DocumentCloud_Epstein_Docs_p00014.png

Case 18-2868, Document 273-2, 08/09/2019, 2628218, Page9 of 25 the entire docket. The District Court granted each of these motions to intervene, but denied the related requests to unseal in orders entered November 2, 2016, May 3, 2017, and August 27, 2018, respectively. The Appellants timely appealed from each of the orders denying their respective motions to unseal. Although each Appellant seeks the release of a different set of documents, all argue that the District Court failed to analyze the documents individually or properly apply the presumption of public access to court documents. We therefore ordered that the appeals be heard in tandem and held argument on March 6, 2019. On March 11, 2019, we issued an order to show cause why we “should not unseal the summary judgment motion, including any materials filed in connection with this motion, and the District Court’s summary judgment decision.”* The parties timely filed their responses. II. DISCUSSION There are two categories of sealed material at issue in these appeals: (1) the summary judgment record, which includes the parties’ summary judgment briefs, their statements of undisputed facts, and incorporated exhibits; and (2) court filings made in the course of the discovery process and with respect to motions in limine. In this Opinion, we explain that our law requires the unsealing of the 8 Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 18-2868-cv, Docket No. 138.