intervene is denied, it is a judicial document to which the presumption in favor of
public access applies and no interests are served by maintaining it under seal.
I. Temporary sealing of documents related to the motion for a new trial
The Court first addresses the Defendant’s request that this Court seal all documents
related to the motion for a new trial either until the motion is resolved or until after a hearing is
conducted, should one be ordered. Dkt. No. 590 at 1-2. The Court considers a request to seal
pursuant to the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of
Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). First, the Court determines whether the document in
question is a “judicial document”—that is, a document “relevant to the performance of the
judicial function and useful in the judicial process.” /d. at 119. If so, a presumption of access
under the First Amendment and common law attaches. In the second step of the inquiry, the
Court determines the weight to be accorded the presumption of access. /d. Finally, “after
determining the weight of the presumption of access, the Court must ‘balance competing
oe
considerations against it,’” such as “the danger of impairing law enforcement or judicial
efficiency” and “the privacy interests of those resisting disclosure.” /d. at 120 (quoting United
States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1050-51 (2d Cir. 1995)).
Both parties agree that the motion papers are “judicial document[s] that [are] subject to a
strong presumption of access under both the First Amendment and common law.” Dkt. No. 594
at 2 (quoting Dkt. No. 590 at 4). However, the Defendant argues that sealing pending a hearing
or resolution is necessary “to ensure the integrity of any fact-gathering process that may take
DOJ-OGR-00008910
==================== END OF root__DOJ-OGR-00008910.jpg.txt ====================
==================== DOCUMENT: root__DOJ-OGR-00008911.jpg.txt ====================
METADATA_SOURCE: .
METADATA_FILENAME: DOJ-OGR-00008911.jpg
----------------------------------------
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document596- Filed 02/11/22 Page3of7
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