DocumentCloud_Epstein_Docs_p00023.png

Case 18-2868, Document 273-2, 08/09/2019, 2628218, Page18 of 25 not subject to a presumption of public access), or found that privacy interests outweighed a limited right of public access. On either interpretation, however, the District Court’s holding was error. Insofar as the District Court held that these materials are not judicial documents because it did not rely on them in adjudicating a motion, this was legal error. As explained above, the proper inquiry is whether the documents are relevant to the performance of the judicial function, not whether they were relied upon.** Indeed, decision- makers often find that a great deal of relevant material does not ultimately sway their decision. And insofar as the District Court held that privacy interests outweigh the presumption of public access in each of the thousands of pages at issue, that decision— which appears to have been made without particularized review—amounts to an abuse of discretion.” In light of the District Court’s failure to conduct an individualized review of the sealed materials, it is necessary to do so now. We believe the District Court is best situated to conduct this review. The District Court can directly communicate with the parties, and can therefore more swiftly and thoroughly consider particular objections to unsealing specific materials. Relatedly, the District Court can obtain the parties’ assistance in effecting any necessary redactions, and in notifying any outside parties whose privacy interests might be 36 See text accompanying notes 12-18 and 26-28, ante. 37 See In re City of New York, 607 F.3d 923, 943 n.21 (2d Cir. 2010) (explaining that “abuse of discretion” is a nonpejorative, legal “term of art”). 18