DOJ-OGR-00005575.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 383 _ Filed 10/29/21 Page 21 of 40 private rather than public,” which avoids “catering” to “sensational” interests. (Gov’t Mot. at 16 (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1050 (2d Cir. 1995); United States v. Cohen, 366 F. Supp. 3d 612, 626-627 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted)). This limited sealing request is significantly protective of the interests of the Minor Victims, who were sexually abused as minors, and minimally burdensome to the public. See Paris, 2007 WL 1484974, at *2 (concluding that the interest in protecting victim identities outweighs the public interest in access to information because “the public and press will be able to hear the Jane Does’ and Minors’ testimony in full’); cf. 18 U.S.C. § 3509 (d)(2) (permitting any papers that disclose the name of a child to be filed under seal without the necessity of a court order). !” Although the defense argues that this request is “contrary to well-established Second Circuit Law” (Def. Opp. at 23), the cases it cites concern the strong presumption in favor of access associated with public dissemination of records that are already shared publicly at trial. See United States v. Graham, 257 F.3d 143, 149 (2d Cir. 2001); Application of National Broadcasting Co., 635 F.2d 945, 951-52 (2d Cir. 1980). Both cases also recognize that no such presumption applies for evidence submitted under seal, “because with respect to that item of evidence, the session of court was not public.” Graham, 257 F.3d at 149 (quoting Application of National Broadcasting Co., 635 F.2d at 952 n.4). Here, the Government is not seeking a limitation on information shared in open court, so these cases are inapposite. 2 To the extent the defense wishes to make arguments about particular exhibits, (see Def. Opp. at 22-23), the Government is happy to address that on a document-by-document basis at trial. 20 DOJ-OGR-00005575