{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "2",
    "document_number": "612",
    "date": "02/24/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 612 Filed 02/24/22 Page 2 of 5\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nJanuary 13, 2022\nPage 2\nmatter. The request is not to intervene by a journalist for public access. See United States v. Aref, 533 F.3d 72, 81 (2d Cir. 2008) (motion to intervene to assert the public's First Amendment right of access to criminal proceedings is proper). Nor is the request from a subpoena respondent.\nUnited States v. RMI Co., 599 F.2d 1183, 1186 (3d Cir. 1979) (persons affected by the disclosure of allegedly privileged materials may intervene in pending criminal proceedings and seek protective orders). Although Juror 50 has expressed a questionable interest in the outcome of this case, that does not afford him standing to intervene. Notably, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure make no reference to a motion to intervene in a criminal case. This is a recognition of the general rule that \"a private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another.\" Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973). And as one court has noted, \"[e]ven crime victims, who enjoy various statutory rights of participation, have no right to intervene in the district court in a criminal case.\" United States v. Collins, 2013 WL 4780927, at *1 (E.D. Wis. 2013).\nThe second request by Juror 50 is for discovery. Ms. Maxwell's position, to be more fully articulated in her forthcoming substantive response to this Motion, is that this request should be denied. For purposes of the issue concerning maintaining the seal on public access, discovery requests are not \"judicial documents.\" United States v. Smith, 985 F. Supp. 2d 506, 519(S.D.N.Y. 2013) (\"experience and logic show that there is no right of access to discovery materials\"). See SEC v. The Street.Com, 273 F.3d 222, 233 (2d Cir.2001) (rejecting claim that deposition testimony became a \"judicial document\" \"because the Court reviewed it in order to decide whether or not to enter [a] protective order\").\nDOJ-OGR-00008998",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 612 Filed 02/24/22 Page 2 of 5",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nJanuary 13, 2022\nPage 2",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "matter. The request is not to intervene by a journalist for public access. See United States v. Aref, 533 F.3d 72, 81 (2d Cir. 2008) (motion to intervene to assert the public's First Amendment right of access to criminal proceedings is proper). Nor is the request from a subpoena respondent.\nUnited States v. RMI Co., 599 F.2d 1183, 1186 (3d Cir. 1979) (persons affected by the disclosure of allegedly privileged materials may intervene in pending criminal proceedings and seek protective orders). Although Juror 50 has expressed a questionable interest in the outcome of this case, that does not afford him standing to intervene. Notably, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure make no reference to a motion to intervene in a criminal case. This is a recognition of the general rule that \"a private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another.\" Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973). And as one court has noted, \"[e]ven crime victims, who enjoy various statutory rights of participation, have no right to intervene in the district court in a criminal case.\" United States v. Collins, 2013 WL 4780927, at *1 (E.D. Wis. 2013).",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The second request by Juror 50 is for discovery. Ms. Maxwell's position, to be more fully articulated in her forthcoming substantive response to this Motion, is that this request should be denied. For purposes of the issue concerning maintaining the seal on public access, discovery requests are not \"judicial documents.\" United States v. Smith, 985 F. Supp. 2d 506, 519(S.D.N.Y. 2013) (\"experience and logic show that there is no right of access to discovery materials\"). See SEC v. The Street.Com, 273 F.3d 222, 233 (2d Cir.2001) (rejecting claim that deposition testimony became a \"judicial document\" \"because the Court reviewed it in order to decide whether or not to enter [a] protective order\").",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00008998",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Alison J. Nathan",
      "Juror 50",
      "Ms. Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States",
      "SEC"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "E.D. Wis",
      "S.D.N.Y"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "January 13, 2022",
      "02/24/22",
      "2008",
      "1979",
      "1973",
      "2013",
      "2001"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 612",
      "DOJ-OGR-00008998"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 2 of a 5-page document."
}