In Other Media-eg New Statesman, AJE, FP, Georgia, NYT,  Azerbaijan, CSM Click here to contact us     .

By Matthew Russell Lee, Thread, Patreon
BBC - Decrypt - LightRead - Honduras - Source

SDNY COURTHOUSE, Aug 31 – When Larry Ray was arraigned on charges of sexual exploitation, prostitution, forced labor and money laundering on February 12, he was wearing prison blues and still had a Federal Defender, but no financial affidavit to have FD appointed. Twitter theadette; More on Patreon here. 

 On May 29 SDNY Judge Lewis J. Liman held a telephone conference, which Inner City Press live tweeted (below) and at which it was said, no legal visits in the MCC until June 30 at earliest.

 On Aug 27, Judge Liman ordered: "ORDER as to Lawrence Ray: The Government has asked to submit certain "sensitive exhibits" under seal to the Court for its review prior to the upcoming conference. The Government is directed to inform the Court, on notice to the Defendant, of the nature of the exhibits the Government is proposing to submit including whether such exhibits have been provided to the defense and of the justification for submitting such materials under seal given the presumption of public access to judicial proceedings. The Government shall file its letter by 5:00 p.m. on August 28, 2020. If the defense wishes to submit exhibits to the Court, it may file a similar letter on the same timing. (Signed by Judge Lewis J. Liman on 8/27/2020)."

  But now on August 31, the US Attorney's Office has filed, to the judge (hence, a judicial docuement) but entirely sealed, "two videos used as exhibits in the Government’s March 2020 bail argument: (1) IMG_2274 from [Female-1]’s iCloud; (2) IMG_0389 from [Female-2]’s iCloud1 B. From the 3/5/20 production: (1) All of the Sensitive soundcloud and youtube videos;2 (2) Ray 2006/2007 emails/documents (documents provided to law enforcement by Ray); (3) Ray Lawrence [DOI court and other records]3 C. From the 4/21/20 production: (1) 1B47 - Larry Ray Phone; (2) 1B48 - Larry Ray Phone." See below.

   The US Attorney's Office filed its letter on August 27; it got endorsed while noting the possibility of an application against sealing. Now on August 28 Inner City Press has filed just that, and receipt has been confirmed:

"Dear Judge Liman:  On behalf of Inner City Press and in my personal journalistic capacity I am submitting this application to oppose the sealing and/or seeking the unsealing of materials in this case, specifically all non-exempt portions of materials that the Government seeks to submit to the Court on or before August 31, 2020.  

 As noted in your August 27 Order (Docket No. 41), there is a presumption of public access to judicial proceedings. The Supreme Court has recognized that reporting by the news media allows members of the public to monitor the criminal justice system without attending proceedings in person. Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v Virginia, 448 U.S. at 572-73  (1980). By reporting on court proceedings, members of the press "function[] as surrogates for the public." Id. at 573.

Here, the sealing(s) and withholdings in their entirety go beyond those requested even in the CIA trial before Judge Crotty, US v. Schulte, 17 Cr. 548.      In that case, Inner City Press vindicated the public's right to know, in the docket, see here and here.    Inner City Press recently got even more sensitive filings unsealed in a North Korea sanctions case before Judge Castel, US v. Griffith, 20-cr-15 (PKC), Docket No. 33 (LETTER by EMAIL as to Virgil Griffith addressed to Judge P. Kevin Castel from Matthew Russell Lee, Inner City Press, dated 5/18/2020, re: Press Access to documents in US v. Griffith, 20-cr-15), 40 (order to unseal) and 41 unsealed filings). See also Inner City Press' May 9, 2020, filing to this Court for openness in US v. Randall, 19-cr-131,  No. 343.   

    Here, the Government seeks to submit material to convince the Court of its position. The AUSA writes that "in order for the Court to better understand the parties' dispute, and to appreciate firsthand that this evidence is properly marked as 'sensitive,' the Government intends to provide copies of some of these materials to the Court, but requests to file the materials under seal." 

 First, by submitting material to advocate for judicial adoption of the submitter's position, the material must be seen as "judicial documents." These materials are more judicial documents than, for example, the documents submitted in support of a motion to compel discovery in Alexander Interactive, Inc. v. Adorama, Inc., 12-cv-6608 (Castel / Francis), 2014 WL 4346174,at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 2, 2014) (they "presumably will be necessary to or helpful in resolving that motion. They are, therefore, judicial documents.) 

 See also, In re Omnicom Grp., 2006 WL 3016311 at *2. (a "series of letter briefs with accompanying exhibits…certainly qualify as judicial documents"); Schiller v. City of N.Y., No. 04 CIV. 7921(KMK) 2006 WL 2788256, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2006) (briefs and supporting papers submitted in connection with a dispute over the confidentiality of discovery materials were "created by or at the behest of counsel and presented to a court in order to sway a judicial decision" and were therefore "judicial documents that trigger the presumption of public access").    Here, the Government says the judicial documents or "materials... contain private information."

As stated earlier today by your fellow SDNY Judge Paul G. Gardephe, the proper approach is to redact private information, not any blanket protective or sealing order. See, e.g., US v. Hoskins, 20-cr-399 (PGG), heard at 11 am, and here, and US v. Dejesus, et al., 20-cr-397 (PGG), heard at noon. See also, US v. Fowlkes, 20-cr-309 (Nathan).    The US Attorney's Office is now systematically requesting to impose restrictions on information. While Federal Defenders counsel in the three above-cited cases have opposed blanket protective orders, in this case it appears that they too wish to submit materials - judicial documents - under seal.   

The interest of the press and public is different, and Inner City Press is attempting to timely assert that right. (I had thought we had until 5 pm today, but note that the US Attorney's Office submitted a letter...." Full letter on Patreon here.

 While receipt was acknowledge on August 28, this went straight into the ether, sealed, on August 31: "Re: United States v. Lawrence Ray, 20 Cr. 110 (LJL) Dear Judge Liman: Per the Government’s August 30, 2020 letter (Dkt. 43) and the Court’s subsequent order (Dkt. 44), the Government submits the enclosed exhibits under seal. These exhibits primarily correspond to an August 18, 2020 written request from defense counsel that the Government dedesignate as sensitive the following materials: A. The two videos used as exhibits in the Government’s March 2020 bail argument: (1) IMG_2274 from [Female-1]’s iCloud; (2) IMG_0389 from [Female-2]’s iCloud1 B. From the 3/5/20 production: (1) All of the Sensitive soundcloud and youtube videos;2 (2) Ray 2006/2007 emails/documents (documents provided to law enforcement by Ray); (3) Ray Lawrence [DOI court and other records]3 C. From the 4/21/20 production: (1) 1B47 - Larry Ray Phone; (2) 1B48 - Larry Ray Phone." We'll have more on this.

Previous February 26 thread here.

 On March 2 Ray, now required to pay Federal Defenders for representing him - and what rate is not yet cleared - argued for but was denied release on bail. Federal Defender Marni Lenox said that Ray's history of orders of protection were due to the ugly child custody dispute; Assistant US Attorney Danielle Sassoon reminded Magistrate Judge Fox that it was in connection of "abducting" his 17 year old daughter.

 Judge Fox inquired into how the government can link ledges about prostitution and sex trafficking earnings to Ray. AUSA Sassoon said Ray used women to do his banking and carried around a backpack of cash, as well as his stable of Go Daddy domain names. Inner City Press live tweeted thread here.

The case is US v. Ray, 20-cr-110 (Liman).

***

Your support means a lot. As little as $5 a month helps keep us going and grants you access to exclusive bonus material on our Patreon page. Click here to become a patron.

Feedback: Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
SDNY Press Room 480, front cubicle
500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA

Mail: Box 20047, Dag Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017

Reporter's mobile (and weekends): 718-716-3540

Other, earlier Inner City Press are listed here, and some are available in the ProQuest service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.

 Copyright 2006-2020 Inner City Press, Inc. To request reprint or other permission, e-contact Editorial [at] innercitypress.com for