DocumentCloud_Epstein_Docs_p00022.png

Case 18-2868, Document 273-2, 08/09/2019, 2628218, Page17 of 25 Although a court’s authority to oversee discovery and control the evidence introduced at trial surely constitutes an exercise of judicial power, we note that this authority is ancillary to the court’s core role in adjudicating a case. Accordingly, the presumption of public access in filings submitted in connection with discovery disputes or motions in limine is generally somewhat lower than the presumption applied to material introduced at trial, or in connection with dispositive motions such as motions for dismissal or summary judgment.** Thus, while a court must still articulate specific and substantial reasons for sealing such material, the reasons usually need not be as compelling as those required to seal summary judgment filings. Here, the precise basis for the District Court’s decision to deny the motion to unseal these remaining materials is unclear. In the three paragraphs devoted to the issue, the District Court emphasized the potential for embarrassment “given the highly sensitive nature of the underlying allegations,” and concluded that “the documents sealed in the course of discovery were neither relied upon by [the District] Court in the rendering of an adjudication, nor necessary to or helpful in resolving a motion.”* It is therefore unclear whether the District Court held that these materials were not judicial documents (and thus are material must be disclosed in the discovery process or shielded by a Protective Order. See TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d at 233. 34 Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1049-50. % Giuffre, 325 F. Supp. 3d. at 442 (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). 17