DOJ-OGR-00008842.tif

French, 2017 WL 27932, at *2 (D. Me. Jan. 3, 2017) (“the authority that would allow the Court to seal the memoranda submitted [in support of a motion for a new trial] is extremely restricted ... the Court concludes that the Defendants’ hypothetical strategic concerns must bend to the presumptive public right of access’’); cf. CBS, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for Cent. Dist. Of California, 765 F.2d 823, 825 (9" Cir. 1985) (holding, in context of post-conviction motion to reduce sentence, that there is “no principled basis for affording greater confidentiality to post-trial documents and proceedings than is given to pretrial matters. The primary justifications for access to criminal proceedings . . . apply with as much force to post-conviction proceedings as to the trial itself’). Significantly, courts have held that this is true even where the post-trial proceedings in question relate to alleged juror misconduct. United States v. Simone, 14 F.3d 833, 840 (3d Cir. 1994) (“We hold that the First Amendment right of access attaches to post-trial hearings to investigate jury misconduct’); United States v. Leeco, 2009 WL 1249295, at *2 (S.D.W. Va. May 5, 2009) (denying government request for redactions to memorandum opinion and order granting motion for new trial based on alleged juror misconduct and holding that “the subject juror’s privacy interests must yield to the general public’s right to know all facts bearing upon the necessity for a new trial”). Here, the public interest in Ms. Maxwell’s effort to obtain a new trial is manifest. In light of the strong presumption of openness that attaches to the documents in question and the lack of any apparent overriding interest in keeping them secret, the Daily News respectfully requests that the documents be unsealed. Sincerely, /s/ Matthew A. Leish Matthew A. Leish Attorney for Daily News, L.P. cc: counsel for all parties (via email) DOJ-OGR-00008842