DOJ-OGR-00009754.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 642 Filed 03/11/22 Page 62 of 66

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, 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.” Id. “Finally, after determining the weight of the presumption of
access, the court must ‘balance competing considerations against it.’” Id. at 120.

There exists no compelling reason to release Juror No. 50’s pleadings. Any public
release of the documents will set off another round of publicity, speculation, and
commentary, all of which is prejudicial to the truth finding process and Ms. Maxwell’s
rights to fair and impartial proceedings.

55

DOJ-OGR-00009754