DocumentCloud_Epstein_Docs_p00021.png

Case 18-2868, Document 273-2, 08/09/2019, 2628218, Page16 of 25 monitoring the federal courts.””° Thus, while evidence introduced at trial or in connection with summary judgment enjoys a strong presumption of public access, documents that “play only a negligible role in the performance of Article III duties” are accorded only a low presumption that “amounts to little more than a prediction of public access absent a countervailing reason.”3° Documents that are never filed with the court, but simply “passed between the parties in discovery, lie entirely beyond the presumption’s reach.”*! The remaining sealed materials at issue here include filings related to, inter alia, motions to compel testimony, to quash trial subpoenae, and to exclude certain deposition testimony. All such motions, at least on their face, call upon the court to exercise its Article III powers. Moreover, erroneous judicial decision-making with respect to such evidentiary and discovery matters can cause substantial harm. Such materials are therefore of value “to those monitoring the federal courts.”32 Thus, all documents submitted in connection with, and relevant to, such judicial decision-making are subject to at least some presumption of public access. 29 Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1049. 30 Td. at 1050. 31 Td, 32 Id. at 1049. 3 In previous decisions, we have identified an important exception to this general rule: the presumption of public access does not apply to material that is submitted to the court solely so that the court may decide whether that same 16