DOJ-OGR-00008845.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document587 Filed 01/27/22 Page3of4 January 24, 2022 Page 3 strong presumption of “contemporaneous access” to it. Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 126. The right of access exists primarily because “public monitoring [of courts] is an essential feature of democratic control”. Amodeo IT, 71 F.3d at 1048. “[W]ithout access to testimony and documents that are used in the performance of Article III functions”, it is not possible to effectively understand and monitor the proceedings in this case that relate to Juror 50’s motion as they take place. Id. Finally, for many of the same reasons supporting access to Defendant’s motion for a new trial, it appears unlikely there is “a substantial probability of harm to a compelling interest” that would result from placing Juror 50’s motion on the public docket. See Under Seal v. Under Seal, 273 F. Supp. 3d 460, 469 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (“A proponent of sealing may overcome the presumption of access by demonstrating a substantial probability of harm to a compelling interest.”). Juror No. 50’s privacy interest is particularly low here, given that he has voluntarily disclosed his identity and history in various interviews. See In re Application to Unseal 98 Cr. LIOI(ILG), 891 F. Supp. 2d 296, 300 (E.D.N.Y. 2012). And the Court has already solicited submissions from the parties regarding any proposed redactions, so the Court can assess whether they may be discrete redactions, if any, that need be made to protect any other compelling interest. For all these reasons, ABC News and NBC News respectfully request that the Court unseal Defendant’s motion for a new trial and Juror No. 50’s motion to intervene. 4863-7911-5787v.1 0019918-000033 DOJ-OGR-00008845