DOJ-OGR-00008856.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document590 _ Filed 02/01/22 Page5of9 The Honorable Alison J. Nathan February 1, 2022 Page 5 of access under the common law “‘is high for documents submitted as part of dispositive-motion practice.” (citing Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 123)). But there is no “higher value” or “competing consideration” that is more compelling or more important than protecting Ms. Maxwell’s constitutional right to a fair trial. See Silver, 2016 WL 1572993, at *5 (citing United States v. Doe, 63 F.3d 121, 128 (2d Cir. 1995) (“Compelling interests may include the defendant’s right to a fair trial.”’”)). Sealing is warranted to protect a defendant's fair trial rights if the Court makes specific findings that “first, there is a substantial probability that the defendant’s right to a fair trial will be prejudiced by publicity that [sealing] would prevent, and, second, reasonable alternatives to [sealing] cannot adequately protect the defendant’s fair trial rights. /d. at *8 (quoting Press-Enter. Co. v. Superior Court of California for Riverside Cty., 478 U.S. 1, 14 (1986) (citations omitted) (“Press-Enterprise IT”)). Although cases addressing this point have focused on the need to seal to prevent the prejudicial effects of pretrial publicity on a defendant’s right to a fair trial, rather than the effects of post-trial disclosure on a defendant’s motion for a new trial, the principle at stake is the same. Ms. Maxwell vigorously asserts that she did not receive a fair trial because of Juror 50’s presence on the jury (and potentially the presence of other jurors who were the victims of sexual abuse). Through her Motion, Ms. Maxwell is seeking to vindicate her right to a fair trial and to remedy the structural error that occurred during the voir dire process. Ms. Maxwell’s fair trial rights must be protected post-trial just as vigorously as they are pre-trial. To do that, it is necessary to keep the Motion temporarily sealed. 2087306.1 DOJ-OGR-00008856