EFTA00080937.pdf
PDF Source (No Download)
Extracted Text (OCR)
U.S. Department of Justice
United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
The Silvio J. Moto Building
One Saint Andrew's Plaza
New York. New York 10007
July 22, 2020
TO BE FILED UNDER SEAL
VIA EMAIL
The Honorable Sarah Netburn
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
United States Courthouse
New York, New York 10007
Re:
In re Application to Unseal Civil Discovery Materials, 19 Misc. 179 (SN)
Dear Judge Netburn:
The Government respectfully submits this letter in response to the Court's July 15, 2020
Order, directing the Government to state its position as to whether any or all previous filings in the
above-captioned case (the "Miscellaneous Case") should remain under seal. For the reasons set
forth below, the Government respectfully requests that all filings in the Miscellaneous Case remain
sealed.
This Miscellaneous Case arises from the Government's application, dated February 5, 2019
(the "Application"), in connection with a then-pending, and still pending, grand jury investigation.
Although the investigation has resulted in two unsealed indictments, the full scope and details of
that investigation are not publicly known. That investigation is actively ongoing, and various
relevant particulars of the investigation—including, but not limited to, certain subjects of the
investigation, certain of the offenses being investigated, and the identities and experiences of
certain witnesses and victims-similarly remain not publicly known.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e)(6): "Records, orders, and subpoenas
relating to grand-jury proceedings must be kept under seal to the extent and as long as necessary
to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of a matter occurring before a grand jury." Because the
entirety of the materials in the Miscellaneous Case relate to, and fall under, the ongoing grand jury
investigation, and because the unsealing of any such materials would reveal the Government's
efforts to obtain certain evidence and types of evidence, and have the potential to result in the
destruction of or tampering with evidence, or otherwise seriously jeopardize an investigation, the
materials should not be unsealed. See, e.g., Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U.S.
211, 218 n.9 (1979) ("Since the 17th century, grand jury proceedings have been closed to the
public; and records of such proceedings have been kept from the public eye. The rule of grand jury
secrecy . . . is an integral part of our criminal justice system."). As described above, the grand jury
investigation repeatedly referenced in all materials associated with the Miscellaneous Case is
EFTA00080937
Page 2
active and ongoing, and indeed resulted in new charges being brought just this month. See United
States v. Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN). The existence of the Government's application related to its
efforts to permit compliance with a grand jury subpoena, and the specific recipient and subject
areas in that subpoena, are non-public and implicate the heart of the secret grand jury process.
The First Amendment presumptive right of access applies to civil and criminal proceedings
and "protects the public against the government's arbitrary interference with access to important
information." N.Y. Civil Liberties Union v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth. ("NYCTA"), 684 F.3d 286, 298
(2d Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Circuit has applied two different
approaches when deciding whether the First Amendment right applies to particular material. The
"experience-and-logic" approach asks "both whether the documents have historically been open
to the press and general public and whether public access plays a significant positive role in the
functioning of the particular process in question." Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d
110, 120 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). The second approach—employed
when analyzing judicial documents related to judicial proceedings covered by the First
Amendment right—asks whether the documents at issue "are derived from or are a necessary
corollary of the capacity to attend the relevant proceedings." Id. (internal quotation marks and
alteration omitted). Even when it applies, however, the First Amendment right creates only a
presumptive right of access. "What offends the First Amendment is the attempt to [exclude the
public] without sufficient justification," NYCTA, 684 F.3d at 296, not the simple act of exclusion
itself.
Even assuming for purposes of this submission that the materials filed in the Miscellaneous
Case could be considered judicial documents, however, continued sealing is nonetheless
appropriate. The balancing of interests strongly favors sealing in order to protect the integrity of
law enforcement proceedings. The filings and order are inextricably intertwined with an ongoing
criminal grand jury investigation, which, despite significant coverage in the media in connection
with charges brought against Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, nevertheless continues to
include matters not publicly known or confirmed through public filings or Government statements.
The Government notes that it intends to provide defendant Maxwell with relevant materials
from both the Miscellaneous Case and from 19 Misc. 149 (CM), to which the Government referred
in its letter to this Court dated April 9, 2019, in order to comply with the Government's discovery
obligations. The Government intends to seek a protective order from the presiding district judge,
in order to provide relevant materials to the defendant while maintaining grand jury secrecy and
confidentiality.
Accordingly, the Government respectfully requests that the Miscellaneous Case and its
filings remain under seal until further order of the Court. The Government also respectfully
proposes that the Court set a date approximately 180 days from now, or as soon thereafter as the
EFTA00080938
Page 3
Court believes would be appropriate, for the Government to update the Court on its position
regarding sealing in connection with the Miscellaneous Case.
Respectfully submitted,
By:
I
I
Assistant United States Attorneys
Tel
EFTA00080939
Document Preview
PDF source document
This document was extracted from a PDF. No image preview is available. The OCR text is shown on the left.
This document was extracted from a PDF. No image preview is available. The OCR text is shown on the left.
Extracted Information
Document Details
| Filename | EFTA00080937.pdf |
| File Size | 191.2 KB |
| OCR Confidence | 85.0% |
| Has Readable Text | Yes |
| Text Length | 6,239 characters |
| Indexed | 2026-02-11T10:28:04.781253 |