Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch4_p00612.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-41 Filed 01/05/24 Page 20 of 31 There simply is no legal basis for this Court to find that the documents Dershowitz seeks qualify as “judicial documents.” First, it is not clear that this Court has even reviewed or considered them, and if it has not, that fact alone is dispositive. Second, the law throughout the country is clear that routine, raw discovery materials submitted as exhibits to non-dispositive discovery motions do not convert into “judicial documents” and trigger a right of public access. The Court should find that these documents are not “judicial documents” and summarily deny Dershowitz’s motion. Cc. Even Were the Court to Deem the Documents to be Judicial Documents, the Presumption of Access is Weak Even if the Court found these documents to be judicial documents - which they categorically are not - Dershowitz’s motion still fails because the common law presumption of access is extremely weak and easily overcome here by countervailing factors. Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2006) (noting that if a court finds documents to be judicial, it must then assess the weight of the presumed access and determine if countervailing factors override the presumption). Once again, Dershowitz’s own cited cases are his undoing. In Alexander Interactive, the Court found that because the documents were submitted merely as exhibits to a motion to compel, “the presumption in favor of public access is weak.”2014 WL 4346174 at *2. It then proceeded to seal the documents in question, despite acknowledging the public right of access. See also Stern v. Cosby, 529 F.Supp.2d 417, 422 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (“the presumption of public access - if any - that attaches to the transcript and videotape is low, at best. No such presumption attaches at all to the videotape, and even if the transcript is filed for purposes of a motion to compel, the presumption that would attach to the transcript would be low. On any such motion, I 15