DOJ-OGR-00006997.jpg

be N Ww ws Oo OY ~] oO WO a oO he be N Ww = Hs Oo a OY a ~] a oO a Ke) 20 21 22 23 24 25 Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 459 LalWmaxC PASS oppose. and you' Filed 11/15/21 I'm asking the government's position. MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, we defer Page 25 of 43 25 to the Court on THE COURT: I'll take that as you continue not to OK, Ms. Pomerantz? That's the last position stated, re not changing that view, as I hear you. Correct? MS. POMBRANTZ: Correct, your Honor. THE COURT: I am prepared to rule on this. The request to file the joint proposed questionnaire and voir dire under seal as well as the Court's proposed question requested by letter and now argued her organiza naire, which the government does not oppose, has been tions have opposed the request. I do conclude that the def fendant has Several news failed to justify sealing the proposed voir dire and questionnaire. First, there's no privacy interest in a blank questionnaire, like the kind of interest that is articulated in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. rational e for sealing the submission is to at avoid media coverage that may prejudice the j process. 2006). The parties' sole a general level ury selection The jurors are sworn to give true and complete answers to the questionnaire and voir dire. jurors, can disc [ will be individually, one-on-one, and with the parties present, I feel ern any clear dishonesty. questioning the confident that This is not just going to be SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00006997