EPSTEIN
page 3 / 1108 . OCR, unverified
ORDERED to docket Exhibits 2 and 3 to her motion and the exhibit to her reply, and the
Government ORDERED to docket all exhibits to its opposition, all of which are publicly
available documents.'
I. Juror 50 Motion to Intervene
The Court is also in receipt of Juror 50’s motion to intervene, which both the Government
and the Defense oppose. Defense Motion, at 51-52; Government Response, at 44; see also
Defense Ltr., Jan. 13, 2022. The Court denies the motion. Juror 50 cites no authority to support
a juror’s intervention when he will possibly be subject to a post-verdict inquiry. The cases he
cites in support are inapposite; he is not seeking to intervene to assert First Amendment access
by the press, to quash a subpoena, or to prevent dissemination of privileged information.
Although cases do support that a juror should have legal counsel in a post-verdict inquiry into
allegedly false voir dire responses, as Juror 50 does have, no cases support intervention. See,
e.g., McCoy, No. 14 Cr. 6181 (EAW), Dkt. No. 329 at 6-7 (appointing counsel for juror alleged
Exhibit 1 to the Defendant’s motion, which is Juror 50’s completed questionnaire, is to be maintained temporarily
under seal pending the Court’s ruling on whether a hearing will be held and on the New York Times Company’s
motion to unseal the filled-out questionnaires for the twelve seated jurors. Dkt. Nos. 583, 585. The Court will
address Juror 50’s request that a copy of his questionnaire be released to his counsel at that time. The Court notes
that the voir dire transcript is currently available to the public.
DOJ-OGR-00008913
==================== END OF root__DOJ-OGR-00008913.jpg.txt ====================
==================== DOCUMENT: root__DOJ-OGR-00008914.jpg.txt ====================
METADATA_SOURCE: .
METADATA_FILENAME: DOJ-OGR-00008914.jpg
----------------------------------------
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document596- Filed 02/11/22 Page6éof7
to have falsely represented information on pre-selection questionnaire and during oral voir dire).
Juror 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.
The 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, Hallendale, 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.
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
DOJ-OGR-00008914
==================== END OF root__DOJ-OGR-00008914.jpg.txt ====================
==================== DOCUMENT: root__DOJ-OGR-00008915.jpg.txt ====================
METADATA_SOURCE: .
METADATA_FILENAME: DOJ-OGR-00008915.jpg
----------------------------------------
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document596- Filed 02/11/22 Page/7of7
discovery material is also unavailing. While discovery materials themselves may not be judicial
documents, Juror 50’s motion is not a discovery document. The Defendant also fails to articulate
how docketing Juror 50’s own motion could affect the testimony of any potential witness and
ultimately affect the integrity of any inquiry into Juror 50’s conduct. The possibility of media
attention does not outweigh the presumption of access. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the
Defendant’s alternative request to seal the motion.
The Court reserves judgment on whether Juror 50’s motion should be redacted in light of