DOJ-OGR-00008816.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document576 Filed 01/14/22 Pagelof2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT USDC SDNY SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: DATE FILED: 1/14/22 | United States of America, _y_ 20-CR-330 (AJN) Ghislaine Maxwell, ORDER Defendant. ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: The Court required the parties to indicate whether Juror 50’s motion to intervene and to be provided a copy of the juror’s completed questionnaire and voir dire should be redacted. Dkt. No. 575. In response, the parties have submitted letters to the Court indicating their differing views on whether Juror 50’s motion should be docketed at all. Upon further reflection, the Court concludes that it must first address the threshold question of whether an inquiry is permitted and/or required before considering Juror 50’s requests. Accordingly, the Court will not consider or act on Juror 50’s request to intervene and to be provided a copy of the juror’s completed questionnaire and voir dire until the Court receives the parties’ briefing on the appropriateness of an inquiry and the nature of any such inquiry. The Court will maintain Juror 50’s motion temporarily under seal until the Court considers the parties’ arguments and determines the appropriate next steps. Consistent with this and to lessen the burden on the parties and the Court, the Court adjusts the briefing schedule as follows. Rather than separately addressing Juror 50’s motion on January 20, 2022, see Dkt. No. 575, the parties may address the issues raised by Juror 50’s motion in their briefing on Defendant’s anticipated motion for a new trial, on the schedule previously set by the Court. See Dkt. No. 571. DOJ-OGR-00008816