DOJ-OGR-00002764.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 168 Filed 03/18/21 Page 3of5 Defendant’s objections relate to her contention that some of the information contained in the redactions has been made public by other means. Notwithstanding this, the redactions to which the Defendant objects relate to the privacy interests of third parties, which the Second Circuit has admonished “should weigh heavily in a court’s balancing equation.” United States v. Amodeo (“Amodeo IP’), 71 F.3d 1044, 1050 (2d Cir. 1995). At least some of the redactions to which the Defendant objects relate to private “family affairs” of a third party, a factor that “weigh[s] more heavily against access than conduct affecting a substantial portion of the public.” /d. at 1051. And though the Defendant contends that some of the information contained in the redactions is public, she furnishes no evidence to that effect. As a result, the Court concludes that the significant privacy interests at stake justify the limited and narrowly tailored redactions contained in Exhibit 5. In addition, the Court adopts the Defendant’s proposed additional redactions to pages 129-134 of the Government’s brief. Those portions of the transcript, which were redacted in the civil matter, concern privacy interests and their disclosure would merely serve to cater to a “craving for that which is sensational and impure.” Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1051 (citation omitted). The Court thus concludes that such redactions are justified. On the other hand, the Court agrees with the Defendant’s objections to the redactions contained in pages 1-128 of the Government’s brief. To provide some context, the redacted portions of the brief relate to sealed proceedings that took place before different judges relating to the issuance of grand jury subpoenas in connection with the present case. See Dkt. No. 51. Because the Government’s brief is a judicial document and because the presumption of access attaches, the Government’s redaction requests must be “necessary to preserve higher values and only if the sealing order is narrowly tailored to achieve that aim.” Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of DOJ-OGR- 00002764