DocumentCloud_Epstein_Docs_p00019.png

Case 18-2868, Document 273-2, 08/09/2019, 2628218, Page14 of 25 C. The Remaining Sealed Materials The law governing disclosure of the remaining sealed material in this case is only slightly more complex. The Supreme Court has recognized a qualified right “to inspect and copy judicial records and documents.” In defining “judicial records and documents,” we have emphasized that “the mere filing of a paper or document with the court is insufficient to render that paper a judicial document subject to the right of public access.”*4 Instead, “the item filed must be relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process in order for it to be designated a judicial document.” As our precedent makes clear, a court “perform[s] the judicial function” not only when it rules on motions currently before it, but also when properly exercising its inherent “supervisory powers.”?6 A security numbers. We have also redacted the names of alleged minor victims of sexual abuse from deposition testimony and police reports, as well as deposition responses concerning intimate matters where the questions were likely only permitted —and the responses only compelled—because of a strong expectation of continued confidentiality. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2. While we appreciate the views expressed in Judge Pooler’s separate opinion, the panel majority believes that the efforts invested by three former district judges in reviewing these materials adequately address those concerns. 23 Nixon, 435 U.S. at 597-98. 4 United States v. Amodeo, 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995) (“Amodeo I’). 3 Td. 26 Cf. United States v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 863 F.3d 125, 135 (2d Cir. 2017) (explaining that, in considering whether the report of a monitor charged with assessing compliance with a deferred prosecution agreement is a judicial 14