DocumentCloud_Epstein_Docs_p00020.png
Extracted Text (OCR)
Case 18-2868, Document 273-2, 08/09/2019, 2628218, Page15 of 25
document is thus “relevant to the performance of the judicial function”
if it would reasonably have the tendency to influence a district court’s
ruling on a motion or in the exercise of its supervisory powers, without
regard to which way the court ultimately rules or whether the
document ultimately in fact influences the court’s decision.”
Accordingly, if in applying these standards, a court determines that
documents filed by a party are not relevant to the performance of a
judicial function, no presumption of public access attaches.”
Once an item is deemed relevant to the exercise of judicial
power, “the weight to be given the presumption of access must be
governed by the role of the material at issue in the exercise of Article
III judicial power and the resultant value of such information to those
document, “[i]f the district court’s conception of its supervisory power in this
context were correct, the Monitor’s Report would quite obviously be relevant to the
performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process” (internal
quotation marks omitted)). Whether a specific judicial decision constitutes a
“performance of the judicial function” is a question of law. Accordingly, we review
such determinations de novo. Id. at 134.
27 Amodeo I, 44 F.3d at 145-46 (concluding that documents were relevant to
the performance of a judicial function because they would have “informed” the
district court’s decision whether to discharge or retain a Receiver); see also FTC. v.
Standard Fin. Mgmt. Corp., 830 F.2d 404, 409 (1st Cir. 1987) (citing Federal Rule of
Evidence 401’s “having any tendency” definition of relevance in determining
whether documents were “judicial documents”).
28 As we explain below, there are several (often preferable) tools beyond
sealing that district courts can use to protect their dockets from becoming a vehicle
for irrelevant—and potentially defamatory — accusations. See Section D, post.
15
Extracted Information
Dates
Document Details
| Filename | DocumentCloud_Epstein_Docs_p00020.png |
| File Size | 344.8 KB |
| OCR Confidence | 94.4% |
| Has Readable Text | Yes |
| Text Length | 2,021 characters |
| Indexed | 2026-02-04 12:22:08.527145 |