EPSTEIN
page 2 / 1108 . OCR, unverified
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.
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 Si/ver, 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.
DOJ-OGR-00008911
==================== END OF root__DOJ-OGR-00008911.jpg.txt ====================
==================== DOCUMENT: root__DOJ-OGR-00008912.jpg.txt ====================
METADATA_SOURCE: .
METADATA_FILENAME: DOJ-OGR-00008912.jpg
----------------------------------------
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document596 - Filed 02/11/22 Page4of7
Accordingly, the Defendant’s motion to keep the papers under seal in their entirety is
denied. Instead, the parties must propose narrowly tailored redactions as necessary to serve
important interests. Here those interests are to ensure the integrity of any inquiry going forward
and to protect juror anonymity and privacy. Those interests justify redaction of the questions the
parties propose be asked at any hearing. See United States v. McCoy et al., No. 14 Cr. 6181
(EAW), Dkt. No. 312 (text order) (W.D.N.Y. May 26, 2017) (requiring proposed questions to be
submitted directly to the court); see also Dkt. No. 329 at 38-39 (counsel discussing concern that
disclosing specific questions ahead of hearing would allow juror to prepare and “rehearse the
answers”). And they may justify redaction of any specific factual information developed by the
parties that has not been publicly reported in the press and that the parties propose be inquired
about at any forthcoming hearing. The Court will also permit redactions necessary to ensure
juror anonymity and privacy. See Press-Enter. Co. v. Superior Ct. of Cal., Riverside Cnty., 464
U.S. 501, 511-12 (1984). By contrast, there is no basis to redact legal arguments, case citations,
and analysis regarding the standard by which the parties contend that the Defendant’s motion
should be evaluated, as well as legal arguments, case citations, and analysis regarding the proper
scope of any potential hearing. Nor will the Court permit the redaction of information that is
widely reported in the press. Such redactions do not conform with the dictates of Lugosch and
are not necessary to protect the integrity of any inquiry.
Importantly, 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.
The parties are thus ORDERED to propose narrowly tailored redactions to the Defense
motion, the Government’s response in opposition, and the Defense reply, as consistent with this
DOJ-OGR-00008912
==================== END OF root__DOJ-OGR-00008912.jpg.txt ====================
==================== DOCUMENT: root__DOJ-OGR-00008913.jpg.txt ====================
METADATA_SOURCE: .
METADATA_FILENAME: DOJ-OGR-00008913.jpg
----------------------------------------
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document596- Filed 02/11/22 Page5of7
Order, via email on or before February 16, 2022. Because this Order resolves the scope of
redactions for all filings related to the motion, the Court adjourns sine die the briefing schedule
previously set for the parties to justify any proposed sealing or redactions to the new trial motion
papers. See Dkt. No. 585. The Court will rule on the proposed redactions so the filings can be
docketed, and the Court will file under seal unredacted copies of any documents for which
redactions are approved.
At the time the briefs are docketed with approved redactions, the Defendant is further
ORDERED to docket Exhibits 2 and 3 to her motion and the exhibit to her reply, and the