DOJ-OGR-00002345.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 132 Filed 02/04/21 Page 2 of 2 enforcement or judicial efficiency’ and ‘the privacy interests of those resisting disclosure.’” Jd. at 120 (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1050 (2d Cir. 1995) (“Amodeo IT’)). The proposed redactions satisfy this test. The Court finds that Defendant’s motions are “relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process,” thereby qualifying as a “judicial document” for purposes of the first element of the Lugosch test. United States v. Amodeo (“Amodeo I’), 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995). And the Court also finds that the common law presumption of access attaches. /d. at 146; see also Nixon v. Warner Comme’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 602 (1978). Nevertheless, the proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to serve substantial interests. Most notably, these redactions are narrowly tailored to protect the Government’s ongoing investigation. In addition, many of the Defendant’s proposed redactions crucially serve the interest of protecting the personal privacy interests of third parties. See Under Seal v. Under Seal, 273 F. Supp. 3d 460, 467 (S.D.N.Y. 2017). The Defendant is hereby ORDERED to docket the redacted documents and corresponding exhibits by no later than February 5, 2021. With respect to Motion 3, the Defendant is ORDERED to docket the version that includes the Government’s proposed redactions in addition to her own. Dated: February 4, 2021 New York, New York ALISON J. NATHAN United States District Judge DOJ-OGR-00002345