Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch4_p00611.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1328-41 Filed 01/05/24 Page 19 of 31 filing of a piece of discovery material as part of a non-dispositive discovery motion does not convert the material into a judicial document. Finally, the Churcher emails cannot qualify as “judicial documents” on the separate and independent basis that the Court has not considered them, as the motion to which they are attached is still pending.” Here again, Dershowitz’s motion misses the point of the First Amendment and common law rights of access. It is not the filing of a piece of discovery that makes it a judicial document, it is the Court’s review and consideration of that document that converts the document’s status. Gosmile, Inc. v. Dr. Jonathan Levine, D.M.D. P.C., 2012 WL 1382557, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (“Court did not weigh these documents [attached as exhibits] in its review of the parties' motions, considers them immaterial to the motions, and therefore does not consider them to be judicial documents.””). As Ms. Giuffre has shown, these principles exist for the accountability of the courts to the public, not for the personal benefit of an individual. In the face of this uniform precedent from the courts of appeal, Dershowitz cites only to a handful of district court opinions, many of which do not support the relief he seeks. For example, in Dershowitz’s first-cited case, Alexander Interactive, Inc. v. Adorama, Inc., No. 12 Civ. 6608, 2014 WL 4346174, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 2, 2014), the Court proceeded to deny access and instead sealed the materials at issue. In Dandong v. Pinnacle Performance Ltd., No. 10 Civ. 8086, 2012 WL 6217646, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 2012) the court noted the materials at issue were nothing more than legal argument, and it gave the parties time to show “good cause” for keeping the documents sealed. The Court can reject these outlier opinions out of hand, as they do not comport with the holdings of the First, Third, Seventh, Ninth and Eleventh Circuits, nor are they in-line with the Second Circuit’s case law in Amodeo I, Amodeo II and TheStreet.Com. > It may well be the case that the Court never considered Ms. Giuffre’s draft manuscript in ruling on the motion for extension of time in relation to the opposition motion to which it was attached. The Order makes no mention of it. DE June 20, 2016, Order. If the Court did not consider those exhibits, they do not qualify as judicial documents. 14