Back to Results

DocumentCloud_Epstein_Docs_p00020.png

Source: DOCUMENTCLOUD  •  Size: 344.8 KB  •  OCR Confidence: 94.4%
View Original Image

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

Document Preview

DocumentCloud_Epstein_Docs_p00020.png

Click to view full size

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