DOJ-OGR-00008859.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document590 _ Filed 02/01/22 Page8sof9 The Honorable Alison J. Nathan February 1, 2022 Page 8 other related submissions can be immediately unsealed at that point. Because the Motion will be sealed for only a limited period of time and because the defense is not seeking to seal any hearing ordered by the Court, there is no concern that the public will be permanently denied access to the documents or the relevant facts, or that the press will be unable to perform its role of monitoring the federal courts. See Amodeo IT, 71 F.3d at 1050. The defense’s sealing request is therefore narrowly tailored and outweighs the public’s qualified right of access to the documents. Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 124 (sealing is justified if it is “necessary to preserve higher values” and if the sealing order is “narrowly tailored to achieve that aim’’). It is also not feasible to file a redacted version of the Motion on the public docket in the meantime. Although the Motion contains some publicly available information and a discussion of the relevant law, these portions of the Motion reflect the defense’s legal theories and interpretation of the facts and should not be disclosed to Juror 50. For example, the defense’s selection of which publicly available facts to highlight in the Motion provide a roadmap of which topics the defense might ask Juror 50 about at a hearing. Similarly, the Motion discusses the implications of certain public statements Juror 50 has given in the past, which may impact the responses he gives to questions at a hearing. Finally, the case law cited reveals which legal theories the defense may pursue, which may also impact Juror 50’s responses. In such situations where it is too difficult or impractical to redact a document, courts allow the document to be fully sealed. See Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Keystone Foods Holdings, Ltd., No. 1:19-cv-010125 (ALC), 2020 WL 5819864, at *2 2087306.1 DOJ-OGR-00008859