MEMORANDUM & ORDER

PAMELA K. CHEN, District Judge.

Before the Court is the request of Enrique Mujica on behalf of Canal 13, a Chilean TV network, and Chilean journalist Antonio Valencia from "El Mercurio" newspaper (collectively, "Movants") to unseal "audios from all the hearings and the exhibits related to Mr. Sergio Jadue". (Dkt. 21; Dkt. 23 (requesting "audios of telephone conversations" between certain alleged coconspirators in this matter and "photographs and any other documents").) For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies Movants' unsealing request.

In April 2016, the Director of CIPER, the Chilean Center for Investigative Reporting, requested that the Court unseal the transcript of the guilty plea entered into by Defendant Sergio Jadue in this matter and require the public filing of his plea agreement. (Dkt. 11.) After reviewing the May 2, 2016 ex parte submission from the government (Dkt. 12), the Honorable Raymond J. Dearie partially granted the unsealing request and directed the public filing of the redacted transcript of Defendant's guilty plea proceeding, along with his written allocution, in June 2016. (Memorandum & Order, Dkt. 13.) "Regarding the balance of CIPER's application," Judge Dearie wrote, "the Court has applied the standards set out in United States v. Alcantara, 396 F.3d 189 (2d Cir. 2005), and concludes that the temporary sealing of the materials sought is justified and that there are no reasonable alternatives available to protect legitimate government interests and concerns." (Id.) Thus, Judge Dearie denied the request to unseal Defendant's plea agreement.

With respect to Movants' current request to unseal audio recordings of the hearings, the government responds that it is "not aware of any audio recordings of any hearing concerning the defendant, who was arraigned and pleaded guilty on the same date, November 23, 2015, before the Honorable Raymond J. Dearie."1 (Dkt. 22, at 2.) Thus, this aspect of the Movants' unsealing request is denied as moot.

With respect to the request for "exhibits", the government notes that there are only three items that might qualify as such in this case: (1) Defendant's signed waiver form; (2) his plea agreement; and (3) his written allocution. (Id.) Both Defendant's waiver form and his written allocution have already been unsealed. (See Dkts. 7, 14-2.) Relying on its May 2, 2016 ex parte submission and a September 1, 2017 submission filed in connection with its request for an anonymous jury in United States v. Napout, et al., 15-CR-252 (PKC) (RML), Dkt. 653, the government argues that Defendant's plea agreement, as well as the redacted portions of his November 23, 2015 plea transcript, should remain under seal. Based on its review of the government's submissions and applying the standards under Alcantara, the Court agrees and finds that the same reasons that justified the redaction and sealing of these materials in June 2016 continue to justify their non-disclosure at this time. See United States v. Doe, 63 F.3d 121, 128 (2d Cir. 1995) (setting forth balancing test in deciding unsealing motions). The Court, therefore, denies Movants' request for "exhibits" related to Defendant.2 However, the government is again reminded that this relief is temporary and that "the government is under a continuing obligation to advise the Court when circumstances change that might affect the Court's analysis." (Dkt. 13.)

SO ORDERED.