Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP KRIEGER Document 1012 Filed 12/05/19 Page 1 of 6 & LEWIN LLP 500 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10110 Telephone (212)390-9550 www-KKLI1p.00m December 5. 20 19 By ECF The Honorable Loretta A. Preska United States District Court Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007 Re: v. Maxwell, No. 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP) Dear Judge Preska: In the first paragraph of her brief, Plaintiff asserts that "documents submitted with a motion are unquestionably judicial documents by virtue of having been submitted to the Court." Docket Entry ("DE") 1008 at 1 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). That claim is incontrovertibly wrong.' "[T]he 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." Amodeo, 44 F.3d at 145. Rather, a filing "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." =, 929 F.3d at 49 (citation omitted; emphasis supplied). The term "judicial function" is specifically defined: "a Plaintiff's argument is contradicted by United States v. Amodeo, 44 F.3d 141 (2d Cir. 1995), and its progeny. And Plaintiff's argument is contradicted by the requirement that, to be v. "judicial," a filing must: (i) be "relevant to the performance of the judicial function," Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 49 (2d Cir. 2019); (ii) be "useful in the judicial process," id.; (iii) contain "admissible evidence and non-frivolous arguments," Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. ofOnondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 122i2cAir. 2006); and (iv) not be "redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous," , 929 F.3d at 51 (citation omitted); see also id. at 51 n.42. In short, Plaintiff's interpretation that a document filed with a motion is ipsofacto judicial is mistaken. EFTA02781442