n item is a judicial document, then the public has a presumptive right of access to it under both the common law and the First Amendment. Also from Amodeo. The purpose of this right is to ensure that courts are held accountable and that the public has "confidence in the administration of EFTA00017112

ent or a letter with the court by itself doesn't render such a document a judicial document. That's from the Second Circuit's decision in US versus Amodeo, 44 F.3d 141, 145. But if an item is a judicial document, then the public has a presumptive right of access to it under both the common law and th

f impairing law enforcement or judicial efficiency' and 'the privacy interests of those resisting disclosure.'" Id. at 120 (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 (2d Cir.1995) ("Amodeo Ii")). The Government's proposed redactions satisfy this test. First, the Court finds that the defendant

seful in the judicial process," thereby qualifying as a "judicial document" for purposes of the first element of the Lugosch test. United States v. Amodeo ("Amodeo I"), 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995). Second, the Court assumes that the common law presumption of access attaches, thereby satisfying the

seful in the judicial process," thereby qualifying as a "judicial document" for purposes of the first element of the Lugosch test. United States v. Amodeo ("Amodeo 1"), 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995). And while the Court assumes that the common law presumption of access attaches, in balancing competi

f impairing law enforcement or judicial efficiency' and `the privacy interests of those resisting disclosure.' Id. at 120 (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1050 (2d Cir. 1995) ("Anrodeo II")). EFTA00030910 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 81 Filed 12/03/20 Page 2 of 2

in opposition to the Defendant's pre-trial motions is a "judicial document" for purposes of the first element of the Lugosch test. United States v. Amodeo ("Amodeo I"), 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995). The Court thus concludes that there is a common law and a First Amendment presumption of access. Id.

f impairing law enforcement or judicial efficiency' and `the privacy interests of those resisting disclosure.' Id. at 120 (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1050 (2d Cir. 1995) ("Amodeo IT)). I EFTA00031598 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 168 Filed 03/18/21 Page 2 of

r district court to edit and redact judicial document to allow access to appropriate portions after weighing competing interests); United States v. Amodeo. 71 F.3d 1044 (2d Cir. 1995) ("Amodeo 11") (presumption of access afforded to particular document filed with court varies with document's relevance

Inc., 121 F.3d 818 (2d Cir. 1997) (sealing file pursuant to confidentiality agreement between parties was not abuse of discretion); United States v. Amodeo, 44 F.3d 141 (2d Cir. 1995) ("Amodeo I") (finding it proper for district court to edit and redact judicial document to allow access to appropriate p

6) and narrowly tailored to protect the pre-trial privacy interests of alleged victims, anticipated witnesses, and non-parties. See United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1050-51 (2d Cir. 1995). The parties are hereby ORDERED to file the proposed redactions and accompanying exhibits on the public dock

f impairing law enforcement or judicial efficiency' and 'the privacy interests of those resisting disclosure.'" Id. at 120 (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 (2d Cir.1995) ("Amodeo II")). The Government's proposed redactions satisfy this test. First, the Court finds that the defendant

sure of accountability and for the public to have confidence in the administration of justice.'" Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 119 (quoting United States v. Amodeo (Amodeo II), 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995)). Although the government claims that the items must remain sealed due to an "ongoing investigation,

Second Circuit has explained that 'the public has an especially strong right of access to evidence introduced in trials."' (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1049 (2d Cir. 1995) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Finally, although the Government is mindful of privacy interes

be designated a judicial document, "the item filed must be relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process." Amodeo, 44 F.3d at 145. Judicial documents are considered on a "continuum," ranging from "matters that directly affect an adjudication to matters that com

"are at the lowest." United States v. Huntley, 943 F. Supp. 2d 383, 387 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also Amodeo 11,71 F.3d at 1051 ("[A] court may consider whether the nature of the materials is such that there is a fair opportunity for the subject to respond

rmance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process in order for it to be designated a judicial document. Id. Brown was building on Amodeo /'s holding when it said, "As our precedent makes clear, a court mperforrn[s] the judicial function' ... when it rules on motions currently before i

f the persons whose intimate relations may thereby be 40 EFTA00075522 Case 20-2413, Document 40, 08/20/2020, 2913550, Page47 of 74 disclosed."); Amodeo 11,71 F.3d at 1050 (" [T]he privacy interests of innocent third parties . . . should weigh heavily in a court's balancing equation."). This Court h

be designated a judicial document, "the item filed must be relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process." Amodeo, 44 F.3d at 145. Judicial documents are considered on a "continuum," ranging from "matters that directly affect an adjudication to matters that com

seful in the judicial process," thereby qualifying as a "judicial document" for purposes of the first element of the Lugosch test. United States v. Amodeo ("Amodeo I"), 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995). Second, the Court assumes that the common law presumption of access attaches, thereby satisfying the

seful in the judicial process," thereby qualifying as a "judicial document" for purposes of the first element of the Lugosch test. United States v. Amodeo ("Amodeo 1"), 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995). Second, the Court assumes that the common law presumption of access attaches, thereby satisfying the

or not to enter [a] protective order"). The fact that Juror No. 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 54 EFTA0015

nt third parties as well as those of defendants that may be harmed by disclosure . . . should weigh heavily in a court's balancing equation.. .."); Amodeo, 71 F.3d at 1050 ("We have previously held that the privacy interests of innocent third parties . . . should weigh heavily in a court's balancing e

limited Martindell's ruling to cases involving documents that were not "judicial documents" subject to a presumption of access. See United States v. Amodeo, 44 F.3d 141 (2d Cir. 1995). 3 EFTA00017077 --- PAGE BREAK --- casQam§feZot4AceguneoUgnieAFP95?044leiPtit§f2V28aftbef51M 10 scandalous." Brown

ty Co.. Excalibur Reinsurance Corp., No. 3:1 I-CV-1209 (CSH) (D. Conn. Aug. 5, 2013), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110400, at *37, quoting United States', Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1050 (2d Cir. 1995). These principles are vitally important here where counsels' private communications with prosecutors "if publicl