Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch4_p00151.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-6 Filed 01/05/24 Page 22 of 32 functioning of the particular process in question (logic).” /d. (internal quotation marks omitted). “Once a First Amendment right of access to judicial documents is found, the documents may be sealed only if specific, on the record findings are made demonstrating that closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.” /d. (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). B. The Requested Documents Are Judicial Documents For a document to appropriately be deemed a “judicial document,” “[i]t is sufficient that the document was submitted to the Court for purposes of seeking or opposing an adjudication.” United States v. Sattar, 471 F. Supp. 2d 380, 385 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). Here, the Emails and the Reply Brief have been submitted to the Court in connection with Ms. Churcher’s efforts to quash her deposition subpoena and Defendant’s opposition to those efforts, while the Manuscript was submitted to the Court in connection with a motion to extend the deposition discovery deadline. Accordingly, all qualify as “judicial documents.” Courts in this district’ have repeatedly held that documents submitted in support of or opposition to a discovery motion are judicial documents. See, e.g., Alexander Interactive, Inc. v. Adorama, Inc., No. 12 Civ. 6608, 2014 WL 4346174, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 2, 2014) (“Here, the documents to be submitted are in support of a motion to compel discovery and presumably will be necessary to or helpful in resolving that motion. They are, therefore, judicial documents.”); Dandong v. Pinnacle Performance Ltd., No. 10 Civ. 8086, 2012 WL 6217646, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 2012) (applying presumption of public access to papers filed in connection with a motion for reconsideration of a discovery order); Gucci Am., Inc. v. Guess?, Inc., No. 09 Civ. 4373, 2010 WL 1416896, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 8, 2010) (holding that “declarations and a > Some federal Courts of Appeals have suggested that the presumption of access does not apply to documents filed in connection with discovery motions. See, e.g., Chi. Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1312-13 (11th Cir. 2001); Leucadia, Inc. v. Applied Extrusion Techs., Inc., 998 F.2d 157, 165 (3d Cir. 1993); Anderson v. Cryovac, Inc., 805 F.2d 1, 11 (1st Cir. 1986). But the Second Circuit has never adopted such a rule, and the weight of district court authority in the Southern District of New York rejects this approach. 16