Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP BSF Document 1008 Filed 11/12/19 Page 1 of 5 BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER Telephone: (954) 356-001 I Email: [email protected] November 12. 2019 VIA ECF The Honorable Judge Loretta A. Preska District Court Judge United States District Court Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007 Re: v. Maxwell, Case No. 15-cv-7433-LAP Dear Judge Preska: Plaintiff • responds to the Court's October 28, 2019, order, concerning "the effect of a motion's being undecided on whether the motion papers are or are not . . . judicial document[s]." Dkt. 998 ¶ 4. Documents presented to a court in support of a request for judicial relief are "judicial documents," and the fact that a court did not decide a given motion has no bearing on the materials' status as such. The materials become judicial documents upon submission, and the public's presumptive right to access these documents begins at that time. See Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 123 (2d Cir. 2006) (holding that documents submitted with a motion are "unquestionably judicial documents" "by virtue of having been submitted to the court"). For the following reasons, the Court should hold that materials submitted in support of motions are judicial documents, and that no exception exists for undecided motions. I. Motions Are Relevant to the Judicial Function, Whether Ruled upon or Not. For a document to be a judicial document, it "must be relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process." United States v. Anaodeo, 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995). As the Second Circuit explained on appeal in this matter, a document is relevant to the performance of the judicial function "if it would reasonably have the tendency to influence BOI ES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 401 Eost Los Olos Boulevard. Suite 1200. Fort Lauderdale. FL 33301 1 (t) 954 356 0011 I (f) 954 356 0022 I www bsIllp com EFTA02781425