Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch4_p00609.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-41 Filed 01/05/24 Page 17 of 31 presumption’s reach...” Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1050. Dershowitz suggests that because a subpoenaed third party filed one of the documents as an attachment to a motion to quash, and because Defendant filed the others as an exhibit to an opposition to extend discovery, that converts them into judicial documents and triggers the presumption of access. This argument is unavailing. The Second Circuit has held that the “mere filing of a paper or document with the court is insufficient to render that paper a judicial document subject to the right of public access. We think that the item filed must be relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process in order for it to be designated a judicial document.” Amodeo I, 44 F.3d at 145. A review of the case law reveals that every circuit to have directly addressed this point has found that documents filed as exhibits to non-dispositive discovery motions do not qualify as judicial documents. Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006) (“We have, however, carved out an exception to the presumption of access to judicial records for a sealed discovery document [attached] to a non-dispositive motion, such that the usual presumption of the public's right of access is rebutted”) (internal citation and quotations omitted); Bond v. Utreras, 585 F.3d 1061, 1075 n. 8 (7th Cir.2009); Chi. Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1312-13 (11th Cir.2001) (holding that “material filed with discovery motions is not subject to the common-law right of access, whereas discovery material filed in connection with pretrial motions that require judicial resolution of the merits is subject to the common-law right”); Anderson v. Cryovac, Inc., 805 F.2d 1, 10 (1st Cir.1986) (“Although we agree that the public has a right of access to some parts of the judicial process, we conclude that this right does not extend to documents submitted to a court in connection with discovery proceedings.”); Leucadia, Inc. v. Applied Extrusion Technologies, Inc., 998 F.2d 157, 12