DOJ-OGR-00009063.jpg
711 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
711 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a legal filing, dated February 24, 2022, arguing against the public release of pleadings from 'Juror No. 50'. The argument cites legal precedents, primarily Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, to outline the three-step process for determining public access to judicial documents. The author contends that releasing the documents would be prejudicial to Ms. Maxwell's right to a fair trial and that there is no compelling reason for their release.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Brown | Party in a lawsuit |
Mentioned in the case citation 'Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 51–52 (2d Cir. 2019)'.
|
| Maxwell | Party in a lawsuit |
Mentioned in the case citation 'Brown v. Maxwell' and as 'Ms. Maxwell' whose rights to fair proceedings are discussed.
|
| Lugosch | Party in a lawsuit |
Mentioned in the case citation 'Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006)'.
|
| Juror No. 50 | Juror |
Mentioned in the context of a request to release their pleadings.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Second Circuit | government agency |
Cited as the court that established a framework in the Lugosch case.
|
| Pyramid Co. of Onondaga | company |
Mentioned as a party in the case 'Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga'.
|
| Court of Appeals | government agency |
Mentioned as the court that held a specific legal opinion in the Lugosch case.
|
Timeline (3 events)
2022-02-24
Document 613 was filed in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE.
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned as part of the company name 'Pyramid Co. of Onondaga'.
|
Relationships (2)
They are opposing parties in the lawsuit 'Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga'.
Key Quotes (4)
"the district court may strike such material from the filings on the grounds that it is “redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous.”"Source
— Civil Rule 12
(Quoted as part of the legal argument from Brown v. Maxwell regarding the striking of material from court filings.)
DOJ-OGR-00009063.jpg
Quote #1
"[b]efore any such common law right can attach, however, a court must first conclude that the documents at issue are indeed ‘judicial documents.’"Source
— Second Circuit Court of Appeals
(Quoted from the Lugosch case to establish the first step in determining public access rights.)
DOJ-OGR-00009063.jpg
Quote #2
"Once the court has determined that the documents are judicial documents and that therefore a common law presumption of access attaches, it must determine the weight of that presumption."Source
— Second Circuit Court of Appeals
(Quoted from the Lugosch case to describe the second step in the framework for public access.)
DOJ-OGR-00009063.jpg
Quote #3
"Finally, after determining the weight of the presumption of access, the court must ‘balance competing considerations against it.’"Source
— Second Circuit Court of Appeals
(Quoted from the Lugosch case to describe the final step in the framework for public access.)
DOJ-OGR-00009063.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,889 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 62 of 66
render that paper a judicial document subject to the right of public access. We think that the item filed must be relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process in order for it to be designated a judicial document.”). Moreover, if stricken, the documents enjoy no presumption of public access. Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 51–52 (2d Cir. 2019) ([under Civil Rule 12], “the district court may strike such material from the filings on the grounds that it is “redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous.” Because such rejected or stricken material is not “relevant to the performance of the judicial function” it would not be considered a “judicial document” and would enjoy no presumption of public access.”).
The Second Circuit established a framework in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) for courts to utilize in determining when the public has a right of access to particular documents. The Court of Appeals held that “[b]efore any such common law right can attach, however, a court must first conclude that the documents at issue are indeed ‘judicial documents.’” Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 119. “Once the court has determined that the documents are judicial documents and that therefore a common law presumption of access attaches, it must determine the weight of that presumption.” Id. “Finally, after determining the weight of the presumption of access, the court must ‘balance competing considerations against it.’” Id. at 120.
There exists no compelling reason to release Juror No. 50’s pleadings. Any public release of the documents will set off another round of publicity, speculation, and commentary, all of which is prejudicial to the truth finding process and Ms. Maxwell’s rights to fair and impartial proceedings.
The Second Circuit established a framework in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) for courts to utilize in determining when the public has a right of access to particular documents. The Court of Appeals held that “[b]efore any such common law right can attach, however, a court must first conclude that the documents at issue are indeed ‘judicial documents.’” Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 119. “Once the court has determined that the documents are judicial documents and that therefore a common law presumption of access attaches, it must determine the weight of that presumption.” Id. “Finally, after determining the weight of the presumption of access, the court must ‘balance competing considerations against it.’” Id. at 120.
There exists no compelling reason to release Juror No. 50’s pleadings. Any public release of the documents will set off another round of publicity, speculation, and commentary, all of which is prejudicial to the truth finding process and Ms. Maxwell’s rights to fair and impartial proceedings.
55
DOJ-OGR-00009063
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document