DOJ-OGR-00009846.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 643 _ Filed 03/11/22 Page 48 of 49 the court to invoke its powers or affect its decisions” stands on a “different footing” than items merely passed between parties in discovery (quotations omitted)). The defendant’s challenge to the merits of Juror 50’s motion to intervene ignores that the motion is a judicial document whether or not the Court ultimately grants the motion. See Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 121 (2d Cir. 2006) (rejecting the argument that “until a district court knows the disposition of the underlying motion, any attempt at calling something a judicial document is premature’’). And the defendant’s assertion that the motion is not a judicial document because it is a “discovery request” is supported only by cases addressing whether discovery materials themselves should be docketed, not whether a motion for discovery can be. (See Def. Mem. at 54). At bottom, the defendant fails to credibly explain how publicly docketing Juror 50’s own motion to intervene will interfere with Juror 50’s own testimony. There is no need to litigate Juror 50’s motion to intervene under seal just because the Court and the parties are contemplating a hearing where Juror 50 may be a witness. Throughout the course of this case, the parties have publicly litigated evidentiary issues implicating witness testimony, such that witnesses or their counsel could access the briefing if they so wished. There is no reason that Juror 50’s motion to intervene should be treated differently and litigated in secret.7! 71 Contrary to the defendant’s suggestion (Def. Mem. at 42 n.15), there is nothing nefarious about the Government’s decision to publicly docket the letter in which it brought Juror 50’s public statements to the Court’s attention and sought an inquiry. That letter is clearly a judicial document, and as such must be publicly filed unless there are compelling interests for sealing, such as third- party privacy interests and identifying information for witnesses testifying under pseudonyms. None of those interests were implicated by this short letter, which merely recites public information and sought certain relief. And contrary to the defendant’s representation, the Government sought to confer with the defense counsel before filing the letter, but received no response, as the letter notes. (Dkt. 568 at 2). 46 DOJ-OGR-00009846