…weight afforded to the presumption of access is “governed by the role of the material at issue in the exercise of Article III judicial power and the resultant value of such information to those monitoring the federal courts.” Lugosch v…
…15:19–22. If Judge Sweet did not rely on a portion of the deposition in issuing a decision, the public’s interest in “monitoring federal courts’ exercise of their Article III powers” is correspondingly less. Id. at 3:17…
…2d Cir. 2017) (explaining that, in considering whether the report of a monitor charged with assessing compliance with a deferred prosecution agreement is a judicial 14 Case Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP 16-3945, Document Document 315-2, 08…
…The courts are presumptively public, and the public has a right to monitor the judicial process—particularly as concerns Ms. Giuffre’s accusations, which her own attorneys have argued (in opposing restrictions on public access to court filings detailing them…
…pending motions, which cannot withstand scrutiny under the First Amendment. In distinguishing between still-pending and ultimately undecided motions, the Court focused only on the benefit of having the public “monitor judicial decision-making.” Dkt. 1018, at 8. But the…
…courts in adjudicating the parties’ disputes. Online commentary about Ms. Maxwell does nothing to minimize that access to judicial records in this case has allowed—and will continue to allow—the public to monitor the courts and their functioning. 5 …
…omitted). Thus, we have held jurisdiction lacking to review “postjudgment discovery orders,” but available to review “postjudgment orders denying motions for recusal” or for “disqualif[ication of] a court-appointed monitor” because in the first scenario the “relevant final decision . …
…pretrial statements, motions for leave of the court—are still entitled to some presumption of access, given their value to those, like the Miami Herald, monitoring the courts. See Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 50 (2d Cir. 2019…
Comments