DOJ-OGR-00008999.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 612 Filed 02/24/22 Page3of5 The Honorable Alison J. Nathan January 13, 2022 Page 3 The fact that Juror 50 filed these pleadings does not make them “judicial documents.” United States v. Amodeo (“Amodeo I”), 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995) (“We think 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.”). Moreover, Ms. Maxwell anticipates moving to strike the pleadings and, if stricken, the documents enjoy no presumption of public access. Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 51-52 (2d Cir. 2019) ([under Civil Rule 12], “the district court may strike such material from the filings on the grounds that it is “redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous.” Because such rejected or stricken material is not “relevant to the performance of the judicial function” it would not be considered a “judicial document” and would enjoy no presumption of public access.”). The Second Circuit established a framework in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) for courts to utilize in determining when the public has a right of access to particular documents. The Court of Appeals held that “[b]efore any such common law right can attach, however, a court must first conclude that the documents at issue are indeed ‘judicial documents.’” Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 119. “Once the court has determined that the documents are judicial documents and that therefore a common law presumption of access attaches, it must determine the weight of that presumption.” /d. “Finally, after determining the weight of the presumption of access, the court must ‘balance competing considerations against it.”” Id. at 120. DOJ-OGR-00008999