Back to Results

Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch4_p00150.png

Source: GIUFFRE_MAXWELL  •  Size: 309.4 KB  •  OCR Confidence: 95.2%
Download Original Image

Extracted Text (OCR)

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-6 Filed 01/05/24 Page 21 of 32 1. The Common Law Test In determining the applicability of the common-law right of access to a given document, courts are charged with determining the weight of the presumption of access under the particular circumstances presented. The presumption applies to a// judicial documents, but the strength of the presumption varies according to the importance of a given document in the judicial process. The weight afforded to the presumption of access is “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 monitoring the federal courts.” Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onodaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119 (2d Cir. 2006). The Second Circuit has explained that “documents that directly affect an adjudication and play a significant role in determining litigants’ substantive rights receive the benefit of a relatively strong presumption, while the public interest in other documents is not as pressing.” United States v. Graham, 257 F.3d 143, 153 (2d Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “Finally, after determining the weight of the presumption of access, the court must balance competing considerations against it.” Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 120 (internal quotation marks omitted). “Such countervailing factors include but are not limited to the danger of impairing law enforcement or judicial efficiency and the privacy interests of those resisting disclosure.” Jd. (internal quotation marks omitted). 2. The First Amendment Test Even where the common law right of access is found to be inapplicable, the First Amendment may still require disclosure of judicial documents. The First Amendment right of access is “stronger than its common law ancestor and counterpart.” United States v. Erie Cnty., 763 F.3d 235, 239 (2d Cir. 2014). In deciding First Amendment access claims, the Second Circuit considers “(a) whether the documents have historically been open to the press and general public (experience) and (b) whether public access plays a significant positive role in the 15

Document Preview

Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch4_p00150.png

Click to view full size

Extracted Information

Dates

Document Details

Filename Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch4_p00150.png
File Size 309.4 KB
OCR Confidence 95.2%
Has Readable Text Yes
Text Length 2,149 characters
Indexed 2026-02-04 12:41:05.658568
Ask the Files