DocumentCloud_Epstein_Docs_p00016.png

Case 18-2868, Document 273-2, 08/09/2019, 2628218, Page11 of 25 A. Standard of Review When reviewing a district court’s decision to seal a filing or maintain such a seal, “we examine the court’s factual findings for clear error, its legal determinations de novo, and its ultimate decision to seal or unseal for abuse of discretion.”" B. The Summary Judgment Materials With respect to the first category of materials, it is well-settled that “documents submitted to a court for its consideration in a summary judgment motion are—as a matter of law —judicial documents to which a strong presumption of access attaches, under both the common law and the First Amendment.” In light of this strong First Amendment presumption, “continued sealing of the documents may be justified only with specific, on-the-record findings that sealing is necessary to preserve higher values and only if the sealing order is narrowly tailored to achieve that aim.”15 " Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, 814 F.3d 132, 139 (2d Cir. 2016). ® Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 121 (2d Cir. 2006). We observe that our holding in Lugosch relies on the general principle that parties may “be assumed to have supported their papers with admissible evidence and non- frivolous arguments.” Id. at 122. Insofar as a district court has, through striking a filing, specifically found that assumption inapplicable, the categorical rule in Lugosch may not apply. See notes 42-43 and accompanying text, post. 13 Id. at 124. Examples of such countervailing values may include, depending on the circumstances, preserving “the right of an accused to fundamental fairness in the jury selection process,” Press-Enter. Co. v. Superior Court 11